is pretended would save many other searches Of church-Church-Authority I say viz. what perpetual power our departing Lord hath left to the Governours thereof and what assistance promised them for exposition of the sence of the Divine Scriptures where this disputed and for deciding controversies in matters of faith And what obligation he hath laid upon all the Churches Subjects to hearken to them and not to depart from their Directions and Determinations ne circumferantur omni vento doctrinae in nequitiâ hominum a yoke the pride of the will hath no great mind to Yet a search this to be undertaken much rather than all the other Because abstracting from this Guide after never so impartial a view of other intrinsecal arguments belonging to the subject debated an ordinary understanding in points somuch abâ—ve reason may happily mistake the Truth and because matters of Faith and Religion wherein the Intellect now negotiates depend chiefly on Church-Tradition not rational-seeming proofs And because a Judgment left to a free information of it self herein must needs find many perswasive arguments to entertain and prefer the Judgment of this Authority when it is on one side though this naked and seconded with no reasons at all that are known to such person for its Proposals before all those intrinsecal reasons relating to the nature of the subject that appear on the other Such perswasive Reasons I mean drawn from Authority as these That this Authority that delivers the contrary to what all my other arguments or reasons recommend to me is by our Lord instated in an Infallibility in all necessaries and that it not I also is to judge what or how much is necessary Or however that this Authority fallible or infallible is by the Divine Ordination in such points of Faith and Religion appointed my guide and in opposition of such Authorities happening the Superior this Guide of which things enough hath been said in the former Discourses That setting aside these principal considerations the persons constituting this Authority are also of greater parts get studies and I have reason to presume more dispassionate than my self and more in number than I or those others of my perswasion that they have seen and considered all those reasons that as yet swey me and have pronounced contrary that they may have reasons for their Decisions that I have not seen nor they are obliged to shew me since my judgment stands subjected to theirs on another account than the evidence of argument § 278 Now in such a case or supposition that the Intellect left free to consider doth assent to such extrinsecal arguments in behalf of Church-Authority against any Reasons belonging to the subject in debate that perswade me contrary to what it hath defin'd Here after studying both Authority and Reason my final Judgment is that I ought to joyn and side with the first against the second though these reasons be unsolv'd or that none better or none at all be presented to me by the said Authority And so now to go against my Reason is to follow my Judgment or Conscience and on the contrary It is to go against my Judgement or Conscience if I follow these my reasons or my private judgment as grounded on them § 279 It may be some who pretend that Conscience releaseth them from Authority have not well considered this and therefore give me leave to dilate a little more upon it If we look then into Secular Affairs this matter seems decided in our ordinary practice Do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced Friend a learned Physitian or Lawyer concerning our Estate or our Health both believe his Directions good and according to them do and also judge we ought to do many things contrary to our own private Judgments i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have imagined not to do so Is not Abraham said to believe a thing that seemed contrary to his own reason Rom. 4.17 18 And so the man in the Gospel Mark 9.24 .. What is the meaning of that saying ordinarily used also by Protestants These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit my judgment herein to the Church Is it as Dr. Fern comments on it †Consid touching Reformation c. 1. n 16. only I submit my judgment as to the publishing of it But this is only a submission of silence not of our judgment at all to the Church and is a submission which may well be performed in things wherein our judgment is utterly fixed and unalterable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain Again What means that of Dr. Hammond Schism 2. c. § 10 where he saith A meek son of the Church of Christ when the Fundamentals of Faith are not concern'd in the concessions c. will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors Submit and Deposit means it not to renounce and desert it in such matters and to believe and hearken to the judgment of the Church rather than to it Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 Whatever is not of faith is sin be objected to any for so doing Because who thus deposits his judgment doth it out of faith namely that the Churches Judgment is wiser safer preferrable to his own § 280 Nor can this indeed rightly be construed a going against our own conscience or judgment considered in general Because this preferring the Churches before our own judgment is certainly an act also of our judgment Since when there is such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of our own but these short of certainty on the other our judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is a safer course for us to submit to the first than rely on the second And here then I only go against conscience if I adhere to the second and forsake the first But indeed if the Church which it never doth should require me to subscribe not that I give more credit to her Authority than to my private Reasons but that I have no private reasons ot scruples no repugnances of any verisimilities to the contrary of her Definitions when indeed I have so nor as yet know how to clear them such subscription or profession I grant would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done This That a submission of our Judgment or professing our assent to Authority where we see no reasons confirming its assertions and many for the contrary is not necessarily a going against our own Conscience or Judgment CHAP XV. Remedies of the former Deceits of the Will Considerations For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Whether Salvation c. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very
such Superâ—ours Elâ—e the publick faith suppose of a General Council cedentis de suo jure and engaâ—ing exemption and impunity to some Heretick in a matter belonging to its Jurisdiction or also private Faith where is not such prohibition once given to a publick Enemy are affirmed to remain afterward inviolable P Layman Theol. Moral l. 2. tract 3. c. 12. Faedera publica Genâ—â—um jure intrâ—ducta sunct Idq propter necesâ—itatem Quia nisi faedera pubâ—â—ca sen inter dive sos principes aut reâ—publicas sâ—n inter Principem suâ—ditos ejus v.g. rebellantes to whom he adds Hereticks upon the same ground § Diâ—e 4â— Nec hac it a magnum â—â—th he vidâ—ri dâ—bet sperantibus in Dâ—o Christo summo Ecclesiae â—â—fensore qui auxâ—â—tum fâ—rt in tempore opportâ—no inita omnim de servanda essâ—nt nulla pax aut soâ—iâ—tas inter humanum Genus consâ—stere pâ—ssit And more particâ—larly concâ—rning Hereticks thus Becanus de side Haeret. servand c. 12. Quaestio est an quando Catholiâ—us Prinâ—eps sive saecularis sit sive Ecclesiastâ—â—â—â— câ—nâ—edit Haeretâ—â—is salâ—um conductum liâ—eâ—e venienâ—i râ—deundi â—sive id saciat jure communt sive speciaâ—i i. e. this later way debeat illis servare fidem neene Affirmant saith â—e uno consensu emnes Catholici where he instanceth also in the practice of the Emperour Charles the Fifth to Luther and goes on Hic valdâ— mirer adreâ—sâ—rios qui elsâ— hac audiant a nobis tamen elâ—mant noâ— câ—ntrarium doâ—ere But see the same prosessed joyntly by the Council of Basil and the Emperour in their Safe-conduct to the Bohemians securing them not only from the hand of violence but also of justice whose words in the close of it are these Promittimus sine fraude quolibet dolo quod nolumus neque debemus quacunque occasione praetensa uti authoritate vel potentia jure statuto vel privilegio legum vel Canonum quorumque Conciliorum specialiter Constantiensis Senensis quacunque forma verborum expressa in aliquod praejudicium salvo Conductui per nos concesso What more clear than this for the lawfulness and undispensableness of such publick faith though given in the largest form and most derogatory to the Engagers rights § 95 Only some Cases there are wherein all judicious Protestants I suppose consenting Faith given may not be kept to any person whatsoever and so neither to Hereticks such as these 1 st If the faith be given not absolutely but conditionally the Condition wanting or failing the faith or promise given with and limited by it is voided 2. So also if the matter of the faith oath or promise be a thing unlawful to be done neither here may such faith either lawfully be given or given be observed If the matter be unlawful I say either by the divine law if and though it be the publick faith given by a suprem Authority or also by any humane law if it be a faith given by Inferiors and Subjects to such laws Among which unlawful things and that jure divino is to be numbred if Faith be given either by Prince or Subject in any thing which invades anothers right or assumes to our selves what only is in anothers lawful disposal and so involves doing wrong to a third person which it is never lawful to do though cedere de nostro jure is a thing very lawful So for Example in the particular matter of Hereticks If the supreme Temporal Magistrate should pass his faith to one suspected of Heresie to free him from any Trial thereof by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal or to free him found guilty thereof from the sentence of Excommunication a right belonging to the Church and independent of secular Powers or to introduce or continue him excommunicated in the Catholick Church-Assemblies such faith as it is unlawfully given so neither given can it lawfully be observed Again when the law of a Prince or State restrains to professed Hereticks the publick Exercise of their Religion or imposeth some mulct upon them and this law is here supposed just if a Subordinate Officer or private person engage his faith to some Hereticks to the contrary such faith to them is not to be kept as promising a thing