greater necessity * that these Church-Governors should be enabled exactly to distinguish these Prop. 7. as to all particulars Or * that Catholicks should learn such distinction from their Governours than that Protestants should learn it from the Scriptures And the Answer which Protestant give for a non-necessity of this latter viz. Because who believes all the Scripture believes all Necessaries revealed in it they may take for a non-necessity of the other because who believeth all that the Church defineth believeth all Necessaries defined by it neither again can the Protestants justly require any certainty explicitness or distinction of faith concerning the Proposals of the Church which distinction c. themselves do not maintain or think necessary concerning the Proposals and sence of Scripture So if the Protestant Divines grant a sufficient certainty as they do ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p. 160. in a Christian's faith who believes all Fundamentals from the Authority of Scriptures * tho mean-while he knows not from the same Scriptures which or how many they are nor either the Protestant-Guides or their followers out of these Scriptures can make any certain catalogue of them and * though they also may in the sense of many Texts of Scripture err and mistake so that they only build a sufficiency of their faith upon this hypothetical certainty that if the point be necessary they using a due industry cannot err in the sense of such Scriptures because all necessaries God hath in these Scriptures clearly revealed Then they cannot deny the same sufficient certaînty of a Catholicks faith that believes all fundamentals from the Proposal of his Ecclesiastical Guides if these Guides be granted in these infallible tho' neither he nor these Guides should certainly know for all points which or how many these fundamentals be § 13 Very vain therefore seems that discourse of Mr. Chillingworth c. 3. § 57. so far as it is made use of to this purpose to shew upon the non-distinction of fundamentals or the supposed liability of Church-Guides to err in non-fundamentals the uncertainty or unsufficiency of a Catholicks faith As also ridiculous that arguing of his where when Catholicks say they are certain concerning every particular point proposed by the Church that if it be a fundamental she errs not in it i.e. errs not in what she determines concerning it or errs not in determining any thing against it He faith They say that they are certain that if it be a fundamental truth the Church doth not err in it i. e. in holding it which faith he is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary § 14 2ly Neither doth it follow from these Church-Guide's supposed inability exactly to distinguish Necessaries from non Necessaries that therefore they are or can be no infallible Guide in all Necessaries that is in teaching and prescribing them though they should not be so in distinguishing them and in their teaching nothing besides togesher with them Nor is that consequence of Mr. Chillingworth's ‖ p. 105 150 true That if there be a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals they must be so also in declaring what is Fundamental or necessary what not unlesse upon this supposition that the declaring thereof is also a thing Necessary as I suppose he meant it For I may be certainly by the divine goodness preserved from error in many truths which yet I do not certainly know that they are truths And again further may certainly know somthing to be a truth and teach it to others and yet not further know it to be a truth so absolutely necessary as perhaps it is To use Mr. Chillingworths simile ‖ p. 159. A Physicians in his using of a medicine consisting of twenty Ingredients of which medicine he is certain that the whole receit hath in it all things necessary to the cure of such a disease yet may not exactly know whether all the Ingredients thereof are absolutely necessary or only some of them necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse or some only necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtful As also the Protestants grant that the Church in delivering the Scriptures delivers all necessary truths therein yet without punctually knowing what or how many they are § 15 3ly It seems most reasonable that a Guide of whose not erring in Necessaries 3. I am secure But neither I nor it can exactly distinguish such from non-Necessaries should be believed by me in all it proposeth though in some Proposals it should be liable to error I must add one exception indeed If that in no particular which it proposeth I am infallibly certain of the contrary for then in such I am sure that the Tenent of this Guide can be no fundamental Truth because not truth But first this Exception is unserviceable to all those which are the most as can plead no such infallible certainty for so many stand obliged still to the former belief 2ly such exception can rationally be made use of by none in the matters we speak of for who can presume himself thus certain in a matter of faith or in his own sense of Scripture though the literal expression be never so clear where so many learned and his Superiors comparing other texts c. understand it otherwise and are of a contrary judgment For it is the same as if in a matter of sense a dim-sighted person should professe himself certain that an object is white when a multitude of others the most clear-sighted that can be found having all the same means with him of a right sensation pronounce it black or of another colour § 16 Now this case only excepted I say such Guide ought to be believed by me in all it proposeth And this upon a triple account 1st because otherwise I expose my self to error in something necessary to which error in not following this Guide I am very liable for though I have besides this Guide a Rule infallible yet my sence thereof is not so in points that are controverted 2ly because this is such a Guide as learned Protestants grant that Gods Command doth oblige me to obey its judgment where I have no certain evidence of the contrary of its decrees ‖ See below §. 20. And also common reason obligeth me to follow a better judgment than my own especially when I do it as with due humility so with sufficient safety because thus it must be only a non-Necessary that I can err in and as I am certain if a fundamental that it is true what it delivers so not certain if it be no fundamental that then it is not true 3ly because though somthing superfluous may possibly be determined by this Guide yet considering the former notion of Necessaries ‖ §. 9. to which there seems good cause that the infallibility of this Guide be extended who will undertake to exclude any particular Church-definition
verbi gratiâ id sentire de Christo quod Photinus opinatus est i. e. in modern language to be a Socinian no small errour in ejus haeresi baptizari extra Ecclesiae Catholicae Communionem alium vero hoc idem sentire sed in Catholicâ baptizari existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam fidem Illum nondum Haereticum dico nisi manifestatâ sibi doctrinâ Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit c. § 19 And this is Dr. Hammonds Comment on the fore-quoted place of Titus how consonant to his own or other Protestants doctrines I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ P. 761. self-condemned signifies not a man's publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that self-condemnation being an effect and part of repentance would rather be a motive to free any from the censures of the Church who were already under them then aggravate their crime or bring that punishment upon them Nor yet 2ly can it denote him that offends and yet still continues to offend against conscience and though he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church For besides that there are very few that do so and these known to none but God and if that were the Character of an Heretick then none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that through pride and opinion of his own judgement stood out against the doctrine of Christ and his Church in the purest times should not be an Heretick this inconvenience would further be incurred that no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience nor could any testimony be produced against him before any humane Tribunal no man being able to search the heart It is rather an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse For he that thus disobeys and breaks off from the unity of the Church doth in effect inflict that punishment on himself which the Church useth to Malefactors that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 13.10 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off from the Church which when he being an Heretick and therein a Schismatick also doth voluntarily without the Judges sentence his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excision And that this Doctor may not go alone see Dr. Fernes Comment on the same place ‖ The Case between the Ch. of Engl. and Rome p. 53. when he writ against Presbyterians accusing them of Schism from the Church of England The word Heretick saith he according to the use of it then implied one that obstinately stood out against the Church or that led any Sect After the strictest Sect or Heresie of the Pharisees Acts 26.5 After that which they call Heresie Acts 24.14 a factious Company divided from the Church so they called or accounted of Christians and Gal. 5.20 we have it reckoned among the works of the flesh Debates Contentions Heresie So here Heretick that leads a faction a sect or that wilfully follows or abets it A man therefore that is a Heretick contentious disobedient to the Order and authority of the Church reject for he is self condemned having both past the sentence upon himself by professing against or dividing from the Church and also done execution like that of the Church's censure and excommunication upon himself by actual separation or going out of the Church A fearful condition Thus he And something to the same purpose saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Fundamentals c. 9. §. 4. concerning the guilt of those who afterward deny or oppose the things defined and added to the Apostles Creed by the first Councils Though the Creed saith he in the ancient Apostolick form were sufficient for any man to believe and profess yet when the Church hath thought meet to erect that additional Bulwark against Hereticks the rejecting or denying the truth of those their additions may justly be deemed an interpretative siding with those ancient or a desire to introduce some new Heresies And the pride or singularity or heretical design of opposing or questioning them now they are framed being irreconcileable with Christian charity and humility is justly deemed criminous and liable to censures Again § 6. Though those who believed c. the matter of the Apostles Creed had all those Branches of Christian Faith which were required to qualifie mankind to submit to Christs Reformation yet he grants the wilful opposing these more explicit Articles added by Councils and the resisting of them when they are competently proposed from the Definition of the Church will bring danger of ruine on such persons Again § 8. This i of one Baptism and all the former additions in the Nicene Creed being thus setled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the present Church and every meek member thereof Here then it seems that Heresie it is or something criminous equivalent thereto to oppose the Church's definitions and additions though the former Creed was sufficient to have been believed and professed in all times before them Lastly King James in his Answer to Card. Perron penned by Casaubon seems to have the same Notion of Heresie as also of Schism with the Roman Church and the Fathers making Heresie any departing from the Faith Schism from the Communion of the Church Catholick Credit vero Rex saith Casaubon ‖ Letter to Perron simpliciter sine fuco fallaciis unicam esse Ecclesiam Dei re nomine Catholicam sive Vniversalem toto diffusam mundo extra quam ipse quoque nullam Salutem debere sperari affirmat damnat detestatur eos qui vel jam olim vel postea aut a fide recesserunt Ecclesiae Catholicae facti sunt Haeretici aut à Communione facti sunt Schismatici Difference here about the Extent of the Catholick Church there is some but none that all opposition of its Faith is Heresie Again Nullam spem Salutis superesse iis qui à fide Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ab ejusdem Communione discesserint Rex ultro concedit I suppose here is meant the present Catholick Church and in any difference the main Body thereof its whole and integral Faith or any part thereof and its external Communion Otherwise if this meant of the Catholick Church collectively of all ages when in some ages several points of Faith were not yet defined and of every member thereof in those ages when in most points may be found some dissenters and of Points of Faith necessary inferiors being Judges a term applyed as any one pleaseth to more points or fewer Lastly of Communion internal which may be said now to be deserted now retained as any
own understanding and industry to find out his own way to Heaven because he can securely trust no living guide on Earth besides through all the thorny controversies of the present age grown as Dr. Field saith in number so many and in matter so intricate which require vast pains throughly to examine and an excellent judgment aright to determine and which much eloquence and long smoothing of them the interposing of humane reason in divine matters and the varying records of former ages have rendred on all sides so far plausible and resembling truth that a little interest serves the turne to blind a man in his choice and make him embrace an errour for truth let him I say humbly resigne his wearied and distracted judgment wholly to her direction § 80 For as Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Relation of the Western Religions ‖ p 29. speaks methinks very pertinently though in the person of a Romanist pleading his own cause Seeing Christianity is a Doctrine of Faith a Doctrine whereof all men even children are capable as being gross and to be believed in general by all Seeing the high vertue of Faith is in the humility of the understanding and the merit thereof in the readiness of Obedience to embrace it and seeing the outward proofs thereof are no other than probable and of all probable proofs the Church-testimony is most probable So he which I propose rather thus Seeing of outward proofs of our Faith where the true sense of Scripture is the thing disputed the Church's testimony whether for declaring to us the sense of Scripture or judgment of the Ancients is a proof of most weight What madness were it for any man to tire out his soul and to wast away his spirits in tracing out all the thorny paths of the controversies of these days wherein to err is no less easy than dangerous what through forgery of authors abusing him what through sophistry transporting him and not rather to betake himself to the right path of truth whereunto God and nature reason and experience do all give witness and that is to associate himself to that Church whereunto the custody of this heavenly and supernatural truth hath been from heaven it self committed to weigh discreetly which is the true Church and that being once found to receive faithfully and obediently without doubt or discussion whatsoever it delivereth § 81 And then further If in this disquisition of his to make use here of that plea which the same Author in the following words hath very fairly drawn up ‖ Relation of Western Religious p. 30. for the Church of Rome and her adherents without giving us any counter-defence or shewing any more powerful attractives of the Churches reformed what ever he intended If besides the Roman and those Churches unitted with it he finds all other Churches to have had their end or decay long since I mean the Sects and Religions that have been formerly in the Western World Hussites Lollards Waldenses Albigenses Berengarians which some Protestants make much pretence to or their beginning but of late if This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ that Hell gates should not prevaile against it but that himself will be assistant to it till the Consummation of the World hath continued on now till the end of a 1600. years with an honourable and certain line of near 240. Popes Successors of St. Peter both tyrants and traytors pagans and hereticks in vain wresting raging and undermining If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world have from time to time approved and honoured it if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings such armies of Saints with their holiness of Martyrs with their Blood of Virgins with their purity should sanstifie and embellish it If even at this day in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole Nations into her bosome If Lastly in all other opposite Churches there be found inward dissentions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governours things much more experienced since this authors death in the late Presbiterian wars confusion of order invading of Episcopacy yea and Presbytery too whereas contrariwise in this Church the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continual increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it follows that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further inquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or a pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of the Church that was before Luthers time and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from errour i. e. dangerous to or distructive of Salvation and yet peremptorily commanded men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of Mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard been of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truth of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed are they who believe and have not seen Though they do not see reason always for that they believe save only that reason of their Belief drawn from authority the merit of whose Religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptation before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others Thus that Author pleads the cause of the Roman and its adherent Churches without a Reply To which perhaps it will not be amiss to joyn the like Plea §. 82. n. 1. for this Church drawn up by another eminent person ‖ Dr. Taylor liberty of prophecying §. 20. p. 249. in a treatise writ concerning the unreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith wherein he indeavoured to represent several Sects of Christianity in their fairest colours in order to a charitable toleration These considerations then he there proposeth concerning the Roman Church Which saith he may very
decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitâ—y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of