not in his but rather anothers lawful power and disposal And the same it were in a privat mans faith given to conceal an Heretick or a Robber or the like where the law of the State obligeth all persons to detect them Mean while where none of the forenamed cases happen where the matter of the pact is no sin and no sin it is that offends against no law nor only conditional Faith given to whomsoever by what person soever is affirmed no way dispensable or remittible unless the party to whom it is given relax it neither upon the plea of Fear in making it I say no superior law voiding such pacts nor upon any damage temporal or spiritual coming by it For some spiritual damage to be sustained thereby affords no sufficient ground to pretend an action unlawful Since the damage both spiritual and temporal to the world would be far the greater when none by reason of these and the like Exceptions could have any security of anothers faith since such Pacts and Oaths most what are made from some temporal necessity constraining men thereto and frequently do infer some spiritual or temporal damage or do some otherwayes hinder some publick or private good § 96 To this purpose Molanus saith ‖ l. 3. c. 14. concerning the publick faith when given to another where the matter of it is not unlawful That it is undispensable or unrelaxable by any even the Pope himself arguing thus from the ill Consequences thereof Si Romanus Pontifex semel in fidei publicae transgressione dispensaret haec non foret legitima dispensatio sed potius dissipatio quia deinceps nemo posset securus esse habito a rege aut alterius Tituli Principe salvo Conductu solenni juramento eo quod semper periculum foret ne Regia Potestas id via dispensationis à Pontifice extorqueat quod semel concessum esse novit Where he urgeth Heb. 6 16. Omnis Controversiae eorum finis ad confirmationem est juramentum and Soto who faith ‖ De Jure l. 8. q. 1. c. 9. Pontificem non posse relaxare juramentum cum praejudicio ejus cujus interest And thus Layman on the same subject †l. 2. Tract 3. â— 12 Si a Christiano v. g. Rege cum Infidelibus and the same he repeateth afterward cum Haereticis and before cum Subditis Rebellantibus publicum soedus fiat nulla unquam ratione seu directe seu indirecte Summus Pontifex relaxare potest Ratio est Quia cederet in maximum detrimentum ac contemptum ipsiusmet etiam Ecclesiae Quamobrem si quando foedus a Catholico Rege cum Infidelibus legitimâ potestate constitutum cedere postea videatur in Ecclesia
jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to present Church-Authority § 292. That learned Protestants have so determined this Point § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311. § 281 NOw a Judgment once set free from the three former great Arts of the Will to misguide it as any ones Secular Interest shall require will begin to consider 1. In opposition to the first of them mentioned before § 274 keeping the judgment in ignorance as to Divine matters and imploying it wholy about other studies That since a right perswasion in Religion is of so great consequence to salvation All those who are not settled in their Belief upon the Basis of Church Authority and so under it remain in a sufficient security of their Faith as to all those points wherein the sense of the Holy Scriptures is disputed and controverted by several parties as for example in these Whether Justification is by Faith alone Whether there be Evangelical Councils as well as Precepts Whether Christ our Lord be Co-Essential with God the Father Whether exhibiting his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Whether there be a Purgatory after this life for some imperfect souls though departing in God's Grace or the like All such I say since they have taken the guidance of themselves in Spirituals into their own hands have great reason themselves to fall most attentively to the study thereof For it were to serve God too carelesly and at hap hazard to cast off Church-Authority for the Exposition and Sence of God's Word in these disputed and difficult matters and not himself to use any other indeavour at all for the right understanding of them And in such indeavour he ought not only to take a perfunctory view of some places that may seem at the first sight to represent to him what he would have but to seek out all those Texts that both sides build upon and then diligently to examine and compare them For though some Texts may seem never so plain as to the Literal and Grammatical sence as what more clear than Accipite comedite Hoc est Corpusmeum Matt 26. yet scarce is there any sentence where the terms are not capable of several acceptions Figurative and Non-literal Or if they be not all sides must necessarily agree in their sence and so about such Texts be no dispute And again there being a necessary consonancy and agreement in every title of Scripture no place how plain soever for the expression it seems to be may be so inter preted as to contradict another that seems as clearly to say the contrary He ought also to weigh not only the immediat sence of Scripture but the necessary consequences and since whatever things are not opposit to Scripture are truly lawful and practicable to discern the true and not only pretended repugnances thereto He ought also to examin Translations peruse the Comments and Expositions of others Modern Ancient For all these things that Authority most exquisitly doth whose judgment and conduct he declines Lastly he must be a Divine who will not be guided by Divines for of the true way of Salvation none can securely be ignorant And what Prelatical Protestant allows this in an Independent or Fanatick when he will neither guide his ignorance by following the learned nor remove it by study § 282 As for Salvation to be had in any Christian Profession though it may be true in a Church where all fundamentals are truly believ'd and Baptism rightly administred for so many as are invincibly ignorant of any better or perhaps other communion for Children and Rusticks those of an immature age or of very low imployments void of literature and publick converse and by their mean condition and inexperience destitute of any improvement of their knowledge yet for all the rest who have better means of understanding Divine matters and of searching the grounds of their Faith and state of their Communion and on whose direction and example every where depend the other meaner and younger sort of people and by their default miscarry ‖ 1 Cor. 8 1â— For these I say their case seems very dangerous who happen to be in any separated Society out of the external Catholick Communion Since the One God will be worshipped as S. Austin †Epist 48. answered those Latitudinarian Donatists not only in verity but unity and again hath left marks and Testimonies sufficiently evident for the discerning and distinguishing that Catholick Communion wherein he will be worshipped from all other Heretical or Schismatical Societies All those therefore who either through their own fault do not know this Communion because they will not search or knowing it yet voluntarily still remain in any other divided from it must needs be in a very perillous Condition The first because their ignorance in a thing so manifest and withal so important must needs be very gross and unexcusable The second because any long stay in any such separated Society to one convinced seems both by the Scriptures and by the Church frequently prohibited And were it not so at least brings so much detriment and damage to the spiritual Condition of such a person as is no way to be recompenced by any other fancied advantages injoyed therein Which things it will not be amiss to discourse a little more fully if perhaps some Laodicean complexion may receive some benefit thereby § 283 1st Then The remaining in any such Communion is prohibited by the Scriptures in many places Eph. 5.7 8. The children of light are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness nor to be partakers with them but to reprove them 2 Cor. 6.14 Light and darkness Justice and iniquity Believers and Infidâ—ls the Temples of God which all good Christians are and of Idols are to have no fellowship or communion together But Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. And 1 Cor. 3.16 Si quis Templum Domini violarerit disperdet illum Deus Nor may such separation be understood from Infidels Heathens or non-Christians only For 1 Cor. 5.9.11 If a Brother i. e. one that professeth Christianity with us be a Fornicator an Adulterer an Idolater a Drunkard with such a one we are charged not to eat But to with-draw our ordinary converse from him i. e. where no duty of
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COVNCIL OF TRENT BEING The Fifth Discourse CONCERNING The GVIDE in CONTROVERSIES By R. H. 1 Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos Rationem 2 Cor. 6.8 Per infamiam bonam famam Ut seductores Vcraces Printed in the Year MDCLXXI The Preface IN the former Discourses concerning the Guide in Controversies as also in the Beginning and Conclusion of this present I have endeavoured to perswade a necessicy of Obedience to a lawful Church-Authority from these weighty Considerations whereon seem to be built the Unity and the Peace of Christian Religion 1 First That However the Holy Scriptures are a Rule sufficient yet not in respect of all capacities a Rule so clear but that the true sense of them is by several Parties much disputed and that in points of Faith necessary to be known And therefore as to these need of some other Guide for the direction of Christians in this true Sense 2 That there is contained in these Scriptures a Divine Promise and that not Conditional but Absolute of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries made to the Church-Catholick of all Ages To It not only Diffusive some or other Persons or Churches alwaies not to erre in necessaries but as a Guide or to the Guides thereof 3 Again That the Catholick Church throughout â—he whole World is but One ever contradistinct to all other Communions Heretical or Schismatical And its Governours and Clergy however dispersed through several Nations regulated by the same Laws and straitly linked together in a due subordination whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superiors and a Part to the Whole in such manner as that these Laws observed admit of or consist with no Schisms Divisions or contradicting Parties after any past Declaration of the Church 4 That in this Subordination no inferior Clergy Person Church or Council when standing in any opposition to their