these divine Revelations from those who were known by Miracles to be sent from God the multitude of them I say together with their wisdom their sanctity their unanimous consent throughout so many ages their affirming such truth much contrary to all their secular interests to the appetites of the flesh and ambitions of this world their delivering them both by word and writing to their children and posterity to be delivered again to theirs as matters of the highest moment and wherein it eternally concerneth them not to be deceived as also their strict charge to deliver nothing in these matters of faith to their children which they have not received from their Forefathers their suffering many times cruel deaths for the verity of their testimony the miracles in several ages done also by them which miracles when done for the testifying of their Faith such in those ages as have seen have had the like evidence of this Faith as those who saw the miracles of the Apostles and those who have not seen but believe the credible Relators of them have the like evidence of their Faith as those also had in the Apostles times who believed as doubtless many did not seeing but only hearing of their miracles If I say I proceed thâ—s to prove the Church-Tradition infallible from these motives of credibility Here again it is asked concerning these motives whether they also be pretended infallible and whether they carry a certainty in them equall to that infallible assent of divine faith that is given to Divine Revelations and particularly to this of the infallibility of the Church which assent of divine faith is pretended to be more firm than any humane knowledge can be because it doth ultimately rest upon divine authority and yet which divine faith at last to avoid a Circle is by Catholicks for its certainty made to rest upon these prudential motives It is asked therefore in the last place whether these motives be pretended not-possibly-fallible or no. If not how can an infallible or divine faith be grounded on motives only highly probable or only morally certain or the thing that is proved or Conclusion be rendred certain and not-possibly-fallible to me from a possibly-fallible proof or medium since the thing proving or the ground of my assent must be more credible evident and certain to me than the thing proved But if these motives also be affirmed infallible 1st How can that be since all men however taken divided or conjoyned single or a multitude vulgar or wise and learned are possibly liable both to deceive and to be deceived and 2ly Thus at least divine faith will at last be built upon and resolved into not divine but humane authority contrary to the Doctrine of Catholicks § 122 And if it should be said here that the resolution of divine faith into these prudential motives whether fallible or infallible is only as into extrinsecal prerequisites or introductives to it not as into the formal cause or ground of it for so I ground alwayes the divine and infallible assent I give to any Article of my faith upon Divine Revelation and the prime verity because God who I believe saith it cannot lye It will be asked still since some Divine Revelation is alwayes the final motive of a Divine Faith from what other Divine Revelation I do believe such a point to be a Divine Revelation in which proceeding if it go not in infinitum I must come at last to some Divine Revelation concerning which I can produce no other revelation divine and so no ground at all why or from which I can believe it with a Divine Faith to be such unless I will betake my self to a Circle So for example in proving the Churches infallibility from Divine Revelation contained in the Scriptures and again the Scriptures God's Word from Divine Revelation unwritten delivered by the Apostles I can produce no further Divine Revelation that testifies such Revelation or Tradition to be delivered by the Apostles if I return not back to the Church's infallibility which returning thither makes a Circle And the same thing will happen the other way also in proving Scripture from Apostolical Tradition and this Apostolical Tradition again from Church-infallibility § 123 To which intricate Question to answer as distinctly as I can 1st It is agreed by all That the faith by which we are saved must be in it self most true and infallible or that there must be a certitudo objecti and those be true Revelations which our faith apprehends to be so 2ly Agreed also That such divine §. 124. n. 1. and saving faith doth alwayes ground it self on God's Word or Divine Revelation of those things which are believed and upon the authority veracity and goodness of God revealing such things And that Christians however coming to the knowledge of these Divine Revelations from their Parents Pastors or the Church in her Councils yet resolve this divine faith no otherwise as to the ultimate ground and reason of their believing than the Apostles themselves did who received these Revevelations immediately from Christ and God himself namely into the veracity of God delivering such particular Articles of their Faith 3ly Again agreed §. 124. n. 2. That this Divine Faith is wrought no otherwise in the soul than by the operation of God's Spirit †See S. Thom. 22. q. 6. De causâ fides many times begetting so firm an adherence to the things believed not only that what is Divine Revelation cannot deceive but that such particular points are Divine Revelations as exceeds that adherence we have to any humane Science whatsoever wherein there is often a possibility of deceit though not as to the thing yet as to us i.e. that we may think we know what and when we do not For this see the Arch-Bp †p. 72. Faith he means the habit or act of a saving faith is the gift of God alone and an infused habit in respect whereof the soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole infufer the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but he Which virtue of faith of whatever Article though it receive a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the faith yet iâ— ends in God's revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without And p. 75. Man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe though after he once believes his faith grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other reason or knowledge can in this life quoting in the margin S. Thom. †p. 1. q. 1. a. 5. Quia sâ—ientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia antem quae dâ—cet objectum
But here seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives than Catholick writers have formerly maintained and the adversary also allows on which an acquired or humane faith securely resteth these motives carrying such an evidence with them as no other Religion differing from the Christian nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholick Communion can upon any rational account equall 2ly That the infallibility of the Church grounded on divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of the Catholicks faith for any other Articles thereof that are established by the same Churches definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him but I say not the Church doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Church's infallible authority the Protestants faith is destitute 3ly That the faith of all such Articles grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority is by this grounded also on divine Revelation Where note That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility I mean as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word or divine Revelation whether written the Scriptures or unwritten Tradition Apostolical or into Apostolical Tradition or into Scripture is in general all one and the same resolution i. e. into divine Revelation and ultimately is only believing a thing because God saith it saith it in the Scriptures or also out of them by his Apostles or by the Church succeeding the Apostles by it I say as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted truly to relate and expound what the Apostles or Scripture have formerly said where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these and not into any proper authority or infallibility of the deliverer and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church or of the Apostles we mean into Gods infallible Word delivered mediately by the one or immediately by the other And whilst to one that asketh me why I believe the Scriptures I answer because those who wrote them were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations And again to one that asketh me why I believe the Church I answer because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith Here it is clear that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted and communicated to man by God's Spirit so must the other though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit is different as is explained before § 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion then all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles and from them of the Church following them to which Church for ever though without any testimony of Scripture the same promises must be supposed to have been made for the writing of these Scriptures surely was no cause of these promises And next these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical related only by the Church and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church concerning such promises made to it as is now given to the Scriptures testifying it 4ly Yet that this Church-infallibility or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it is not necessarily the first or the ultimate divine Revelation into which every Catholick's faith concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved for the divine faith of several persons concerning particular points may have a various resolution as they come by divers wayes or from divers principles to believe it and one Article of faith may be savingly believed without the present knowledge or belief of another whereon it hath dependance as one may believe with a divine faith either the Scripture's or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition one before the other as they happen to be first proposed to them of which see what is said before § 128.145 and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon attain eternal salvation And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases the Scriptures and the Church For both are Pillars of Truth †1 Tim. 3.15 and both alwayes bear witness as to it so also to one another And what thou hast thus joyned O Lord let no man be able to separate nor the Gates of Hell ever so far prevail against them as that any should prosper in their indeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruines of the other Amen § Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith The Conclusion and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries maintained in the former Discourses and affirmed also easily discernable from all other Pretenders After all which in the last place the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself whether if indeed there be such a Catholick unfailing Guide as is here pretended and that Church also whose conduct he hath renounced be It whom our Lord hath left amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions to bring men by a sure way to Heaven whether I say notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments that have been here and are elsewhere by Catholicks frequently urged in demonstration thereof yet his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent and invincible that he dares rely on this Plea at the appearance of our Lord for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her And next to consider whether if indeed she be what here she is pretended there can be any secular interest so valuable as any way to recompence the loss he sustains in his present separation from this Church by foregoing all that means of salvation and growth in grace and advantages of an holy life which he might with great spiritual content enjoy in her happy bosom Of which advantages because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought for a conclusion of the whole I beg leave not to stay only in universals but to represent some particulars to the begetting in Him by the aid of the Divine Grace an holy emulation and longing for the re-fruition of them and a greater resentment of his present impediments and defects § 155 Let him then in the name and fear of God consider the great benefit as to the working of his salvation which he might happily enjoy in this Church by these particulars following * By
of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles †Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a dâ—ssent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Mr. Stillingfleet concerning Heresie †p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so to remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yeilding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points †See Mr. Stillingf p. 99. Then I become so either by the Churches definition of this point or without it By reason of the Churches definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Churche's defining it †Still p. 74 and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisy you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your selfe in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be Gods Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicen Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what it defined It s true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non sufficient proposal without § 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicen Council or the Church hath declared in this point †Stillingf p. 73. Whether the Churches judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgement the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Churches definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Stilling p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledg when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I finde my conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2ly The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your selfe from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can finde one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for not being guilty of Schism 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publike judgment § 28 and definition of the Catholick Church
infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain that any one of them hat not failed § 114. Chap. 10. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation and all Divine Faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation It is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if said from the Testimony of the present Church which is in the former manner i. e. by divine Revelation infallible The question returns whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible without making a Circle in proving this present Church to be so infallible from Gods Word written or unwritten and then again proving infallibly such to have been Gods Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it from the Motives of credibility or from any thing else but only from a divine Revelation i. e. from Gods Word because divine Faith can never resolve it self into any ground that is not divine Revelation § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That divine Faith alwayes ultimatly resolveth it self into divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a processe in infinitum or turning in a Circle § 124. n. 1. 132. 143 144. 3. That divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of Gods Spirit § 124. n. 2. 4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith whatever uncertainty be in the extrinsecal proponent thereof § 125. 5. That Church-Tradition in delivering unto us the divine Revelation is only the Introductive not the object of a divine Faith § 126. 6. That there in no absolute need either of it or any other extrinsecal infallible Introductive or proponent for a Christian 's attaining a divine Faith § 127. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion besides the Christian nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit can pretend to § 135. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith thus far at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. 8. But further that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries wherein the true sence of Scriptures or verity of Tradition Apostolical is questioned and disputed is believed by Catholicks From which infallibility of these Church-Guides clearly revealed to them in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical they retain a firm Faith of all those points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides and only allowing that of Scripture miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points or can have no firm ground of their believing them § 140. Shewed from the Precedents That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused or acquisit and humane Faith § 143. c. Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th § Wherein is shewed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental in the chief points of present Controversie 1. Transubstantiation § 158. n. 2. 177. 2. Adoration of the Eucharist § 159. 177. 3. Sacrifice of the Mass § 160. n. 1. 177. 4. Invocation of Saints § 161. 5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed as betterable thereby in their present Condition § 162. 6. Communion in one kinde or of the Symbol of our Lords Body onely intinct § 163.178 7. A Relative Veneration of Images or Pictures § Ibid. 8. Monastick Vows And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders § 164. and § 179. n. 1. 9. Auricular or Sacramental Confession § 165.179 n. 2. The Replies made hereto by Protestants considered § 182. c. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant-Grounds Divided into Five Conferences The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture § 2. The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 The third Conf. Nor contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. The fifth Conf. Nor of Schism § 28. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and Considering the Varying Judgments of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE CHAP. I. The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. Of Protestant Divines I. Some granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. R. That-the Divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belongs to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. § 1 FIrst that the Church Catholick of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable for ever in Fundamentals or absolute Necessaries to Salvation both by Roman-Catholicks and Protestants is granted for otherwise in some Age there would be no Church Catholick Errour in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church § 2 But when from the Church Catholick it is by Catholicks ascended to the Governours or Guides thereof to whom this Church is committed by our Lord departed hence That they are also by our Lords promise and assistance unerrable in their Decrees They at least in a lawful General Council of them such as the times wherein such Councils are assembled do permit unerrable § 3 at least so far as to Necessaries Here the Protestants make a stop 1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide and seem to differ one from another in 12 their Judgments Mr. Ch llingworth in his Answer to F. Knot and after him Dr. Hammond in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord Falklands Discourse of Infallibility with their followers in this point among whom I number the two late Repliers ‖ See Mr. Stillingf p. 154 251 252 514 517.55 Whitby c.