Superiors can be this Guide to Christians But only the Superior whether Person or Council and in a Council not wholy unanimous the major Part join'd with the See Apostolick The major part whether those present in the Council and decreeing matters in debate or those absent and accepting their Decrees A regular obedience in any contradiction thus ascending to and acquiescing in the sentence of the most supreme in present actual being That also these subordinations of Church-Governours are so commonly known and by the learned on all sides acknowledged that even a Plebeian following this line though amidst so many Sects calling him hither and thither and all offering to shew him the right way cannot mistake his true Guide 5 That from this present Guide thus discovered All are to learn both as to the true sense of Holy Scriptures and of Antiquity or former Church-Tradition and also the legalness of former Councils c. when any of these are controverted and questioned the Resolution of that which they ought to believe and adhere to so far as its Determinations have prescribed to their Faith And the more important any point is that they are hence the more strictly obliged to the Declarations of this Authority because here more danger in their mistake That here if we grant an Infallibility of this Guide in Necessaries which is amply proved this bindeth its Subjects to an universal acceptance of its Decrees lest perhaps in some Necessary their Faith should miscarry Or this Guide supposed Fallible which presupposeth in such matters some obscurity in the Rule yet neither thus are the bonds of their obedience any way relaxed since their own fallibility is much grearer And if in following such a learned and prudent Conduct they are exposed to some error yet so to much more and more gross by following their own Of the mischief of which Self-conduct the many modern most absurd Sects and especially the Socinians are a dreadful Example Who very inquisitive and laborious and critical as to the Holy Scriptures yet by throwing off the yoke of a legal Church-Authority are by the Divine just judgment delivered up to most Capital and Desperate errors and those running through the whole Body of Divinity 6 That none in the resistance of Authority can be secured by following his Conscience though alwaies obliged to follow it when It culpably misguiding him and in the information whereof he hath not used necessary diligence 7 That where such a weighty Church-Authority I speak of the most supreme to which the Churches Subjects may apply themselves so highly authorized and recommended to us by our Lord sways on the one side and only Arguments and Reasons relating to the matter in Agitation but all these short of certainty on the other here a sober and disinteressed Judgment cannot but pass sentence that it is safer to submit to the first of these than relie on the second And then so often the following our reasons and private opinion and deserting Authority becomes acting against our Judgment and Conscience and the forsaking our private Reason acting according to it 8 That thus at least all those who have a contrary perswasion to Authority but short of certainty i. e. all illiterat and plebeians unable to examine Controversies or also learned that after examining them are left still in some doubt which two sorts will comprehend the most Christians are engaged in Conscience to yield their assent to the Decisions of this Authority 9 That an absolute and Demonstrative Certainty indeed where-ever it is is exempted from all such obedience to Authority as shall require submission of Judgment and Assent But that such a Certainty is very difficultly attained in matters Intellectual and abstracted from sense more difficultly yet in those Spiritual and Divine especially such Divine and Spiritual matters where Church Authority i. e. so numerous a Body of learned and prudent men discern little reason for that we pretend Certainty of and so much against it as that they declare the contrary for certain To which may be added the frequent experience of our own weakness when by more study and better weighting and comparing contrary Reasons we come to doubt of the truth of several things wherein formerly we thought our selves most fully satisfied 10 That supposing such a Certainty attained and so obedience of Assent justly repealed yet if this be of a Truth of no great importance or consequence of which great importance too as well as of the truth it self they are to be certain here still another Obedience viz. that of silence or Non-contradiction tyes us fast and rests still due and payable to Church-Authority And so these Certainists or Demonstrators become at least tongue-tied and constrained to stand single and disinabled to father or beget Sects 11 Or in the last place if this also Certain that it is a Truth of great concernment and the Error of the Church-Guides therein not only manifest but Intolerable and so they here obliged also to break this second obedience silence and to publish such truth
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
at least by the Emperor one not without Designs * That the Council of Trent sate extraordinary long in comparison of other Synods the charges of continuing there great not a few Bishops and other Divines poor great scarcity of Bishops attending the Council especially in its first beginning the more necessitous without some maintenance of their charges threatening to depart as Soavo himself acknowledgeth p. 124 and therefore the Legats themselves were forced to open the Popes purse for the support of some of them before they had his leave and saith Pallav. l. 24. c. 14. n. 7. these pensions were so small being but 25 Crowns a month that the Bishops so reliev'd staid not without murmuring that thus they were deprived of a just pretence to go away and the Pope had more ill will from them for their so long necessitated attendance than thanks for his allowance and often complaining of their want some of them saith he in the consultations gave more molestation than some others both to the Legats and to the Pope But if these pensions were so advantagious to the Popes service it had been easie for Christian Princes by the like allowances to so many poor Bishops of their own Dominions to have countermined such policies § 171 To the 5th The admitting Titular Bishops 'T is true that some Titular Bishops were in the Council To 5. but they are justified by their allowed ordination of Priests to be true Bishops and therefore might lawfully repair to the Council and vote therein without asking any ones leave I find not any said to be in the Council who were not made Bishops before it Neither do I find Soave charging the Pope as some others do either of erecting any new Bishopricks or creating Titular Bishops during the sitting of the Council nor yet any mentioned to be sent thither by the Pope save two and those at the first beginning of the Council nor these meerly Titular laus Magnus and Robert Venants waucap One Archbishop of Vpsali in Sweden the other of Armagh in Ireland both excluded from their Sees by Princes enemies to the Catholick Faith Of whom as you may read what is said in Soave p. 140. to their disparagement so you may see what is said in Pall. l. 6. c. 5. and in Spondanus †A. D. 1546. n. 3. to their commendation The Pope sending them thither as for their great parts so chiefly for their Country one being a Swede the other a Scot that most Nations might have some persons in the Council relating to them Lastly if there were any such Titulars sent by the Pope the same may be said of them as hath been †§. 167. of the Italians in general * That the Pope found but little assistance from them where he most needed them nor was any advantagious thing done for Him in the Council by their help * That the Council was a great enemy to several practises of theirs and passed several Acts against †Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 4. de Deform Sesss 14. c. 2 them when probably had there been any consider able number of them in the Council some of them would have spoken there in their own defence especially that they should exercise no Pontifical Act on the Subjects of another Bishop without his licence But yet the Council thought not fit to suppress for the future the creating any such Bishops for the reasons given in Soave p. 717. Because these necessary to supply the places of unable Bishops or of those who have a lawful cause to be absent from their Churches or of Prelats imployed in greater affairs § 172 To the last The prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give definitive votes To 6. Proxies were admitted in all Consulations and had in them a vote with the rest but were not admitted to have a definitive vote in the Council for this reason least so whilst many Bishops pretended necessary cause of absence these their Substitutes coming abundantly from all parts might overbear the Bishops in the Council these being men of whose abilities the Council could not have the same presumption as they might of the Bishops themselves and this being a thing which those Prelats who afforded their own personal attendance would be much offended with Yet was it attempted to have allowed a definitive vote to the Proxies of some Bishops necessarily absent as to some of the German Bishops but that this could not be easily done exclusively to others †See Pall. l. 20. c. 17. n. 8. l. 21. c. 1. n. 3. Whether their definitive vote also was opposed for another reason alledged by Protestants viz. least the Italian Bishops should so be over-voted I cannot judge But those Bishops who sent Proxies themselves afterward accepting the Council did what was equivalent to their own or their Proxies definitive voting in it But to conclude this matter suppose that these fix things objected were confessed to have been used unjustly and to the prejudice of the Council in some things yet it appears from the second and third Consideration above § 148 150. that they could cast no blemish upon its authority in those things which were therein actually and unanimously established which is enough to overthrow the Reformation CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3. That all General Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new Divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in some former Councils § 198. 9. That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10. That a Discession from the Church and declaration against its Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. § 173 THus much from § 147.