another and so a just fear of less integrity Lastly if these against the whole can have any authority the proceedings of General Councils in condemning and exercising Ecclesiastical Censures against them as subjects to those Courts have bin unjust which yet those General Councils universally allowed have used not only against Bishops but Patriarchs and the Clergy joined with them And the Churches Decrees thus will be necessarily obligatory never but when the Governours thereof to a man or to every particular Church or Society of Church-men are all of a mind Neither can the people when the Ecclesiastical Court which consists of many Judges is any way divided tell which to obey if our Saviours Promise be only to some certain Guides we know not in how small a number because they know not whether our Saviours promise of Indefectibility even in necessaries belongs not to the more inconsiderable part thereof He that appoints us to follow a Guide in what it shall enjoin us and then leaves us no way when our Guide consists not of one but many persons and particular Churches and when two parties of them contradict one another and guide us contrary wayes to know which of them is to be our Guide it is all one as if he left us no Guide and he that ties us besides our own judgment in doubtful matters to obey and follow only some Ecclesiastical person or other not obliging us to the most or major part to the Superiour rather than an inferior person or Court revolves our obedience in any division of our Governours only to our own Judgment i. e. to chuse that side which we judge is most conformable to Scripture as we follow the Counsel of that friend who we think speaks most reason But can this be called any obebedience to his authority and then left to this choice what opinion can our selves take up that is so absurd in which we cannot finde some Clergy or other for our Leaders This concerning these Protestant-Divines allowing an absolute Promise of Indefectibility as to Necessaries made to and always verified in some Persons or also some Body and Society or other of the Clergy i.e. of the Church-Guides but not to these always in such a capacity as that they are in the Churches constitutions and traditions to be our Guides these Orthodox-Guides as they suppose being perhaps in some Ages a very small number nor those of the highest rank in comparison of the rest CHAP. V. III. Other Expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Prelacie as defining her Doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in Necessaries § 32 when accepted by the Church Vniversal § 32. The Expressions of * Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bishop Bramhall § 34. Where III. 3. Other expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Clergy as defining her doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries But then only when universally accepted no considerable persons or at least Churches dissenting concerning what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth her subjects in respect 1st of the Church-Catholick diffusive § 36. n. 1. 2ly of Councils General § 36. n. 3. 3ly of Councils Occidental § 36. n. 8. Where particularly of the Freedom of the Council of Trent § 36. n. 9. * Of Bishop Lawd § 37. Where concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church-diffusive is only necessary § 38. * Of Dr. Field § 40. III. BUt thirdly several other Expressions may be found in some of them wherein they would seem to go further yet and to allow That the Church-Catholick taken in general or in her greatest Body of Clergy as she is a Canonical Guide and as she teacheth and defineth doctrines can never err in Necessaries or Fundamentals But whether all their expressions cohere one with another or whether their opinion when strongly assaulted will not retreat and resolve it self into the first or second already explained I conclude nothing § 33 For this see first that of Dr. Potter § 2. p. 28. Where he saith Expressions Of Dr. Potter The Church Catholick is confessed in some sence i. e. in Fundamentals as he explaineth it afterward § 5. p. 148 c. to be unerring and he is litle better than a Pagan that despiseth her judgment For she follows her Guides the Prophets and Apostles and is not very free and forward in her Definitions Here we hear of Definitions and Iudgment of the Church Catholick that are to be followed Therefore I infer that such judgment may be known So § 4. p. 97. The Catholick Church saith he is careful to ground all her Declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine authority of Gods written Word and therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick Then he addeth not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him Where I do not see but that whoso believeth this in general as all ought that the Church Catholick alwaies groundeth her Declarations in matters of Faith on Divine Authority though every particular Declaration of hers is not cleared to him that it is so well grounded yet must needs wilfully and self-convicted oppose her judgment and so incur Heresie But however he is or is not an Heretick who dissents from such Decrees yet by the Doctor all those it seems are secured as for necessary Truth that do obey and adhere to them And § 5. p. 169. If in any thing saith he General Councils erre and mistake the Vniversal Church hath means of remedy either by antiquating those Errors with a general and tacit consent General Consent therefore such Decree of a General Council to tender it non-obligatory must be at least tacitly reversed by a major part of the Church Catholick else if any single Church's reversion serves the turn to annull the Obligation thereof no Churches are obliged to such Decrees further than they please Or by representing her self again in another General Council which may view and correct the Defects of the former Here are two ways of the Church Catholick's correcting the Errors of her Representative the Council 1. Either by generally not observing or practising their Decrees 2. Or by condemning them by another Representative therefore I gather where the Church Catholick neither by another general Council contradicts such assembly nor in her most general practice or Doctrines varies from its Decrees the definitions and judgment of such a General Council are admitted as the definitions and judgment of the Church Catholick Or else there is no way of knowing what or which are so Ib. After that p. 141. he hath spoken of the present Church-Catholick her being as a Candlestick to present and hold out the light to us and p. 143. of her being a witness and an Instrument for working Faith in us he p. 148 149 156. accords as he saith with some moderate Roman Writers That the
Extent of the Infallibility of this Church i. e. in defining p. 156. reacheth to all matters Essential and fundamental simply necessary for the Church to know and believe But not so to all her Doctrines and Definitions And p. 155. The Vniversal Church saith he hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in unnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is fundamental and necessary Where Defining Adding Taking away c. argue that he speaks here of the present Church Catholick which he affirms to be infallible in Fundamentals in relation to the main Body of her Governour 's being so § 34 Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 9. speaks much what on the same manner If saith he of two particular Churches Of Bishop Bramhall the one retain a communion with the Vniversal Church and be ready to submit to the Determinations thereof the other renounce the communion of the Vniversal Church and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and Decrees thereof the former continues Catholick and the latter becomes Schismatical Or as he expresseth it in Schism-guarded p. 2. That Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce after a Legal Determination and cease to disturb the Christian Vnity though her Judgment may be sound yet her practice is schismatical And afterward We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the Judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council Here the Bishops submitting and standing to the judgment and determinations of the Church Vniversal or a free General Council were it now called argues him to hold the present Church Catholick in such Councils as a Guide and Lawgiver infallible in Fundamentals or at least whose judgment in all points is finally to be stood to so far as not to contradict it and his pronouncing Schismaticks to be no Catholicks argues that this Church Universal may be also narrower than Christianity is Add to this what he saith below p. 26. That by disbelieving any Fundamental Article or necessary part of saving Faith in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the Vniversal Church a man renders himself guilty of Heresie Here he declares one an Heretick not only in his disbelieving a necessary point of Faith but in disbelieving in in that sense wherein the Church Catholick hath alwaies believed it which sense in the former quotation he holds is to be received and learned from her Councils Again In his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon speaking of the Catholick Church in present Being he saith ‖ p. 279. I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the world doth believe and practise And afterward Though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgment I do farther profess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church in present bein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me and Ibid. in the Preface I submit saith he my self and my poor endeavours first to the judgment of the Catholick Oecumenical Essential Church And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorance which for my part I have no reason to suspect yet it is not impossible c. therefore Catholick doth not necessarily include all Sects professing Christianity I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit my self to the true Catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the pillar of Truth And after this he professeth That his adherence is firmer to the infallible Rule of Faith the holy Scriptures interpreted by this Catholick Church i. e. firmer to its interpretation than to his own private judgment So in his Reply to S. W. p. 43. We acknowledge saith he the Representative Church that is a General Council and the Essential Church that is the multitude or multitudes of Believers either of all ages which make the Symbolical Church or of this age which makes the present Catholick Church And Ib. We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present Age doth universally believe and practise ‖ See Schism guarded p. 398. Surely from these Protestations it followes * that he supposeth that such a Church there is in this present age that may deliver her judgment Else his promise to believe and to submit to it is utterly unsignificant and * that he holds this Church not errable in Fundamentals else her judgment in them could not by him be safely followed And if you would know also §. 35. n. 1. what present Body he understandeth by this present Catholick Church to which he will yield his submission and beliefe he tells the Bishop of Chalcedon ‖ p. 279. That it is not the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents but the Church of the whole world Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant which Churches i. e. Grecian c. are three times greater than the Roman is But if you think the present Church Catholick in this vast amplitude a Judge not likely to resolve his doubts He in the Preface to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon very conscientiously adds also I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so general as can be procured And in pursuance of the same Notion of General Schisme Guarded p. 350. he saith That the presence of the five Proto-Patriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their Suffrages or in case of necessity the greater part of them do make a General Council And That we may well hope that God who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his Name there will he be in the midst of them will vouchsafe to give his assistance and his blessing to such a Council which is as general as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly general as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe That he shall ever be ready to acquiesce in the Determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had so it may be equal c. Naming several conditions thereof Equal Votes of Christian Nations Absents sending their Suffrages The place free wither all parties may have secure access and liberty to propose freely and define freely yet consenting ‖ p. 352. That none declared Hereticks by former true General Councils be admitted to any vote in them and ‖ p. 401. that all those be held for excluded from the communion of the Catholick Church whom undoubted General Councils have excluded He addes yet further reflecting on Dr. Hammond's words ‖ Answ to Catho Gentl. 3 c. §. 1. That Oecumenical or General Councils are now morally impossible to be had The Christian world being under so many Empires and
many matters occurred not in condemning the Lutheran opinions where all did agree with an exquisite Unity And see him p. 324 326. Concerning the Fathers unanimous Votes of the 2. and 6. Canons of the 13. Sess touching Transubstantiation and Adoration See p. 799. 803 their General Agreement and Consent touching Purgatory Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images p. 544 554 738. ' Touching the Masse its being a propitiatory sacrifice c. p. 324 325 519. touching the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating only in one kind p. 348. Touching the necessity of Sacramental Confession for mortal sin p. 783 747 678 679. ' touching the lawfulness of the Vow of Continency an universal capacity of the Gift of Chastity and injunction of Priests Celibacy It were easie to add more The 3d that without such a testimony if any consider that the things defined §. 36. n. 10. of which here is question were most of them common practices then used by all these Prelates before they were assembled in Trent in their several Dioceses and so for many hundred years formerly and that the question in the Council to be decided was whether such practices lawful As for instance whether Communion only in one kind sufficient and lawful whether Adoration of Christs Body in the Eucharist as corporally present lawful whether offering the sacrifice of the Masse the Body and Blood of Christ corporally present for the living and the dead lawful whether a Relative-Veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the dead as betterable thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment be lawful I omit the speculative controversies concerning Justification Faith Works Merit Worke of supererogation Grace and Free-will Certainty of salvation Now by the Moderate as it were compounded and laid aside the Catholick-doctrine being of late better understood by the reformed Whether the three Monastick Vows as also the injunction of Celibacy to the Priest lawful whether Sacramental confession to the Priest by those falling into mortal sin after their regeneration not only lawful but necessary I say seeing that the question in the Council in opposition to the new Lutheran doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former Generations daily practised Protestants not denying it what need of force of new mandates from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of obedience to the Pope which is only of Canonical obedience ‖ See Bell. de Concil 1. l. 21. and this Oath administred at their Consecration without any relation to the Council to procure a prevalent Vote or that the Prelats should in the Council establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries as the Sacrifice of the Masse Adoration of Christs Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead in the sence above-named But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them But if it be said that though such things were generally believed and practised before yet now the Fathers by Art and violence were brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these points what faith required save that they are lawful beneficial c which lawfulness all those that practised them before who were the most if not all must also believe before or else practised them against Conscience and which Lawfulness Protestants denying had by this fallen under the condemnation of this Council had it voted nothing more or besides it Lastly What former Council had there been in the Church though never so free that for the matters called in question and decided in it had not in like manner required Assent from the Church's Subjects to their Definitions The 4th That though the Protestant Bishops trespassing in some points of their Reformation §. 36. n. 11. against former free Occidental Councils of which see below § 50. n. 2. therefore either upon the account of Heresie or of Schism forfeiting their Right needed not to be admitted into this Council yet had they been received and that not only to plead their cause but also to a decisive Vote in the Council yet the small number of them some Protestant Churches also having no Bishops had been inconsiderable in respect of the rest and so the determination of things would still have gone the same way And indeed they were admitted to plead their Cause both by a safe Conduct granted and when they came no violence offered But I cannot say on the other side that no violence was offered to the Council and that within three weeks after their coming by the very Princes that sent them who on a sudden appeared in Arms against the Emperor and by their near approach dispersed this Assembly at Trent after they had secretly withdrawn from thence their Divines But had their coming been serious and their stay longer what could they have said here that they had not formerly written and that the Council in these Writings had not perused Or by what Arts could they have disswaded as they desired ‖ Soave p. 642. this Venerable Assembly from taking for their Rule and Guides in the Exposition of Scriptures the Apostolical Traditions former Councils and Fathers by which they were cast Further Suppose all things had been regulated in this Council not by Personal Consent but by the Equal Votes of the Western Nations though this is contrary to the usual manner and never practised save only in two late Councils after Anno Dom. 1400. Constance and Basil and liable to many Inconveniences of which see Considerations on the Council of Trent § 72. yet if these Votes were truly adjusted and proportioned according to the several Magnitude of the Countries and the Multitude of the Bishops in them the Protestants also would by this way have been as much over-numbred and over-born which they well saw and therefore never motioned it ‖ But motioned this That after their party first allowed with the rest a decisive Vote Soave p. 642. yet the Decisions in the Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound Opinions should be preferred i. e. those Opinions that were regulated by the Word of God they are Soave's words ‖ Ibid. not mine And motioned yet a second thing ‖ Soave Ibid That if a Concord in Religion could not be concluded in the Council then the Conditions of Passau and Ausburge might remain inviolable Now these were a Toleration of all Sects that every one might follow what Religion pleased him best See Soave 378 393. And after this motioned a third ‖ See Soave p. 369. That the body of the whole Western Clergy being now divided into Plaintiffes the Protestant Clergy and Defendants the Catholick Clergy and it not