prohibited the faith required of us upon such Divine Revelation is to believe that it is our necessary Duty to do or to abstain from it 3. But if it be a thing of which we have no Divine Precept a thing neither injoyned nor prohibited by God in all which sort of things Divine Revelation hath declared our liberty the faith required of us according to such Revelation is to believe it lawful I mean as to God's law to be done or to be omitted as we please 4. Lastly Among these lawful things also if it be a thing concerning which we have a Precept of the Church to do it or where the lawfulness is doubted of a Declaration of the Church that it is lawful to be done which Church God in his Word hath commanded in such her judgment to be submitted to and in such her Precepts to be obeyed the Faith required of us from such Divine Revelation is That it is both lawful to be observed and the observation thereof our Duty And consequently he who denies the lawfulness thereof or obedience thereto opposeth a Divine Revelation Though the thing we do is not commanded by any Divine Revelation nor the particular lawfulness of it declared in Gods Word Such a point of Faith is the lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Of which thus the Council of Trent Sess 21. c. 1. Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christo fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere Anathema sit Such the Duty of communicating once a year Sess 13. c. â—9 Si quis negaverit omnes singulos Christi Fideles utriusque sexus cum ad annos discretionis pervenerint teneri singulis annis saltem Paschate ad communicandum juxta praeceptum Sancta matris Ecclesiae Anathema sit And so the seventh and tenth Canon Si quis dixerit non licere c.. And such that Sess 24. c. 4. De matrimon Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non posse constituere c. Anathema sit and so Can. 9. And such is the Duty in general of observing the Churches Traditions Of which thus the seventh General Council Act. 7. Si quis Traditiones Ecclesiae sive scriptas sive consuetudine valentes non curaverit Anathema sit § 177 3. That all Councils to the worlds end and not only the four or three first 3. before the passing of the Ephesin Canon †Conc. Ephes c. 7. which Canon is said to restrain it may define and determine not only the greater but these smaller matters of Faith and may make new Points to be de fide or creditu necessaria in such a sence as is explained below § 192 which were not formerly when they see occasion thereof and when contrary errors do arise which they apprehend dangerous to Divine Truth or to god life or to the Churches peace And there seems no reason against it but that a Council may be as ample in the protection and asserting of Truth not only in gross and in some general and principal matters but by retail as it were in every part and parcel thereof as Innovations are in invading it that every poison may have its Antidote Especially when little-seeming errors not crushed at their first appearance do insensibly ascend from the overthrow of some conclusion to that of the Premises till they undermine at last some Truths more principal Who blames a Parent for binding his Children to abstain from things hurtful because such things are in a less degree and not exceedingly hurtful or for prohibiting them something which is not down-right poison and immediatly mortal but yet which by little and little may alter and corrupt the healthful constitution of their Body Of which noxious things the Parents not the Children are fittest Judges Neither are the Churches Subjects any way disobliged in her thus from age to age multiplying their Credends but much indebted for this her motherly care of them who before whilst they had more liberty of opinion so also had less light in their progress toward Heaven and more by-paths open to stray in and more liableness to erre or by the Heretical to be seduced in those things in the truth of which they are now by that Judgement which Gods wisdom hath deputed to direct them and by the best which the world can afford established Unless here with the Hereticks we will blame after the Foundation laid of the Apostles Creed the explications of the Nicen or Athanasian Or after this the many Articles passed in later Synods concerning Grace and Freewill and the Anathemas annexed against the Pelagian errors herein Or also complain of the obligation we now have to a great Roll of Credends under the Gospel from which those in the darker times of the Law stood free Add to this that the suppression of any new error must necessarily increase the Faith and in immediat contraries who is to renounce the Negative must belâ—eve and hold the Affirmative Neither is it possible that the Church in such points can make any fence to keep out her enemies but she must also at the same time within it inclose her Friends § 178 It is much urged indeed by Dr. Hammond in answer to the C. Gentleman 8. cap. § 2. and repeated in Heres § 7. p. 100. and by Bishop Bramhal and others see before § 6. α That the Ephesin the third General Council made a Decree That it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any belief besides that which not established by the Fathers at Nice c. β That the Greeks in the Council of Florence pressed this authority to the Latines and said that no man would accuse that faith or Creed of imperfection unless he were mad γ That the Latines in their reply acknowledged that this Decree did forbid all difference os of faith from this Creed as well as contrariety And. δ That Celestines Epistle quoted in that Council affirmeth That the belief delivered by the Apostles i. e. the Apostles Creed requires that there be neither addition nor diminution These things are urged to shew that the Council of Trent had no just authority to make any new Articles of Faith But I imagine that after you have but a little with me considered this Ephesin Canon with the due circumstances you will discern a strange mis-application 1. It is meet that I first set you down the words thereof with what immediatly precedes them Sermocinatio ejusdem Sancti Concili postquam Canones editi a. 318. Sanctis beatisque Patribus qui Niceae convenerant impium Symbolum à Theodoro Mopsuestino Episcopo a ring-leader of the Nestorian Heresie confictum eidem Ephesino Concilio traditum à Clarisio Presbytero Philadelphiensi recitata fuissent His igitur recitatis constituit sanctum Concilium ut nemini liceat aliam fidem vel proferre vel conscribere vel componere quam eam quae
praestituta ac praescripta est à Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicenorum urbe in which Creed the additions also of the Constantinopolitan Council are here supposed to be included cum auxilio spiritus sancti coacti suerunt Qui autem audeat aliam fidem vel componere vel proferre volentibus converti ad agnitionem veritatis sive ex Gentilitate sive Judaismo c. to be professed by them at their admission into the Church ut hi si quidem Episcopi sint ab Episcopatu removeantur sin autem Laici sint ut extromâ detestatione execratione percellantur This being the Canon To α I say 1 st That § 179. n. 2. R. To α. this Canon being pressed by the Greeks against the Latines in the Florentine Synod to prove the unlawfulness of the Latines addition to the Creed of Filioque either the Reformed must approve the sense the Latines gave of that Decree namely R. To α. that the Ephesin Council prohibited only that none should compose any model of faith disagreeing or contrary in any thing to the doctrine of the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his wicked Creed was which occasioned this Decree or must confess that the Latines unjustly retain and mention Filioque in their Creeds which was added to the Creeds after the Ephesin and the four first Councils †See Conc. Florent 7. Sess being first mentioned and found in the Creed in the fourth Toletan Council about A D. 680. as the Roman Writers themselves confess 2 ly That supposing the Council prohibits not only the composing or addition of any thing contrary to the Nicene Creed as Theodorus his Nestorian Creed the occasion thereof may perswade it did but the addition thereto or alteration in expression of any thing whatsoever though never so conformable to the Nicen Creed yet this prohibition extends not to Councils but only to private persons and Church-Governours according to that Hi si quidem Episcopi sunt ab Episcopatu removeantur for who shall execute this sentence upon a General Council Or how can one General Council justly limit or prescribe to another of equal authority 3 ly Supposing that they extend this Act to Councils also either they prohibit to them not the making new definitions in matters of Faith but only the adding of such definitions made to the body of the Nicene Creeed but then this act concerns none who afterward make new Definitions so they add them not to the Creed Now no additions at all have been made to that Creed since the fourth General Council save Filioque which the Protestants also allow of and use Or 4 ly If the Ephesin Fathers prohibit to the Councils any such Definitions also as well as Additions to the Creed after Nice they condemn themselves in the first place who though they added not to the Creed yet defined Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the Ephesin Canon be taken in either of these sences thus it will be found not to be observed by the very next General Council that of Chalcedon who made another new definition or Creed against Eutyches in which also they altered some expressions of the Nicene Creed as is noted by the Latines Concil Florent § 6. altered natum ex Patre 1. ex Substantiâ Patris into Consubstantialem Patri secundum Divinitatem nobis autem secundum humanitatem and added many other things as appears in their Confession of faith Sess 5. which Confession they conclude and seal up just after the same manner as the Ephesin Council before them did Decrevit sancta atque universalis haec Synodus aliam fidem nemini licere proferre sive conscribere aut exponere vel sentire Sed eos qui audent vel componere vel tradere aliud Symbolum volentibus se convertere c. si Episcopi sunt alienos esse ab Episcopatu c. si Laici Anathematizari 5 ly That both Leo Bishop of Rome and Flavianus and Eusebius being charged by the Eutychian faction as offending against this Decree of Ephesus in their asserting as a part of their Faith Christum ex duabus in duabus simul naturis esse an Article not contained in the Nicene Creed were cleared by the Council of Chalcedon as not guilty thereof who some of them probably the same who sate in the Ephesin Council that being only twenty years before this understood it in the sence of the Latines and urged the necessity of additions as appears in the speech of that Council to Flavianus the Emperor †See below § 183. n. 1. 