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
we hold it impossible the Church should ever by Apostacy Of Dr. Field and miss-belief wholly depart from God in proving whereof Bellarmine confesseth his Fellows have taken much needless pains seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing Bellarmin's words are Notandum multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere Nam Calvinus caeteri Haeretici id concedunt sed dicunt intelligi debere de Ecclesiâ invisibili So we hold that it never falleth into any Heresie So that he is as much to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant Bellarmin's words are Probare igitur volumus Ecclesiam visibilem non posse deficere nomine Ecclesiae non intelligimus unum aut alterum hominem Christianum sed multitudinem congregatam in quâ sunt Praelati Subditi urging also afterward out of Eph. 4.11 the Ministries of Pastors Doctors c. never to fail in the Church quae Ministeria saith he non possunt exerceri nisi se Pastores Oves agnoscant From all which I collect that of such a visible Church-Government consisting of Prelates and Subjects it must be that Dr. Field affirms Ibid. That in things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it can never be ignorant much less err nor never fall into any Heresie As also afterward c. 4. In all Ages he acknowledgeth a Church that not as a Chest preserves only the Truth as a hidden Treasure but as a Pillar by publick Profession notwithstanding all Forces endeavouring to shake it publisheth it to the world and stayeth the weakness of others c. CHAP. VI. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. § 41 IV. SUitably to their Concessions set down in the last Chapter these Learned Protestants do not assume the confidence to pronounce IV. 4. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never to have so erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church governed by them did not still remain True Holy Catholick The joint Body of the Governors of any precedent Age of the Church how corrupt soever they have been in their Conciliary Definitions to have erred or to have misled the people in Necessaries Essentials or Fundamentals of Religion whether in respect of Faith or Holiness notwithstanding that they have placed in these very times the Reign of Antichrist Whence it may be presumed that the Church shall not see nor suffer hereafter worse times than those past And that all these Governors in any succeeding Age shall not miss-guide the people in Necessaries or Fundamentals whom in the times of Antichrist they have not misled so Therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 8. Reply to Chalcedon p. 345. holds the present Roman a true part of the present Church Catholick and frequently affirms the Reformed as to Essentitials in Faith not to have separated from it And Dr. Potter speaks thus of the present Roman Church ‖ §. 3. p. 63. The most necessary and Fundamental Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that reason learned Protestants yield them the Roman the Naeme and Substance of a true Church Dr. Field also ‖ Des 3. pt p. 880. thus apologizeth for this Tenent at least for the times before Luther Because some men perhaps will think that we yield more unto our Adversaries now than formerly we did in that we acknowledge the Latine or Western Churches subject to Romish Tyranny before God raised up Luther to have been the true Churches of God in which a saving Profession of the Truth of Christ was found I will 1st shew that all our best and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written And so he proceeds to urge several Authorities to confirm it And thus Mr. Thorndike ‖ Epilog Conclusion p. 416. saith Though I sincerely blame the imposing new Articles upon the Faith of Christians and that of Positions § 42 which I maintain not to be true yet I must and do freely profess that I find no position necessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvation enjoined to be believed by it the Roman Church And therefore I must necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible Body by the succession of Pastors and Laws that first were founded by the Apostles the present Customes that are in force being visibly the corruptions of those Customs which the Church had from the beginning I suppose he means being the same Customs which the Church had from the beginning though in some manner corrupted For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the Ignorance and carnal Affections of Particulars not by command of the Church or the Laws of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the Communion of this Church are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the Profession of all the Truth which it is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of Faith or Manners So he saith concerning Prayer to Saints That those who admit the Church of Rome to commit Idolatry therein can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the Worship of one God exclusive to any thing else And l. 3. c. 23 Concerning Communion in one kind he saith That they in the Church of Rome who thirst after the Eucharist in both kinds do receive the whole Grace of this Sacrament in the one kind is necessary to be believed by all who believe that the Church of Rome remains a Church though corrupt and that Salvation is to be had in it and by it 2. Again For the Essentials or Necessary Doctrines in order to Holiness these learned Protestants grant § 43 that Holy is an Attribute unseparable from Catholick Credo Sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam And that the Church cannot be the one unless it be the other and as in the whole so in the parts that no particular Church is a part of the Catholick that hath not the Holiness of the Catholick Of which thus the Archbishop ‖ p. 14◠If we will keep our Faith the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that a falshood may be the Subject of the Catholick Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholick Church And if she be not still Holy
then at the time that she is not so we believe a falshood under the Article of the Christian Faith Of this more needs not be said § 44 3. Again If under such Governors the visible Church preceding the Reformation is allowed to have been Catholick and Holy from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical or Schismatical Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholick Church and all the Members of it and in which Churches dividing from the Vnity of the Catholick no salvation can be had by those who if either knowing or culpably ignorant of these sins of such a Church do not actually desert such a Communion For this likewise see the Quotations out of the Archbishop before § 367. and out of Dr. Field before § 40. Bellarmine saith he is to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. he saith That the name of Catholick Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismaticks whom as also Hereticks though he there affirms to be in some sort of the Church taken more generally as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels yet not of the Church Catholick or fully and perfectly of the Church with hope of Salvation ‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21 c. 7 p. 13. The Common Prayers also used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday shew the same Oremus saith the one pro Haereticis Schismaticis ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur Have Mercy Lord saith the other upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and so fetch them home to thy Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepherd But in the trans-ferring these Good Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book 't is observable that though the Reformed retained Hereticks yet they omitted Schismaticks and 2 ly changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam into Fetch home to thy Flock c. As if the mention of our Holy Mother the Catholick Apostolick Church might occasion in the people some Mistakes See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England c. 2. p. 9 27 28 before § 34. And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion ‖ 208. ' When we say we believe the Catholick Church as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved we do not profess to believe that there is such a company of men as professing Christianity but that there is a Corporation of true Christians excluding Hereticks and Schismaticks and that we hope to be saved by this faith as being members of it of that Corporation And this is that which the stile of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the Body of true Christians to wit so far as Profession goes from the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if Hereticks and Schismaticks were not barred the Communion of the Church Thus he § 45 In the former passages you may observe that the Authors fore-quoted speak not of some or other in the Church before Luther to have bin Catholick and consequently holy c. but of the visible Church consisting of the ruling Clergy and the subject and conforming Laity according to the publick doctrines and Definitions thereof as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholick either as to Faith or Holiness for such a Church Catholick they believe always to be whose doctrine and definitions discipline and external visible profession maintained by the Governors thereof is Catholick And if in any other sense we call it a Catholick-Church when we hold its Governours and Doctrines mean-while Heretical and Schismatical viz. by reason of some that may be found herein Catholickly perswaded we may as well call that an heretical Church the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholick if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected To go on Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far as to own the Western Church that was before Luther § 46 for the Protestants true Mother for indeed where could he find at that time a Church any whit better to call Mother and to confesse ‖ l. 3. c. 6. ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time And To those saith he that demand of us where our Church was before Luther began We answer it was the known and apparent Church in the world wherein all our Fathers lived and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized and ‖ 3 Part p. 880. wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found In order to which he so far justifies the publick service also of those dayes which our Fathers frequented even the Canon of the Mass it self as to say ‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. ' That the using therof no other was used in those days than is now is no proof that the Church that then was was not a Protestant Church and that both the Liturgie it self and the profession of such as used it shew plainly that the Church that then was never allowed any Romish errour And again so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church which he owns as Catholick and the Protestants Mother as to affirm ‖ 3 l. p. 81. That none of those points of false doctrine and errour which the Roman Church now maintaineth and the Protestants condemn were the doctrines of that Church before Luther constantly delivered He must mean constantly for the present Age before Luther for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholick or generally received by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution or factiously defended by some certain only c. It seems therefore that look how many Doctrines of those now condemned by Protestants may appear to have bin in the Church §. 47. n. 1. I say not here the Catholick but the Latin Church for of this he speaks before Luther not doubtfully broached but in her Councils resolved in her publick Liturgies conformed to and generally received Generally not as including every single person for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity or of Christs Incarnation received but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils for more than this cannot rationally be required so many he will acknowledge for Catholick and in obedience thereto shew a filial Duty to this his Mother And therefore after this to defend the discession of the Reformed from and their present non-communion with the present Western Church he seeks to relieve
himself in saying ‖ Apol. 3 par p. 880. Append 3 l. p. 187 224. That this Roman Church is not the same now as it was when Luther began Nor the external face of Religion then the now professed Roman Religion And further ‖ p. 880. That the errors of the present Roman Church are Fundamental Where it is observable 1st That the discession of Protestants in Luthers time or of Luther himself from that Church which was not the same as he saith then as now nor the Errors which Protestants now condemn then the doctrines of it but of a faction in it remains by this still culpable For none may desert the Communion of a Church because of the corrupt doctrines or practices of a faction in it But if he make the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governours of such Church imposing such doctrines and requiring unjust conditions of their Communion to be that Faction then the Doctrins and the Faction to be charged on the very Church it self and not on a party in it as a Church all the ruling Clergy of which holds and imposeth Arrianism is rightly stiled an Arrian Church if any can be so But this expression Dr. Field saw he had reason to forbear §. 47. n. 2. And therefore Bishop Bramhall ‖ Reply to Chalced. p. 263. thought fit to take another course and for the defence of the lawfulness of this first discession of Protestants which discession the Bishop of Chalcedon urged to have preceded those grievances and impediments of Communion that Protestants of later times chiefly complain of namely the many new Definitions and Anathema's of the Council of Trent and new Articles and Creeds of Pius the fourth seems to make a contrary plea to Dr. Field For those very points saith he which Pius the fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his Predecessors and therefore before the ratification or obliging authority of the Council of Trent as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary Articles of their Communion so as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the fourth dealt in gross his Predecessors by retail They fashioned the several rods and he bound them up into a bundle But if the Bishop understands this of the Council of Trent that sate under the Predecessors of Pius the Query still remains concerning the lawful Grounds of the first Protestant discession from the former Church which discession precedes the beginning of that Council above twenty years §. 47. n. 3. 2 ly It is observable that the discession made since from the former publick service of the Church and the Canon of the Masse affirmed by Dr. Field to contain in it no Romish Errors must be also culpable in which nothing since Luthers time hath been altered 3ly That the present Church of Rome in being said by him since that time to err in Fundamentals is hereby ceased to be any part of the Church Catholick and further no salvation to be had in her at all even to the invincibly ignorant if Dr. Field holds no truth to be fundamental to salvation but such without which salvation cannot possibly be had Concerning which see what he saith 3 l. 4 c. p. 79. CHAP. VII V. That according to the former Concession made in the precedent Chapter § 41. there seems to be * a great security to those continuing in the ancient Communion § 48. As to avoiding Heresie or Schism Ib. As to other grosser Errors § 51. And * danger to those deserting it § 54. Where is drawn up in brief the Protestant's Defence for such Discession § 55. n. 1. And the Catholick's Remonstrance § 55. n. 9. § 48 Now to reflect on the former Discourse as to the two Principal Concessions made by Protestants therein The 1st Their conceding the Catholickness The security that hence seems to be to those continuing in the ancient Communion and Indeficiency of the former Western Church as to all Necessaries before and at the coming of Luther ‖ §. 41 c. The 2d. Their conceding the general Councils of the Church in any age to be unerrable in Necessaries when they are universally accepted by the Church Catholick diffusive ‖ §. 32 c. From the first of these the Catholickness of the Roman Church before Luther in Necessaries As to Heresie or Schism being granted methinks appears a great secnrity for their salvation as to their Faith who are not deficient in a holy life to all those who persevere to live and die in the external Communion of the present Roman and other Western Churches unreformed and then the like hazard to those who relinquish that Communion For 1st I think it is clear that none who lived and died in the Faith I mean that declared in her Councils and in the Communion of the Western or Roman Church that was before Luther's Appearance could endanger his Salvation upon the account of his incurring either Heresie or Schism because then the Western or Roman Church before Luther must be held Heretical or Schismatical and so non-Catholick for these two Heretical and Catholick are contra-distinct See the Archbishop § 21. n. 5. p. 141. and what is said before § 44. And then seeing there was an Holy Catholick Church some where or other in that immediately before Luther as in every Age which and where was it The Eastern Churches using much-what the same publick Liturgy and being guilty of as gross Errors and Practises and also they excluding Non-Conformists from their Communion § 49 Add to this Mr. Stillingfleet's Position ‖ Rat. account p. 58. That if we enquire what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholick Church we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the ancient Creeds and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its first appearing and the condemning the Broachers of it for Heresie in Oecumenical Councils with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages As is clear in the Cases of Arrius and Pelagius For it seems very reasonable saith he to judge that since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church since the foundation of that Church lies in the belief of those things which are necessary that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith but the Church by some evident Act must declare its dislike of it and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints Thus he From which thought so reasonable is gathered the security in adhering to those Tenents received in the Church before Luther which Protestants now oppose as being not contrary to any necessary Article of Faith delivered by the Apostles to the Catholick Church because Protestants cannot shew to repeat here the former words the
Protestants defence and reformation is this 1st That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith common to them with the rest of the Church Catholick the Holy Scriptures and besides these a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed and explicated by the first three Ages i. e. the writings we have thereof and the first four-General Councils And that in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule they rest secure of believing all that is necessary for salvation and likewise of their retaining a firm-Communion as to the essentials of Faith with the whole Catholick Church and even with that of Rome 2ly That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholick but not the whole Catholick Church one part only of the Catholick Church as also the Church of England is another 3ly That this Roman or any other part of the Church Catholick may err whilst it still remains a part of the Catholick in non-fundamentals or non-essentials and necessaries 4 ly That this part did err in such non-fundamentals and that grievously and that the Protestants or Church of England discovered these to be such grievous errors by the light of Scripture and testimony of Antiquity 5 ly That this Roman Church added this also to her erring that she exercised an unlawful dominion or jurisdiction over the Church of England and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors upon pain of losing her Communion 6 ly That the Church of England refused such assent to what by clear Scripture she had discovered to be Errors as in conscience she was bound though these had bin never so small ones nay though some of them were no Errors yet if she were perswaded they were so how much more when so great 7 ly Proceeded after mature consideration to reform these Errors but in her self only not imposing them upon or condemning by reason of them any other Church for non-Catholick 8 ly Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Romane Church that she left a part only and not the whole Catholick Church yet that were it supposed to have bin the whole or their departure to have bin from the whole also as well as from it that the whole though granted in Fundamentals infallible yet may err in non-fundamentals or non-essentially necessaries and that grievously and consequently if it should require assent from its members to such points in which it is fallible that they ought not to assent thereto nor to conceal if of consequence when they any way discover such Error nay further also that if the General Church neglect it they may and ought for themselves to reform such Error But this Plea seems easily overthrown §. 55. n. 2. in many of its particulars by this following Remonstrance made by the other side And of the Catholicks Remonstrance 1 To the first It is replied 1 That there is a faith of Agends or Practicals concerning what is lawful and unlawful and what is our duty to do or forbear as well as of speculative credends which faith is necessary and fundamental for attaining salvation and in which practical points also may be and have bin Heresies and Schisms I say the faith of them necessary because the practice of them is so which must be grounded on this faith that they are lawful or ought to be practised 2 That these points are of a much larger extent then the speculatives and that of these we have no Collection or Summary drawn up by the Apostles as we have of the other 3 That as these Protestants say they do not for the speculative Credends rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed or any private sence of Scriptures but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils and do place the security of their Faith in them not on their own judgment but on their conformity to the judgment of these Councils so it is all reason that for the practicalls also they should rely on the Scriptures only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils 4 That for both these speculatives or practicals as they do or ought to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils so * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone but do owe it also to any Councils of the Church following in any age whatsoever provided that these be of equal authority To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith either in speculatives or practicals as new Heresies did after three ot four hundred years time to the Explications made by those first Councils and * that for the speculative Articles of the Apostles Creed particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils after the four first and these too Western Councils only when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them and that as the Greeks say upon not a verbal but real diversity in their faith concerning this procession yet it seems the Protestants here preferr'd and thought fit to adhere rather to the authority of the Western Churches From all which it follows that if the Protestants dissent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age in either of these speculative or practical Articles of their faith that are necessary of which necessity it is fit also the Council not they should judge they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith so as no way to have fallen from it into Heresie or Schism no more then they will acknowledge Arrians and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils And thus is the Protestants security of their faith if any way built or dependent on the first Councils so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils of what Ages soever in all their Definitions Again 6 since Schismaticks I mean those that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiours by whom in a line of subordination they are joyned to the Head as well as Hereticks are no members of the Catholick Church and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion but may arise upon smaller matters and occasions ‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond Schism 3 c. 3. and §. 9. §. 55. n. 3. any wherein obedience is due and the lesser the occasion of it the more criminal many times the Schism therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence that becaus they agree with the whole Catholick Church in the Essentials of faith hence they do still remain in its Communion This said to the first 2 ly To what follows it
that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed i. e. that she may require our Assent and Belief of all things by the device of her proposing them as necessary § 9 6 ly When the Church-Guides are said to be infallible in Necessaries Prop. 6. Catholicks contend That Necessaries * ought not to be taken here in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all men explicitly believed as that Salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them which are thought by the Learned to be only some few Articles of the Apostles Creed Of which see Dr. Potter § 7. p. 242. c. But * ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least * all such Points as are so requisite and beneficial to Salvation as that there is some danger of a miscarriage therein either in respect of Faith or Manners either to Particulars or to the whole Society either to all or at least to some persons and conditions of men by the ignorance or disbelief of them * all such Points as corroborate Fundamentals by their near connexion to them or as serve to repel the malignant Influence of some Error that either directly or by some consequence at least undermines and corrupts or to use the Archbishop's words ‖ § 35. n 5.6 grates upon or miss-expounds some Fundamental either in the Christian Faith or Manners § 10 The Reason 1st Because our Saviour's promised assistance of his Church is not expresly limited to Necessaries in the first sence by any of those Texts that mention it nor can upon any account of the superfluousness or non-necessity of such assistance be denied to the Church in respect of the second where-ever any Error in such points though they be not Principles or Fundamentals but Deductions and Superstructions appears to be gross dangerous damnable blasphemous idololatrical grating the Foundation which sort of Errors Protestants grant there may be in non-fundamentals and by them are such Errors charged upon the Church of Rome ‖ Arch-bishop Lawd § â—7 n 5.6 Art of Rel. 31. Chill p. 119 but it seems unsutable to our Lord's Love and everlasting protection of his dearest Spouse that they should be also incident to the Church Catholick or its supreme Guides 2 ly Because the Practice of the generally-allowed Primitive Councils defining and under Anathema imposing the belief of many several points of Faith which fall not under the first notion of Necessaries doth shew that Church-tradition hath always understood Christ's Promises made to the Church as extending to Necessaries in the second acception Neither will infallible assistance in necessaries as they are taken in the first sense extend to the Church-definitions made in the points delivered in the Athanasian Creed which points yet the Church hath defined as necessary and infallible Again since it is affirmed by Protestants that a Lawful General Council 〈◊〉 Stillingf p. 330. accepted by the whole Catholick Church diffusive may err in non-necessaries for so say they may the whole Catholick Church dissusive err ‖ See Arch-bishop Lawd p 139 140 141. if then the Church-definitions found in the Athanasian Creed are also to be reckoned such i. e. non-necessaries upon what account can Protestants firmly believe them for true except so many as are able to demonstrate them out of the Scripture seeing they are deprived of any confidence of the Church's not erring therein as being points reckoned non-necessaries And the Promises thus restrained to Necessaries of the first kind what an hurtful liberty is there left to all Sects to question the Church's Infallibility in many principal Articles of her faith as for example to the Socianians to question it in the point of Consubstantiality under this pretence of the Churches possibility of erring in non-necessaries 3 ly Because I see not how the title of Holy continued for ever to the Church-Catholick by the Promise of our Lord can consist with all those errors that yet do oppugne Necessaries only as taken in the second not first notion called gross dangerous damnable blasphemous if as these are imputed promises to the Catholick If her doctrines and consequently practice be somtimes damnable blasphemous c. how She always Holy Because by the same divine assistance the Catholick Church is affirmed by Protestants never to fall into Heresie which thing also infers a divine assistance thereof beyond Necessaries in the first notion unless they will affirm the contradictories of several of the Church-definitions that are delivered in the Athanasian Creed or the first allowed G. Councils not to be heresies § 11 5 ly Because One reason which Protestants give why our Lords Promise of these Guides non-erring is to be restrained only to some and not enlarged to all Truths is * because they are by and unnecessary Truths to which her curiosity or weaknesse may carry her beyond her Rule c. ‖ Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 141. * because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith * because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtilties for which the Promise was not made * because Deus non abundâ—t in superfluis ‖ Dr. Poâ—ter p. 5. p. 150 c As natare so God is not lavish in superfluities therefore what points though not Necessaries in the first kind yet are as far removed from superfluous or curiosities and are though not absolutely yet very necessary still thus far in these we may suppose our Lords assistance continued to his Church and preserving her from failing in them ‖ A second reason which Protestants also give why the Church cannot err in fundamentals is the perspicuity of Scriptures in these Points This power of not erring saith the Arch-bishop ‖ p. 140. is in the Church partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the watter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to salvation But doubtless many more points there are as plainly delivered in Scripture as those Necessaries of the first rank and therefore no reason to confine her un-erring verdict only to these And if more points then the primary fundamentals were not clear in Scripture how come Protestants in several of them on this account of their clearnesse in Scriptures to oppose and contradict the Supreme Guides of the Church 7ly Concerning the Church-Governours their exact distinguishing of Fundamentals § 12 or Necessaries from non-Necessaries 1st There setms no