6 ly Taken in such a sence as to forbid to Councils not only the adding to the Nicen Creed but also the defining any new thing in matter of faith it is as was said before not only null by an equal authority reversing it in this sense but most irrational since the like occasions of making such new definitions may happen at any time after this Ephesin Council as it did before and also in it § 180 To β. To â— If the Grecians meant imperfection in respect of the express Confutation of any error against faith then both the authority of the Latine Church and all the reasons given above may be produced against them but if they mean imperfection in respect of containing all Credends in respect of salvation necessary to be explicitly known it s granted that so is the Apostles Creed not imperfect yet were additions to it lawfully made by Nice †See Conc. Florent Sess 1. § 181 To γ. To γ. The Latines joyn contrary also to it when they name different and mean only such difference as is also contrary as is clear every where by their words in that Synod Sess 11. Julianus Cardinalis thus Quae quidein verba i. e Concilii Ephesini nos credimus hoc solum significare ut fas sit nulle Nicaenorum Patrum fidei contrarium proferre Is the addition filioque which Protestants justifie nothing diverse then neither shall any other new definitions of Councils be so § 182 To δ. To δ. Celestines words which are spoken of the Apostles Creed either do not prohibit other Councils making some sort of additions or do condemn Nice for it But see this testimony explained by the Latines Sess 10. that he meant only denying any thing delivered in the Apostles Creed or asserting or adding any thing contrary to it To conclude this matter §. 183. n. 1. see the defence which the Fathers of the fourth General Council following the Ephesin made to Marcianus the Emperor in the Conclusion of that Synod †Allocut ad Marcianum concerning the necessity of making from time to time new Definitions and Additions to explicate and corroborate the former Faith as new errors arise to debilitate or pervert it returned in answer to the Eutychians aâ—d others who to obtain liberty to their own opinions accused Leo's Epistle and also the Council of Innovations in matters of Faith
after the Churches Doctrine sufficiently established in the Nicen Creed There Credentibus quident saith the Council apologizing for it self sufficit ad utilitatem Fidei i. e Nicenae in discussa i. e. without further consequences multiplied from it prospectio His autem qui doctrinam rectam pervertere moliuntur ad singula quae malè pariunt oportet occurrere eorum objectis propria quaeque providere Nam si omnes contenti essent fidei Nicenae constituto which indeed may also be said of the Apostles Creed pietatis semitam nullâ innovatione turbarent deceret Ecclesiae Filios in Councils nihil amplius excogitare Sed quia multi a rectâ lineâ per anfractus erroris exorbitant necesse nobis est veritatis eos inventione convertere commentaque eorum devia salutaribus adjectionibus refutare non ut novum ad pietatem quasi fides desit semper aliquid exquirentes sed ut contra ea quae ab illis innovata sunt excogitantes quae salubria judicantur Thus that Council apologizeth for its new Definitions Where Excogitare and veritatis inventione and the adversaries object ng to them Innovation c shew that Councils may define not only express Traditionals in matters of faith but any new conclusions extracted from such Traditionals Neither seems it to be much material §, 183. n. 2. 1. Whether the Definitions of latter Councils when inserted into former Creeds be called explanations and Declarations of or Additions to the former faith which was a great contest between the Greek and the Latine Church in the Council of Florence provided they be only such things as are granted to be necessarily educed out of former Principles of faith 2. Nor 2ly much matters it as to the assent that ought to be yielded to them when known to be the Churches Definitions whether they be not inserted into former Creeds but delivered apart For an obligation we have to the one sort as well as to the other For example There is no less an obedience due to Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dei Genetrix intimating the unity of Christs person though compounded of two distinct Natures defined by the third General Council though not interposed in the Creed than to one Baptisme or Filioque which were so interposed Only it seems that an Insertion into the Creed is purposely made of those points of faith which among the rest are conceiv'd more necessary not only to be assented to when known but to be explicitly known by every Christian or in infected times fit to be distinctly confessed by every Catholick Though yet so indifferent was this matter as to principal points That Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks urged in the Council of Florence †Sess 5. that it was forborn to be added to the Nicen Creed by the Ephesin Fathers yet is found in terms equivalent to be put in the Athanasian Creed Not two but one Christ by unity of Person and this allowed of by the Reformed and again found in express terms to be put in the Definition of their Faith according to some Copies made shortly after by the Council of Chalcedon See Sess 5. where also before the passing of this Definition the Fathers cryed out against the Nestorians Ista fides Orthodoxorum Sancta Maria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scribatur In Symbolo sic addatur †Sess 5. As likewise afterward found to be put in express terms in the Creed of the fourth Toletan Council The like may be said of One Baptism for Remission of sins defined indeed against the Novatians by the Nicen Council but by the second General Council of Constantinople first mentioned in the enlarged Creed The like of that clause they that have done evil into everlasting fire omitted in the Constantinopolitan but put in the Athanasian Creed perhaps against the Origenists who held the fire temporary and malos post purgationem malorum regna Dei lucique restituendos ‖ Austin de Hares Nay In the now-receiv'd Apostles Creed it self there seems something to be additional inserted by latter times propter nonnullos Haereticos saith Ruffinus in Expositione Symboli not found in the prime Copies thereof at least not in those anciently used in the Roman Church as Descendit ad inferos and vitam aeternam See the Authorities quoted by Archbishop Vsher De Symbolo Apostolico vetere Rom. Ecclesiae This in Explication of the much mis-understood Ephesin Canon urged as prohibiting any future additions to the Nicen Creed or the following ages enlarging the Articles of the former Catholick Faith Now to proceed § 184 4. That many Controversies and Questions started in this Council of Trent yet 4. because they had not sufficient evidence in Scripture or Tradition to decide them were left unstated by it For which see what hath been said formerly § 149. And great prudence and care was used that nothing should pass there from which any considerable number dissented And Pallavicino observes ‖ l. 12. c. 1. n. 4. out of several Registers of the Councils Acts whereof he had the perusal that Soave perhaps the more to trouble and muddy the clearness of the Catholick Doctrine as it opposed that of the Innovators or to shew his own Reading in points where there happens to be any difference among the Schoolmen doth many times bring-in the skirmishing of the Theologs one with another concerning them when as in Reality there was no such contest amongst them in the Council Though on the other side this is not denied several times to have happened and perhaps some of the Disputants desirous that their own tenents might pass for the common Doctrine of the Church but as I said the Legats and others not ingaged in such a quarrel by their great judgment composed such strifes without giving in the Session and the Decree the victory to either side a moderation much complained of by the Protestants the Spectators who from thence might have hoped some schisme and the rise of a civil war in the Catholick Communion § 185 5. That the Lutherans broaching so many erroneous positions and joyning together the tenents of so many several Sects that had been before them innovating something in every part of Divinity caused the Council of Trent to multiply so many Anathemas against them and joyn together also the results of many former Councils This being the course observed in the Council first for some selected persons to read the Lutheran writings on the subject in hand and to collect out of them the erroneous and noxious propositions and then for the whole Council when such propositions upon examination were unanimously disallowed to anathematize though some among these of much less malignity than others especially all those errors which were destitute of the patronage of some reverend Father or other writer of the Church for where the Council found any such Patronage they used them more gently and prosecuted them not
of Heresie yet the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority begins to be an Heretick †See Disc 3. §. 18. And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation yet now doth it more when a contrary error begins to corrupt our practice I say such Point begins to be necessary in a new Degree of necessity to be believed or assented to or not to be dissented from or denied or not the contrary of it to be believ'd so soon as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it And necessary it is then to be believ'd not out of an obligation or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend as that without believing it we cannot attain salvation but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church when defining it as that without yielding this obedience to Her we become guilty of such a sin as unrepented of ruins salvation Especially when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth but upon some considerable Motive for the repelling and suppressing of some error that is less or more dangerous and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth or good life Concerning which Proposals the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice so by our Lord's order Matt. 18 17. He that will not hear the Church let him be to us as an Heathen though otherwise the pure nescience of such a Doctrine abstracting from such Proposal harms no man as to exclusion from salvation any more after the Churches Definition than before it See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc § 18. and § 85. n. 6. § 193 Thus to express if I can yet more clearly though with some repetitions a thing whereat so many of the Reformed and those not of the meanest sort seem to stumble and take offence an Article of Faith as to a more universal Proposal of it and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed may be said new and then in respect of this new Declaration and Obligation a Divine Truth may be an Article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means so ever knows now that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or condemne but assented to and believed by him 1 When therefore a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is either that in such express terms it is so now as it was not formerly by some fuller explication or new Deduction Or that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons by whom it was not so formerly for want then of so evident a proposal 2 Again when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed which was not so formerly It is meant necessary to be believed not for the matter thereof Either 1st As if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation at all or now more then formerly For thus a few points only some think not all those of the Apostles Creed are necessary and nothing is thus necessary at any time that is not so alwaies Or 2ly As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now and was not so at all formerly For as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects so in some respects was it alwaies and therefore if we knew it not before so much imperfection there was then in our faith as to something revealed though not a deficiency thereof in absolutely necessaries But necessary to be believed now more than formerly ex accidenti because 1st we have a sufficient Proposal thereof by the Church-Definition now that it is a divine Truth which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms and so universally discovered by the former Tradition and 2ly Because we have also a sufficient proposal or notice that such a Definition hath been made by the Church And so in not believing it we are now defective in our obedience and acceptance of some divine Truth which is made known to us by the Church as some way profitable to our salvation some way advangious to God's Glory some way conducible to Christian Edification to the peace of the Church and suppression of Heresie or to some other good end By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat and conspicuous both as to the registring and solemn inrolling of her former Traditions and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Belief more compleat I say to the end of the world as to several points in some respect or other beneficial to be known Though from the first the Christian Faith was ever perfect as to any knowledge simply necessary or also as to all that were fundamentally useful And therefore the chief Duty that the Church now requires to many of her Decisions made from time to time as counter-works against Hereticks and extracted alwaies out of the former Materials of Original Traditions is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian though this also-she desires as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection but that they be not dissented from or opposed when made known to him and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him § 194 As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apostolical I wonder why they say not 12. score or a 1200. rather for if it adds any it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo ab Oecumenicis Conciliis à sacris Canonibus tradita definita declarata as it runs in the same Bull though it expresseth only some few of them 1st All the order that the Council of Trent gave concerning this Profession of Faith was Sess 24. de Refor cap. 12. Provisi etiam de beneficiis teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei publicam facere professionem in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se permansuros spondeant So that Haec est Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus is a Declaration of the Pope not of the Council not can it have any more authority than other Papal Decrees 2. And again what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull or if it oblige further therein than the Canons of the Councils do bind yet it concerneth not any persons save those who enter into religious Orders or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice as appears in the Preface 3. These persons are not
therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter 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 As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
of any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church you may then be hearkned to And Mr. Chillingworth †p. 73. Prove your whole Doctrine by such a Tradition as that by which the Scripture is proved to be God's Word and we will yield to you in all things 6ly Tradition unwritten in Scripture is either a delivery of something not contained in Scripture or the exposition or delivery of the true sense of what is contained there The latter sort of which Traditions the Church much more makes use of and vindicates than the former see Disc 2. § 40. n 2. Again both these Traditions are either only orall in which is the less certainty or also committed to writing by the Apostles Successors Now an unanimous Tradition of the sence of Scriptures found in the writings of the Fathers is also often pretended to be made use of by Protestants as the ground of their faith where the sence of Scripture is in dispute For if we ask them whether the letter of Scripture only or the sence is that which they believe and call Gods word or divine Revelation they answer that they believe the sence of it to be so If asked again in Scriptures of dubious interpretation why they believe this to be the sence not another they answer because this by primitive Tradition is delivered to be the sence of it which Tradition so early so universal c. they believe to have descended from the Apostles 7ly Concerning what Traditions have the Evidence of Apostolical as Protestants grant some have what not I know no other authorized or also fitter judge than the Council nor any other way that the Church can deliver her Judgment in them than by her Councils And if Councils are to Judge what Traditions are such the same Councils may proceed where they find these clear to ground their decrees on them as such This is said to shew that Traditions if evidently Apostolical are a sufficient ground of faith that some Traditions are granted to be evidently so and that private Christians depend on the Churches Judgment which are so That ancient allowed Councils have used the Argument of Tradition as well as of Scripture to â—â—prove the verity of their Definitions and for these reasons the Council of Trent †Sess 4. seems not culpable if using the same as a ground for her defining Controversies de fide 8. But 8ly I know no definition of the Council of Trent in any matter of faith that is opposed by Protestants which is not pretended to be grounded on the Divine Scriptures On these Scriptures either if it be in speculative points of faith revealing it Or if in matter of practice either commanding or not prohibiting it This latter being enough for an obliging of that assent or belief which the Council requires viz. that the thing not so prohibited is lawful 9. Lastly where ever the Protestants for the points in Controversie press the Council of Trents defining them from pretended Tradition not only extra but contra Scripturam speaking of the true sence thereof the Catholicks freely joyn with them that where any Tradition is not said but proved contrary to Scripture i. e. the pretended Apostolick unwritten Tradition contrary to the written such unwritten Tradition is to be rejected the other followed § 265 To χ. To Χ. That nothing as matter of faith was defined by the Council of Trent which hath not descended from and is not warranted by Apostolical Tradition is as constantly affirmed by Catholiks as denied by Protestants That nothing is maintained by the Council as Apostolical Tradition that is repugnant to what is unanimously delivered in the writings of the first 300 years is also asserted by Catholicks as the contrary is pretended by Protestants But that nothing is or may be pretended Apostolical Tradition but what can be shewed unanimously delivered in the foresaid writings as if all that descended to posterity must needs be in them so few so short set down and registred this as Protestants alledge it a just so Catholicks hold it too short a measure by which to examine Traditions Apostolical This for matters of faith as for other things decreed or injoyned by the Council to be practised and so consequently this to be believed of them that the practice thereof is lawful it is not necessary that such things be warranted by Apostolical Tradition but only that they cannot be shewed repugnant to it § 266 To ψ. To ψ. See what hath been said at large in satisfaction to this great complaint from § 173. to § 203. Where is shewed that the Lutheran's many erroneous opinions in matter of faith ingaged the Council to so many contrary definitions and that it is no wonder if the Decrees of this Council were a summe of former Church Doctrine and Tradition as Lutheranisme was a complex of former errors probably the last and greatest attempt that shall be made against the Catholick Faith and that for the Councils making so many Anathema's it is only their blame who have broached or revived so many dangerous Tenents That this Council hath inserted no new Article into the former Creeds though no just cause can be alledged why this Council only