from being in some of the fore-named respects necessary especially when he must do this against better Judgments whilst these Guides consulted about any particular decrees of theirs will never professe or grant to him to have passed it but as thought in respect of some times places or persons Christian-faith or manners edification of particulars or Government of the Church necessary This concerning the reasonablenesse of believing in all points those who are infallible in all Necessaries § 17 4ly Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled by the divine assistance so far as to distinguish exactly Necessaries 4. from non-Necessaries in all points so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions or proposals Yet it seems rationally concluded That they are always so far divinely assisted not only in their decisions not to err in Necessaries but also in their judgment to discern and distinguish them from others not necessary to be so much pressed and in their diligence to propose them as that they shall never fail in the discerning or proposing in their Creeds Catechisms and other publike teaching all more absolute necessaries or all points requisite to be explicitly believed for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known or to all taught never fail in proposing these I say so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church even the unlearned as that none can be ignorant thereof without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal which is in all times made by the Church § 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries is Because it seems most just and is on all sides accorded that all Necessaries wherein an explicite faith is required of all Christians should be to them by some means or other sufficiently proposed And then the dispute concerning this sufficient Proponent lying between the Scriptures and the Church for what other external Proponent can be devised of these two as to several of these Points the latter must be it 1st Because experience shews the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides ‖ Stillingf p. 58 59. So that tho' it be true which Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 18. 160 â—6 That he who believes all that is Scripture believes all Necessaries yet so it is that in many places of Scripture and that about points thought necessary when variously interpreted many unlearned especially know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places and thus fail in the explicit belief * of some part of Scrirture and so perhaps * of some Necessaries in it 2ly Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people belonged to the Church-Guides to Timothy Titus and others Nor seems their authority by the writing of the Christian faith diminished by which Writings also they are still more enabled compleatly to perform their former duty 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us in controversies and in learning our faith to the direction of these Guides See § 3. 4ly Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith cannot have this from Writings but must receive it from their Guides and Pastors as also they did in all those times before Christ when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned or also before any of them were penned § 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgments to these present guides in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith Prop. 8. according to the fifth Proposition preceding ‖ See §. 6. it seems reasonable that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters that are pretended any way ambiguous and so cannot end the Controversie made about their sense whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures or Fathers or former Councils of the Church And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal and Obligatory So that the ultimate determination of doubts * concerning all former Determinations and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith as well as * concerning new questions when Controversie is raised in them ought to be referred to these present Judges and their determinations hereupon so far as we can have them to be peaceably acquiesced in For if we ought to receive all that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith we ought also and may as securely credit them when declaring what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors § 20 9ly Protestants also agree that though these Guides may erre in some Points not necessary yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence and by no means to contradict them Prop. 9. or as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further ought to submit their Judgments also and yield their Assent to them even in those Definitions wherein these Guides are liable to Error whenever not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions so much is thought unreasonably exacted but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary In this matter thus Dr. Jackson in stating the Question whether the Injunction of publick Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion or action ‖ On the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. It is most evident saith he ‖ Ibid. c. 6. from the former places alledged ‖ Eph 4.11 Heb. 13.17 Luk. 10.16 Ioh. 20.23 Ib. concerning the Commission of Priests and Ministers that the lawful Pastor or Spiritual Overseer hath as absolute authority to demand Belief or Obedience in Christ's as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience in the State or Prince's Name And Our Disobedience i. e. Dissent or non-submission of Judgme is unwarrantable unlesse we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express Law of the most High Every Doubt or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's Law is not sufficient to deny Obedience Again We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what Obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever shews the express undoubted Command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them And so the donation of spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer Titles This he this others ‖
extare unde ea quatenus omnino ad salutem est necessarium cognosci indubitatò possit At nihil tale extare praeter sacras literas Nam si dicas Ecclesiam esse unde ea cognitio semper peti possit primum statuendum tibi erit Deum etiam decrevisse ut Ecclesia vera falsa enim ad eam rem inepta est semper usque ad mundi finem extet Sed ut Ecclesia vera extet à quâ omnes salutaris vâ—ritâ—tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant requiritur ut homines complures coetum aliquem qui in omnium â—oulos incurrat constituant At non est quod quis certam aliquam Ecclesiam hoc privilegio a Deo donatam esse contendat ut fide excidere nequeat Deinde non posse Ecclesiam veram certo cognosci nisi prius cognoscatur quae sit salutaris Christi doctrina praeterea indipsum saltem debuisse alicubi in sacris literis clarè ac perspicuè scriptum extaâ—e debere ab Ecclesia peti omnia quae ad salutem scitu sunt necessaria quaenam ea sit Ecclesia ac unde debeat cognosci clare describi ne quis in câ cognoscenda facile errare posset Nam si quippiam scriptu fuisset necessarium hoc sane fuisset sine quo reliqua omnia quae cripta sunt nihil aut parum admodum prodessent Denique eam Ecclesiam quam isti Pontificii perpetuo extitisse volunt constare multis in rebus atque adeo in iis quoquâ— quâ— ad salutem sunt necessariae gravissime errare Things usually pleaded by Mr. Chillingw and his followers but whether borrowed from these I can say nothing ‖ See below § 47. n. Thus the Socinians lay the platform of their Religion and when the Protestants for confuting their errour urge Fathers and Church-authority against them they reply That they have learnt this from them to receive nothing besides Scripture and to neglect the Fathers ‖ See Simlerus de Filio Dei S. Spiritu Prafat Mean-while Appeals of the Fathers in Controversies of Religion to the trial of the Holy Scriptures I acknowledge frequent and that also somtimes waving Church-authority ‖ See S. Austin contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. but never made in opposition to it former or present Their great humility which also kept them Orthodox hindred them from presuming this and had any of them done it posterity would not have stiled him a Father The second thing is §. 40. n. 2. that as to the sufficiency or intirenesse of the Scriptures 2 for the containing all those points of faith that are simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining salvation Roman Catholicks deny it not but only deny such a clearness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake or pervert Catholicks contend indeed that there are several things necessary to be believed by Christians according as the Church out of Apostolical Tradition hath or shall declare and propose them as touching the Government of the Church several Functions of the Clergy Administration of the Sacraments and some other sacred Ceremonies and particularly concerning the Canon of the Scriptures which are not contained in the Scriptures at least as to the clear mention therein of all those appertinents which yet have bin ever observed in the Church And touching the obligation of believing and due observing of several of these Traditions as descending from the Apostles learned Protestants also agree with them ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Dr. Tailor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant 1647. p. 9. and in particular concerning the believing of the Canon of Scripture though it be a thing not contained in Scripture See Mr. Chillingworths Concession p. 55. ‖ See also p. 114 where he saith That when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them that presuppose it divine and a Rule of faith as Papists and Protestants do containes all the material objects of faith is a compleat and total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule Where in saying all material objects of faith he means only all other after these he names presupposed and pre-believed But though I say Catholicks maintain several Credends that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed and observed by Christians after the Churches Proposal of them as Tradition Apostolical amongst which the Canon of Scripture Yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salvation and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto either raâ—ione medii or pracepti as the doctrines collected in the three Creeds the common Precepts of manners and of the more necessary Sacraments c. are contained in the Scriptures contained therein either in the Conclusion it self or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced ‖ Bellarmin de verbo Dei non scripto lib 4. cap. 11. Illa omnia scippta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem Stapleton Relect Princip Doctrinae fidei Controver 5. q. 5. art 1 Doctrinam fidei ab omnibus fingulis explicitè credendam omnem aut ferè omnem scripto commendarunt Apostoli The main and substantial Points of our faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White pag 12. are believed to be â—postolical because they are written in cripture S. Thom 22. q. 1. art 9. primus ad primum art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means câ—pâ—a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata sed quia pervesi homines Scripturas peâ—vertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proceâ—encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores Therefore the Church from time to time defining any thing concerning such points defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture And the chief Tradition the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sence and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures but many times not there written so clearly which traditive sence of the Church you may find made use of against Arianisme in the first Council of Nice ‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1 c. 8. Or
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
separation at all This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable or causeless separation § 57 Again some of them there are who straiten Schism yet farther ‖ See Stillingf p. 331.357.359 251 290. compar p. 54.56 Whitby p. 424. and making it a separation only from other Christians or Churches in such things wherein it is absolutely necessary to be united with them which is thus far true then state this necâ—ssary union to consist only in the belief of those Fundamental Articles of Faith or Doctrine which are absolutely necessary to Salvation or essential to the being of a Church § 58 Where they hold it not Schism to separate from all particular Churches of the present age for a Doctrine universally held and imposed as a condition of their Communion because they say an error may be so imposed But only Schism to separate from the Primitive and Vniversal Church for Doctrine 1 st That can be made appear to have been Catholick and universally received in the manner expressed before § 52. by the Church of all ages successively from the Apostles to the time of such separation And 2 ly That can also be proved a Doctrine necessary to Salvation and essential to the being of a Church * For the first of these Mr. Stillingfleets words ‖ P. 371. to this purpose in answer to the unlawfulness of reforming former Catholick Doctrines are It is not enough saith he to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles time not to say that A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so But that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then saith he we shall more easily believe you And p. 357. he saith That we are not to measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an age And * for the 2 d. In the 2 d. Part c. 2. proving Protestants not guilty of Schism p. 331. he saith Whoso separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches any or all as to such things which concern not their being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches not the Catholick And therefore saith he supposing that all particular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all for such errors but what if for some truth though this not Fundamental I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches And p. 358. No Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in something necessary to the being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true Member of the Catholick Church This is freely granted But what are these Essentials to the being of the Church-Catholick p. 357. he saith That the Communion of the Church-Catholick lies open to all such who own the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith And p. 251. he saith All that is meant by saying that the present Church he means Catholick is infallible in Fundamentals is that there shall always be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church Well But what are these necessaries or Fundamentals of the Christian Faith that we may know how long a person or Church retaineth the Communion of the Catholick See then concerning this p. 53. 54 55. These are such points saith he as are required by God as necessary to be explicitly believed by all in order to attain salvation And which are they p. 56. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all ages And afterward What hath been admitted into the ancient Creeds Here then I take his Tenent to be That no more is necessary to render any person or Church free from Schism and a true Member of the Catholick Church and continuing in its Communion than the true belief of all Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary to be believed for attaining Salvation § 59 But here also 1 st These leave us uncertain how particularly to know and distinguish these Fundamentals and Essentials wherein only is Schism from other points that are not so or they do infold them all within the compass of the Creeds where also they contend that they must not be extended to all the Articles thereof whence it will follow that one departing from the Churches Communion for requiring his assent as a condition thereof in respect of some of these Articles yet will be no Schismatick as they state Schism Nor none a Schismatick that is not even in a Fundamental an Heretick Again since several Doctrines there are that are delivered by all former ages which yet are not Fundamental or Essential to Salvation or to the being of a Church thus the separating from all particular Churches or from our spiritual Superiours for any doctrine taken for such will not be Schism So one that separates from the Communion of his Superiors for their requiring his assent and conformity to the Episcopal Government of the Church though he is a Schismatick in Dr. Hammonds account ‖ Schism p. 163. yet must be none in Mr. Stillingfleets unless he will make Espiscopacy essential to the being of a Church concerning which I refer you to his Irenicum and so pronounce the Presbyterian and Transmarine reformed Congregations no Churches of Christ The same may be said of any separating from the external Communion of his Superiors requiring of him consent and conformity to the Definitions of the first four allowed General Councils and the constitutions of the universal Church of the first and purest Ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises which separation is by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schim p. 156. 160. declared Schism but cannot be so upon Mr. Stillingfleets theses unless all these will be maintained by him Fundamentals and Essentials to the being of the Catholick Church I mean as to faith necessary for her attaining Salvation Lastly Mr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ P. 356. a Church enjoyning some dangerons errors as
necessary conditions of her Communion upon Excommunication to those who do not submit by this becomes divided from the Communion of the Church-Catholick but then it is so without its denying any Fundamental point of Faith its crimes only being the imposing of some Non-fundamental errors to be believed upon pain of Excommunication 2 ly By their restriction of Catholick Doctrines to those only which can be made appear to have been so received §. 60. n. 1. not only by the Catholick Church of the present but also of all former ages from the Apostles they may separate from a lawful General Council of the present age universally accepted without any guilt of Schism or opposing by this any Catholick Doctrine in their sence unless they will say such Councils can define or the present age universally accept no Doctrine but what hath been the explicite Faith of all former ages And by such restriction they seem to require most unequal conditions of their obedience and conformity to the present Church-Catholick when they will allow a necessity of such conformity to no Doctrine of hers upon any cheaper terms than the producing a written evidence and that I suppose they mean not of some principles thereof but of the Conclusion it self for it in all ages for 1600 years A large field chosen wherein to continue the dispute Now all Church-Tradition is not necessarily written all former writings not necessarily descending to the present age and so many Doctrines may be universal that cannot be made appear in the Church-Records of every age to be so and it seems enough to infer the obedience of Inferiours if the Inferiours cannot shew in the former Church-Records the contrary doctrine held in any age to that maintained in the present 3 ly If the Catholick Doctrine of the present age be in a matter necessary §. 60. n. 2. the Church of the present age must be unerrable in it and its Testimony sufficient to enforce a conformity upon pain of Schism without farther search into former ages For the Catholick Church of every age is unerring in necessaries If in some matter not necessary the testimony of the Church of all ages excepting the Apostles only with them is not sufficient which as they say may mistake in it and therefore the retiring to these former ages will not be sufficient to prove it a Truth or a departure from it Schism But if they say in the testimony of former ages they include the testimony of the Apostles also then that alone will be sufficient to authorize a Catholick Doctrine without the Churches witness given thereto in any age or without that the Church's witness is nothing worth and then why press they this universal Testimony of the Church 4. But lastly §. 60. n. 3. this their affirming the Constitution and Essence of the Catholick Church to be only a right belief in Fundamentals and allowing the Communion of this Church and a security from Schism to all such persons and Churches as are in these Fundamentals no way deficient is very faulty and contrary to the ordinary notion which both the ancient Fathers and Learned Protestants have of the Catholick Communion and of Schism It is true that as the Catholick Church is a company of right Believers as to Faith absolutely required for attaining Salvation no more is necessary to its constitution or being than the Faith only of some points which for this reason are called Fundamentals but as it is also One Society or Body wherein the several Members are united in the Bond of Peace under lawful Pastors and Guides and subjected to certain Laws of Government and Discipline So many more things both in respect of the Plenitude of Faith and Sanctity of Manners according to the divine Revelations and Commands made known by these his Ministers are necessary to the Being and Constitution thereof all which being put any particular Person or Church is a true Member of the Church-Catholick But any of them wanting though the rest be present it ceaseth to be Catholick And such a Church-Catholick is affirmed to be always extant not only as shall believe aright in all Fundamentals but the Members of which shall always be united also in all other points of Faith and practice of holiness conducing to Salvation and the subjects therein obedient to their Superiors in all their lawful decrees and injunctions So that a person or Church most fully Orthodox as to all Fundamental Faith yet may want some Essentials of Unity necessary to the being a Member of the Catholick Church if such person or Church shall divide from the Communion thereof for any lawful Definition made or practice enjoyned by his Superiors even in Non-fundamentals So the Novatian and Donatist-Churches perfectly agreeing with the Catholick as to all Fundamental Faith yet became non-Catholick and Schismaticks for relinquishing the Communion of the whole in opposition to some matters not Fundamental when once defined and stated by it the one for the reception into the Church of great sinners after Baptism penitent the other for non-rebaptizing of Hereticks converted Therefore of these later S. Austine saith ‖ Ep. 48. Nobiscum estis in baptismo in Symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis In spiritu autem unitatis in vinculo pacis in ipsâ denique Catholicâ Ecclesiâ nobiscum non estis In Symbolo Sacramentis they agreed but yet not in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ because not in Spiritu unitatis Vinculo pacis i. e. not in a due subordination and subjection as to some other universal decrees of their Mother the Catholick Church in which they were Heretical and Schismatical of which see before § 18. To the compleat Being and Essence of the Church qua Catholick then there is required not only that there be unafides but unum corpus Eph. 4.4 5. under subordinate Governors verse 11. not only unitas in Symbolo Sacramentis but it in vinculo patis as it extends to all obedience and subjection of Inferiours to their Superiours of the parts to the Laws and constitutions of the whole for want of which later the Donatists Orthodox as to all Fundamentals yet are said not to be in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ And these other necessary properties of a true Member of the Church-Catholick §. 60. n. 4. besides that of a right belief in Fundamentals are freely also confessed by learned Protestants which thus Dr. Field ‖ L. 2. c. 2. This intire profession of the truth revealed in Christ though it distinguish right Believers from Hereticks yet it is not proper quarto modo to the happy number and blessed company of Catholick Christians because Schismaticks may and sometimes do hold an intire profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ And afterwards The notes saith he that perpetually distinguish the true Catholick Church from all other Societies of men and professions of Religions in the world are these First The entire Profession of those
or teacheth none of these Articles so he do not teach or profess the contrary but spend his discourses on other subjects See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before § 84. n. 3. concerning the Arch-bishop Obs 2 2 ly Concerning those other Articles of which it is said that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith but only negations §. 85. n. 2. and refurations of new Roman assertions and additions You may note concerning them 1 st In General that Negatives may be Scripture-truths revealed therein matter of our Faith and as necessary to be believed as Bishop Bramhall granteth ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. when known to be revealed as any affirmative and possitive Articles are and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively as affirmatively proposed and seeing that the one necessarily implies and inferrs the other as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation so is the other So the negative Articles in the Nicen or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus a nullo genitus non tres â—atres Filius non factus Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem aut confusione Substantiarum are Articles of as necessary belief as the positives and indeed the same with them the same with Pater unus Pater eternus Filius genitus Filius ex duabus naturis consistens And they as much Hereticks that affirm any of these negatives as that deny the affirmative 2 ly Concerning the Negatives in the 39. Articles of the Church of England if they be well considered you may find that they are both in the Articles pretended to be Scripture and revealed truths and that all or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives and as new and positive on the one side as the Roman Articles which they contradict are pretended on the other and the Protestants Confession of Faith supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives as large and as particular on the one side as the Roman or Tridentine is on the other as to the maine Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches and these not only privatively but positively opposite For no difference can be made in the thing but only in the expression between a negative and positive Article where the negative implies and is equivalent to the affirmative of its contrary as it is where the contraries are immediate and the one of them is necessarily put wherever the other denied As God being granted a substance He that denies him to be a corporeal substance in this he affirmes him to be a Spiritual and so those that deny here something which others affirme in this must needs affirme somthing which the others deny and the negative may be as we please changed into another positive and he who had before the positive shall have now the negative side He that denies any Soules after this life to go into any temporal purgatory affirms them to go into Bliss or Pain Eternal and he that affirms Purgatory denies this So he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist affirmes the Substance of the Symboles to remain there and so e contra Hence he that hath 39. Articles of his Faith whereof 30. are in the expression negative 9. positive hath in matters wherein the one contrary being excluded the other is admitted as it is in most of these Articles of Religion that are in debate no fewer positive Articles of his Faith than he who hath 39. expresly positive and again he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39. Negative also and e contra only a negative confession argues a former contest And as Faith so Heresie is conversant in either And here also note that it is one thing for a Church meerly to exclude from or omit in her Articles or confessions of Faith those points which another Church defineth i. e not to tye her Subjects to believe them and another thing to tye her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them or not to believe them Which is indeed a defining one way as much as the other Church doth the other way For Example 'T is one thing not to tye her subjects to believe or hold the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Images Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. and another thing to tye her subjects to believe or hold that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory c. are vainly invented or grounded on no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned in her not leaving points in Universals only and their former indifferency but new-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation c. than the Reformed for their new-stating the contrary to these Which to make more perspicuous §. 85. n. 3. It is to be noted that of those who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm lesâ— and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith than some others do there are two sorts 1. Either such as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals which the other affirm 2. Or such as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals neither affirming nor denying them for truths only denying that the others as yet do prove or evidence them to be so Now though it may be said of these later that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith or new definitions as the other do and so also that they seem much more safe and modest in the paucity of their Credends because they who neither affirm nor deny a Tenent cannot err in it yet the former who deny as far and as peremptorily every new point as the other affirm it these can free themselves from no curiosity tyranny liableness to errour c. wherein they pretend the other to transgress nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine viz. in their not erring because not determining but do ingage every whit as far in such points as their adversaries do one in holding and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth the other in holding and endeavouring to prove it an error And this is the case of the Church of England which suspends not her judgment in those new points which the Roman defines nor denies them onely to be proved or clear in the Scripture but denies them as Errors and things contrary to Scripture So Purgatory Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints Indulgences are declared repugnant to Gods Word Art 22. Works of Supereorgation Art 14. Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People Art 24. Denying of the Cup to the People Art 30. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation for Example to be contrary to Scripture makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture and so to be also a point of his Faith if Scripture be so and hence the
English Church in obliging her Subjects to believe these points Errors which the Roman Church doth hers to believe Truths hath in his as large a Creed as the other if the other hath Twelve new Articles so in her stating the contrary to them hath she and is equally tyrannical or more because the Articles of the other are the elder of the two the Subjects of the one having no liberty left to affirm them as of the other to deny them For Example A Subject of the Church of England supposing him obliged to believe her Articles true hath no more liberty left to hold Transubstantiation a Truth than a Romanist hath to hold it an Error Or to instance in the implyed affirmative that is maintained in opposition to Transubstantiation on the Church of Englands side a Subject of this Church hath no more liberty left to hold the remaining of the Substance of the Symbols in the Eucharist an Error than those of the Roman have to hold it a Truth This of the first sort those who as peremptorily deny a thing as the others affirm it But next you may observe that neither are the later sort who suspend their judgment because such point seems not proved to them in this always the most secure and safe If the proposers to them of that point be such persons as they are commanded to believe unless themselves can prove the contrary to it which is the case of all those who have Spiritual Superiors and if the knowledge of such a Truth be any way profitable to their Salvation which Truths I suppose these Superiors never define without foreseeing First such Doctrines defined beneficial to be known This from § 85. n. 2. is my 2d. Observation concerning the Church of Englands negative Articles 3ly You may observe §. 85. n. 4. that when these Protestant Writers say Obs 3 that these 39 Articles that is the most of them or the negatives see Observation 1. ‖ §. 85. n. 1. are not made by them Articles of their Faith they explain themselves to mean not made fundamental Articles of their Faith or such the belief of which is necessary ratione medii for attaining salvation and such as extra quas creditas non est salus ‖ § 84. n. 1. they meanwhile not denying that whatever is Scripture and a revealed Divine Truth is an Article of our Faith i. e. as Bp. Bramhall Necessary to be believed and assented to by us when it is known to be revealed Now as they do not make the most of their 39 Articles the rule or articles of their Faith in the forenamed sense so neither doth the Roman Church or Council of Trent her Canons whatever Protestants tell the World so often to the contrary Fundamental indeed they call sometimes all points defined by the Churches Councils and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary or absolutely extra quas creditas non est salus but onely necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them to any person that they have been so defined Again necessarily to be believed also for attaining Salvation not because that no person can be saved and that after the Churches definition of them in his not believing them But because if after such proposal and sufficient notice given him of their being defined he believe them not he now stands guilty in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual Guides of a mortal sin unrepented of destructive of his Salvation A thing spoken plainly enough by the answerer of the Archbishops Book §. 