if supposed a General one might not have done so had they thought fit 1. no former Canon of any Council not that of Ephesus See § 77 having prohibited such a thing 2 No former Canon that prohibits such a thing being valid or justly prescribing to a succeeding Council of equal authority That for its making new Definitions in matters of Faith and for its requiring assent to or belief of them under Anathema or Excommunication it is if a crime a common one to it with all other former allowed Councils even the four first and that the Protestants accusing this Council thereof yet do the same thing in their own That this Coâ—ncil requires not from all persons an explicit knowledge and belief of or assent to all these their Definitions under pain of losing Salvation where an ignorance of them is without contempt of the Churches Authority and where the persons after knowing them do not persist obstinatly â—o contradict or refuse to submit their judgment and give credit to them as the Decisions of a Judge authorized by our Lord to determine such Controversies and ever preserved infallible in all Necessaries Lastly That in the beginning of the Council two wayes being proposed as Soave relates †the one p. 192. to condemn the Lutheran Heresie in general and their Books only singling out some chief Article thereof to be Anathematized the other To bring under examination all the propositions of the Lutheran Doctrine capable of a bad construction and out of these to censure and condemn that which after mature Deliberation should seem necessary and convenient with much reason the Council seems to have taken the latter
whilst it is thus obeyed it only not he that sheweth it unto us is obeyed And if this were all the obedience that I owe unto others I were no more bound to believe or obey any other man than he is bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastors than the Pastors them Yet certainly God who hath set Kingdoms in order is not the Author of such confusion in the spiritual regiment of his Church Thus Doctor Jackson tying all to obedience or submission to the judgment of their spiritual Guides save only those who are certain of a formal contradiction between God's Laws and their Injunctions To this may be added that much noted place of Mr. Hooker in his Preface to Ecclesiastical Policy §. 295. n. 4. § 6. commenting there on Deuteron 17.8 c. where it is said ver 11. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left God was not ignorant saith he that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversie he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment However better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And here he answers the objection that men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do But we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn à parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending And yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment seemed ' yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c And again Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe these laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God But their perswasion in this case i. e. where their Superiors have determined otherwise they are bound for the time i. e. till the same Authority reverse it and release them to suspend c. unless they have an infallible Demonstration Thus he Where you see he grounds their yielding to Authority and changing their former perswasion upon an non-certainty of such perswasion As for his limited expression before in litigious and controverted causes of such quality whatever he meaneth thereby the Commission and Injunction Deut. 17. extends to all litigious and controverted causes whatsoever As also it is more clearly drawn 2 Chron. 19.5 8 10 11. Where it runs What cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood between law and commandment statutes and judgments ye shall c. And note also that the command Deut 17.10 Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee requires not only a passive willingly paying mulcts or undergoing punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing something thought by me lawful but to which I think I am not obliged but in doing also of something where the lawfulness of it is questioned by me which thing also here by the text I am to do if they command me And therefore after such Injunction I ought to alter my former perswasion concerning it and to believe either that in general it is lawful to be done or at least lawful to be done by me not certain of the contrary rebus sic stantibus and such sentence past § 296 To all these testimonies concerning the obligation which illiterat and ignorant or also though learned after much examination doubting and unsatisfied persons have to submit their judgment to Church-Authority I may add the apparent mischiefs which follow the contrary observed amongst Protestants neglecting this duty from the beginning of the Reformation Luther himself much lamenting the divisions he saw among his Disciples even in his own daies Ego saith he †Prefat comeut in Galat. qui jam sum in ministerio Christi viginti annis quanquam nihil sum vere possum testari me plus quam viginti sectis esse petitum c. And in Gen. c. 6. published not long before his death Quantum sectarum excitavit Satan nobis viventibus Quid futurum est nobis mortuis Profecto tota agmina Sacramentariorum Anabaptistarum Antinomorum Servetianorum Campanistarum c. And himself also is much noted for his varying from himself in his opinions often changed But still these divisions are more apparent in the longer course of his Schisme which daily multiplies and brancheth its self into more and more clefts and sects and some of them most gross and ridiculous and for which it is hard to find names and which their forsaken Leaders are much ashamed of whilst the Plebeians will neither study truth themselves nor follow the learned The mistakes of these persons in such high and Divine matters being greater as their science less and their opinions since weakly grounded floating and unconstant and from the usually prevailing interests of the flesh inclined to liberty and sensuality § 297 Of which Divisions Grotius in several of his writings sadly complains as caused by this that they will pitch upon no Superior and common authority by which they will be content to be guided and regulated in their Faith Protestantes saith he in his last reply to Rivet †Apolog. Discussio p. 255. nullo inter se communi ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt Cur factae partes in unam Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant immo cur Partes aliae atque aliae sint exurrecturae And in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace speaking of their primitive Dissentments Confessiones saith he factae sunt variis in locis variae atque inter se pugnantes non modo quae factae erant partes non potuere unquam inter se coalescere sed novae quotidie exortae sunt particulae tot ut nemo sit qui earum inire possit numerum ut faecunda est ista seges unoquoque sibi licere credente quod alius ante usurpavit credibile est novas quotidie extituras A presage at this time
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema 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 viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
error may easily be overcome yet it can hardly be silenc'd For as God for the greater tryal of our obedience hath permitced in the world not only Evil but very many allurements also and enticements to it so not only Errors but many verisimilities and appearances of Reason ever ready to support it with those that do not by Humility attain the illuminations of his Grace Evidence sufficient God hath left always to clear and manifest all necessary Truth to those who are of an obedient Spirit and willing to learn it But not sufficient to force like the Mathematicks the Understandings of the self-confident and interested to gain-say it But that they may have some fair colour or other to oppose to it and catch the credulous All which still more infers the great necessity of church-Church-Authority and a conformity to it and the reasonableness of Monsieur Mainbourg's Method for reducing Protestants to the true Faith †§. 321. n. 10 viz. That matters once decided by this Authority should be no longer disputed A Rule the Protestants i. e. the more potent Party of them for preserving their own peace would have to be observed in the Differences among themselves shewed in the proceedings of the Synod at Dort of which see before § 254. n. 2. but not in those between them and Roman Catholicks because here they are the weaker To whom M. Claud's answer in the Preface of his last Reply to D. Arnaud is this It is unjust saith he that he will have the Decisions of Councils to be Prescriptions against us the Protestants not remembring that nothing can prescribe against Truth especially when it concerns our Salvation And the Determinations of Councils not being with us of any Consideration but as they do conform to the Holy Scriptures and to the Principles of Christian Religion we cannot have from hence any reasonable or profitable way to end the particular differences that divide us but only this to examine the matter to the bottom to discern whether such conformity i.e. of the Councils to the Scriptures which we suppose necessary is or is not To which he adds there as also frequently elsewhere That the shortest and surest and only right way for settling the Conscience in repose which must rest its Faith immediately on Gods word Divine Revelation is for both Parties to proceed to the Trial of their cause all other Authoritie and Methods laid aside by the Holy Scriptures And when he is pressed by his Adversary That in these Controversies at least all persons doubting i e. what is the true sence of the Scriptures controverted and of Antiquity expounding them and not certain of the contrary of what the Church teacheth concerning them as all unlearned Protestants must be ought herein to conform and adhere rather to the Church than to Separatists he seeks to decline it thus That the simplest person may receive sufficient certainty from the clearness of Scripture in all matters necessary that from these Scriptures learning what he ought to believe he may easily know also whether the society he lives in be a true Church and such as will conduct him to Salvation that hence he needs not trouble himself with Controversie touching what the former Church hath believed Yet that our Lord promising to be with true Believers to the end of the word so as they shall not fall into damnable error Chariâ—y obligeth him without his reading them to believe that the Fathers are of this number and so believed as they ought and so were of his Faith To give you his own words l. 1. c. 4. The word of God saith he contains purely and clearly all that which is necessary 〈◊〉 form our Faith to regulate our Worship and Manners And God assisting us with his Grace it is easie for the most simple to judge whether the Ministery under which we live can conduct us to salvation and consequently whether our society is a true Church For for this he needs only examine It as to these two Characters One if they teach all the things clearly contain'd in God's word and the other if they teach nothing besides that is contrary to those things or doth corrupt the efficacy and force of them And afterward This Examen saith he is short easy and proportion'd to the capacity of all the world and it forms a judgment as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another Again l. 1. c. 5. There are two Questions One touching what we ought to believe on the matter of the Eucharist The other touching what hath been believed by the ancient Church The first of these cleared we need not trouble our selves about the 2d Now as for those of our Communion the first Question is cleared by the word of God And for the 2d he resolves it thus l. 1. c. 6 That the Promises of J. Christ assure us that he will be with true Believers to the end of the world Whence he concludes that there hath always been a number of true Believers whose Faith hath never been corrupted by damnable Errors Then that charity obligeth us to believe that the Fathers were of this number And then lastly We knowing from Scripture what we ought to believe in this Point we also are confirmed without studying them that the Fathers believed the same Now to reflect briefly on what he hath said in the order it lies here A Council saith he cannot prescribe against Truth True But the Council is brought in for a Judg where a dispute Question is what or on what side is the Truth The determinations of Councils are not with us of any consideration but as they do conform to the H Scroptures Right But the Council is call'd in for a Judg where a doubt and dispute is what or on what side is the true sence of such and such Scriptures Where if he meaneth that they refuse to submit to a Council unlesse conforming to Scripture as the sence of Scripture is given by the Council that is it we desire for the Council will still profess its following the sence of Script if as this sence understood by the Protestants what is this but to say they will submâ—t to the Judgment or Decision of a Council so often as it shall agree with their own The only reasonable and profitable way to end differences is this to examine the matter to the bottom i.e. whether the Decisions of the Council conform with H. Scripture But when this is done How will the Difference end Will not the Controversie as the Replies multiply swell rather still bigger as his and D. Arnaud's doth Search to the bottom Suppose a Socinian should say this against the former Church-decisions concerning the Trinity the supreme Deity of the Son and H. Ghost Gods essential Omnipresence his absolute prescience of future Contingents c. will Protestants say he makes a rational motion Then how can any Protestant rest his Faith in these Points upon the
Authority of the Councils and their Creeds will you say he doth not but on the Scriptures Have they then searched all these Points to the bottom there compared the particular Scriptures urged by the Socinian and those urged against him and weighed them in the Ballance If yet they have not ought they If they ought what a task here for young Protestant-students what an Eternal Distraction in this a search what heavenly peace in the other obedience to the judgements of former Councils and Vacancy for better imployments Again If they ought what all Protestants the most of them as of all Christians are illiterate Men not having either leisure or ability to search c. Must these adhere therefore to former Councils and their Creeds in these Points Then in others and in this of Real Presence or Transubstantiation and so they remain no longer on M. Claud's party Or will he bind them to submit their judgement to some inferior Ecclesiastical Authority or Ministry standing in opposition to a superior But this is Schism in them both and justly is such person ruin'd in his credulity to one authority usurp'd for his denying it to another to whom it is due Nor would M Claude be well pleased if any one should follow some few reformed Ministers divided from the rest of their Consistory Class or Synod As for the Tryal §. 321. n. 26. he motions to be made by H. Scriptures This is a thing that hath been by the 2. Parties already done first as it ought And the issue of it was That one Party understood these Scriptures in one sence the other in another For Example The one understood Hoc est Corpus meum literally the other in a Metaphor and so differently understood also all the other Texts of Scripture produced in this Cause Here the true sence of Scripture became the Question and their Controversie For the Judge and Decâ—der of this between them when time was they took a Council For since Scripture they could no more take the sence of that being their Question to whom should they repair but the Church and of the Church a Council is the Representative Councils several to a great number in several ages †See Guide in Controver Disc 1. §. 57 58. decided this matter declared the sence of the Scriptures but so as it liked not one Party These therefore thought fit to remove the Tryal from thence to the more Venerable Sentence of the Fathers and Primitive Church i.e. of their writings Again the sence of these writings as before that of Scriptures is understood diversly by the Contesters And now the true sence of the writings of the Fathers is the Question and Controversie Nor here will Disputes end it Witness so many Replies made on either side Former Councils as they have given their Judgement of the Sence of the writings of H Scriptures so they have of those of the Fathers but their Authority is rejected in both And a new Council were it now convened besides that M. Claud's Party being the fewer and so easily over-voted would never submit to it we may from M. Claud's Confession †l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 p. 337. That both Greeks and Latines are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the natural explication that the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist rationally conjecture that Protestants in such Councils would remain the party condemn'd What then would this person have He would have the Controversy begin again and return to the Scriptures Which is in plain Language That the Question should decide the Controversie and till this can do it That so long as the Protestants are the weaker Party all should have their Liberty For when they are the stronger they do well discern the necessity of Synods for ending such Differences and though not professing themselves infallible yeâ— upon the Evangelical promise of our Lords assistance to such Councils think fit to require all the Clergy under their jurisdiction upon pain of Suspension from their Function to receive and Subscribe their Decrees for Gods Truth and to teach them to the People as such and think fit to Excommunicate those teaching the contrary till they shall recant their Errour Of which see before § 200. Witness such carriage of the Synod of Dort toward the Remonstrants who challenged the same exemption from their Tribunal as they had done from that of Trent but could not be beard As for that which follows in Answer to D. Arnaud's most ratianal challenging a Submission and Conformity of so many Protestants as have no certainty of their new Opinions rather to the Church than to Innovators to me it sounds thus That every plain and simple Protestant 1st thinks his Exposition or sence of Scripture in this Point of the Eucharist and so in others any way necessary to be clear and without dispute and the more simple he is the sooner he may think so because he is not able to compare all other Texes nor to examine the contrary sences given by others or the reasonable grounds thereof 2. Next that every one who thinks his Exposition or Sence of Scripture clear in such Point is by this sufficiently assured that he hath a right Faith or from this sence of his knows what he ought to believe and forms a Judgement herein as certain as if one had discussed all the Controversies one after another a strange proposition but I see nothing else from which such person collects his faith to be right if any doth produceit 3ly That every such simple person now easily knows whether the Society wherein he lives be a true Church or otherwise viz. as they agree with or dissent from that right Faith of his already supposed or as he finds them to teach the things clearly contained in God's word i. e. in his clear Sence thereof 4ly Knowing thus from this his clear exposition or sence of Scripture what he ought to believe he needs not trouble himself what the Ancient Church hath believed which is very true nay he knows without reading them or M. Arnaud's and Claud's discourses upon them that the Fathers if of the number of the Faithful were of his Opinion by M. Claud's arguing forementioned I desire the Reader to review his words or the 5th 6th Chapters of his 1st Book and see if he can make any better construction of them Now if there be any Sence in this he saith How can he hinder but that a simple Catholick way use the self-same Plea church-Church-authority being laid aside for a certainty of his Faith upon the same pretensions viz. his clear sence of Scripture quite contrary to the Protestants clear sence And in any Controversie amongst Protestants Suppose that of the Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants here both sides have the same Plea one against another namely the certainty of their Faith from their own Sence of the Scriptures controverted between them And why doth not this certainty void their