85. n. 5. and yet misrepresented by the Replier ‖ p 48 49. who imposeth these propositions as maintained by the Roman Church That what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter i. e. necessary ratione medii And that an equal explicit faith is required to the definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them Whenas he might easily have informed himself that there is not an equal necessity required by the Roman Church of the very Articles of the Creed in order to Salvation and whenas not onely this one condition of the Churche's having defined them for none are obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatsoever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal to us of what the Church hath defined renders her Definitions necessary to be believed and then necessary to be believed indeed as to the doing of our duty in order to our Salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as if the knowledg of them were so necessary to our Salvation as that without this it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is Neither is the Greek Church one ground of this authors mistake by F. Fisher or others of the Roman Church charged as guilty of Heresie in any other manner save this that supposing a lawful General Council accepted by the Church Catholick to have defined The procession of the H. Ghost à Filio so many of the Greek Church as have received a sufficient proposal that such a Council hath so defined it if they continue to deny or disbelieve it are guilty of Heresie leaving the rest free unless it can be proved that à Filio is a Fundamental in the other sense i. e. ratione medii free I say so many amongst them as happen to be either by natural defect and incapacity or external want of instruction invincibly and inculpably ignorant either of the just authority of such a Council or of its Divinely assisted inerrability in all necessaries or of such its Decree or of the true sense thereof which persons indeed by reason of the evidence of all these things cannot be the most or the learned but yet may be some for all in an Heretical Church are not affirmed Hereticks though the Churches censures according to the reasonable grounds of conviction concerning any such point generally published are passed upon all that are involved in such a Society whilst God who knows all capacities absolves from them whom he seeth innocent and preserves his Wheat from the fire though by the Church bound in the same bundle with the Tares As for the other ground of the Replyers mistake ‖ Stillin p 48. That famous passage of Pius Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam c. he might have learn'd to have made a more moderate and qualified construction of it from his own descant on the like clause in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque c. where he ‖ p. 70 71. could well discover a conditional necessity as to some of the Articles thereof viz. A necessity
vanish those fancies ◠Of every General Council's receiving a Commission to make its meeting authentick from some formal act or tacit consent of the Church diffusive of the assistance of infallibility if any had to be made over to it by assignment from the Church diffusive of its acting not by any divine right but only humane delegation and of the several parts of the Church being obliged to its decrees by their choice and consent only not upon necessity 3ly Again It is asked how such an Ecclesiastical infallibility as is placed in a General Council Q. 3. can be said to be serviceable or at least necessary to the Church which subsisted § 98 for the first 300. years without any such infallible Guide And it is asked also by what infallible Guide in the long intervals of these Councils Christians are secured § 99 To the first I answer That this infallibility is to be supposed to accompany this Body of the Clergy taken collectively not only when met in a General Council but out of it whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrines whether by several Provincial Councils assembled or some one Provincial Council assembled confirmed by the See Apostolick and allowed by other co-ordinate Churches or by communicatory letters of Churches to one another in the intervals of greater meetings and thus was infallibility resident and preserved in the Guides of the Church for the first 300. years Of this matter thus Mr. Thorndike †Epilog 1 l c. 8 p. 54. speaking of the times before Constantine The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual setling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which setlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace c. Thus he And see what is said before Disc 1. § 18. To the second That in the intervals of Councils if any new error dangerous to the faith and condemned by no former General Council doth molest the Church she by some of the forenamed wayes wherein she is unerrable if there be no convenience of assembling a General Council suppresseth it but if an error formerly condemned and crushed by a general Council begin to exalt it self and grow again that there needeth no more to quiet it than that the present Church Governours do put in execution the former unerring decrees of those Councils 4ly Again it is asked Q. 4. How lawful General Councils can be maintained all unerring § 100 which Councils experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another To which I answer That he who saith so either takes some Council to be a lawful General one that is not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick as stated before § 11 12. 2. Disc § 23. c. Or takes some of their definitions to contradict which do not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or urgeth things in some ages commonly received or practised in which there is a great latitude as things then defined But if the judgment of the Church in these ought to be preferred before some private members thereof she denies such contradiction in matters of faith to be in any of the General Councils that she receives 5ly Again it is asked Q. 5. If a General Council should err in the defining of something not necessary and again § 101 if it can be proved that no exact distinction can be made of such from necessaries how any Christian can be secure for any particular point of his faith that both such Council and himself do not err in it I answer 1st That if what is supposed should be granted yet still is such Christian as believes all the Council proposeth secure that his faith is deficient in nothing necessary And that Protestants think the like security sufficient in their own faith For they holding the sence of Scripture clear even to the unlearned in all necessaries and believing all the Scripture saith though they cannot exactly distinguish necessary points therein from others yet affirm their faith to be secure because actually not erring in any point clear and so also not in any point necessary 2ly That as to the Principal points of faith called necessary they are both by Councils sufficiently discerned from non-necessaries and proposed as necessaries and so by Christians believed as such In these particulars therefore they are certain of their not erring and as to other points of their faith that it is sufficient for Christians to know that if necesiary they do not err in them though which in particular are necessary and so certainly not erred in they know not But meanwhile do those who urge thus an uncertainty in the faith of Catholicks in attaching their judgment to Councils which in not necessaries are supyosed liable to error make themselves any better provision for the Protestants faith in remitting them from Councils unto their own judgments which in necessaries also they grant are liable to error at least upon their not using due industry their being swayed by passion interest c. which every humble man surely will suspect himself of sooner than a Council 6ly Again It is much pressed That upon the pretence Q. 6. that a General Council is infallible § 102 no error of such Council can ever be corrected or remedied neither by a particular person or Church or yet by another Council General I answer If the Council be as it is pretended infallible no need of correcting an error where is none If it be fallible yet if so only in non-necessaries no great harm if Christians in such a point be misled but great if private men throwing off the Guide upon such pretence they should so come in some necessary point to miscarry But indeed for General Councils to be fallible in necessaries also this I grant would be a thing most mischeivous to the Church but that they shall never thus err see what is said before § 6. Disc 1. § 7.14 And indeed the objection here i. e. the ruine which such error would bring upon Christianity considering the obedience commanded to these Councils is a sufficient Argument that thus they never err nor consequently need reformation § 103 But meanwhile those who urge this that the error of a General Council in an universal obligation of belief to it can never be rectified or reformed consider not That on the other side in admitting a reformation of any its supposed errors no truth
notitiam fidei sicut fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest And Biel †In 3. sent 23 d. q. 2. A. 1. Hoc autem ita intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae Fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide Et hoc quia in fide ad fidem Actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est actus intellectus vero assentientis productus ex voluntatis imperio Again p. 86. Faith saith he is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles And if there be any that should deny such a Divine or infused faith wrought in Christians by God's Spirit besides and beyond the evidence which a moral certainty rationally affords let them declare how a Christians faith is necessarily a Grace of the Holy Spirit where there is no effect in it that is ascribed to the Spirit but all that they attribute to it is necessarily consequent to another humane and rational evidence and no other ground of their faith of the Divine truths alledged by them than of the being of a Julius Caesar viz. a credible and morally-certain Tradition § 125 4ly Therefore concerning any certainty or assurance that Christians are necessarily to have of this their faith that it is true and infallible which certitude all true believers have not alike †Mat. 14.31 S. Thom. 22. q. 5 a. 4. Here also I think all are agreed That such a certainty one may have from the inward light and operation of God's Holy Spirit though he should have neither any internal scientifical demonstration thereof which if he hath it is not faith nor extrinsecal infallible motive testimony or proponent thereof whatever but though only he hath that which is in it self truly a Divine Revelation for the object thereof § 126 5ly Since the Church may be considered either * as a Society already manifested by divine Testimony and Revelation whether this written the Scriptures or unwritten Apostolical Tradition to be by the holy Ghost for ever assisted and guided in all necessary truths Or before any such divine Testimony known * as a multitude of men famous in wisdom innocency of life sufferings c. things prudentially moving us to credit all their Traditions Both Churches here agree That humane Testimony or Church-Tradition taken in the later sence in its making known to us what are these Divine Revelations or this Word of God is only introductive to this divine faith which relies on and adheres to the Revelations hemselves as its formal object Scripture is the ground of our faith Tradition the Key that lets us in saith Arch-Bp Lawd †p. 86. Divine Revelation written or unwritten is the formal Object or ultimate divine motive into which we resolve our faith and the Churches Tradition testifying or manifesting to us these matters revealed is a condition and prerequisite or introductive for the application of our faith unto those Divine Revelations on which we exercise it say the Catholicks § 127 6ly Catholicks further affirm That as the Church is considered in the former of the two acceptions formentioned the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the Articles of this divine faith as being grounded on Divine Revelation and that so many as believe the Church's infallibility in this sence may safely resolve their divine Faith of other Articles of their belief into its delivering them as such But then they hold That the Church's infallibility thus believed is not necessarily the ultimate Principle into which this divine Faith of other Articles is resolved but that Word of God written or unwritten by which this Church-infallibility is manifested to them And again That whatever this infallible authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine authority and saving faith be infallibly certain of this infallible Church-authority Or it is not necessary That for attaining a divine faith of the Articles of the Christian belief he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent whether it be of the Church or any other save the prime verity of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible Which thing is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks a few of whose testimonies I have here inserted which the Reader may pass over if in this matter satisfied § 128 Concerning this thus Cardinal Lugo a Spanish Jesuit speaking of divine faith †Tom. de virtute fideidisp 1. §. 12. p. 247. Probatur facilè quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus sancti creditur fid◠divinâ quae docet in Ecclesiâ esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere muchless infallibiliter scire in Ecclesiâ hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim Articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem Articulum authoritatis Ecclesiasticae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesiâ secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universâ fidelium congregatione n. 252. In lege naturae plures credebant ex solâ doctrinâ parentum fine aliâ Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scriptô plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur I add or before they saw their miracles or the fulfilling of their Prophecies § 129 Thus Estius †In. 3. sent 23. d. 13. §. speaking also of this divine and salvifical faith Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei i. e. divinae quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchizedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone yet these having no other formal or ultimate motive of their faith than we have rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis I add and some without and before seeing their miracles and others by a credible relation only not sight of their miracles yet all these mens faith of the same nature and efficiency alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderant cùm nondùm de
infallibilitate doctrinae Ecclesiasticae quicquam eis esset annunciatum Sic ergo fieri potest ut aliquis non adhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiasticae tanquam regulae infallibili quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat quia vel nunc vel olim miraculis confirmata sunt vel etiam quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifestè videt vel aliâ quacunque ratione inductus licet alia quaedam credere recuset § 130 Thus Paul Layman a Jesuit †Theol. moral 2. l. tract 1.5 c. Fierisaepè solet ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae puta quae sunt de Deo uno trino explicitè credantur ante hunc quae est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate Quinimò haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus sancti promissione nititur ergo prius oportet credere spiritum sanctum adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse Praeterea constat primos Christianos fide divinâ credidisse non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae quae vel fundata non erat v. g. cum Sanctus Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Mat. 16. vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat Again His adde non tantùm variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri sed etiam alios aliis facilius partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem impulsionem sicuti notavit Valentia q. 1. part 4. arg 8. partìm pro animi sui simplicitate quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt quâ ratione pueri apud Catholicos cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt acceptant fidei mysteria tanquam divinitus revelata quia natu majores prudentes quos ipsi norunt it a credere animadvertunt Again Formale assentiendi principium seu motivum non est Ecclesiae authoritas Si enim ex te quaeram cur credas Deum esse incarnatum Respondeasque Quia Ecclesia Catholica quae errare non potest ob sancti spiritus assistentiam ita testatur iterum ex se quaeram unde id scias vel cur credas Ecclesiam errare non posse vel sanctum spiritum ei assistere Quare recte dixit Canus †Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. Si generaliter quaeratur unde fideli constet ea quae fide tenet esse à Deo revelata non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere quia unum ex revelatis est quòd Ecclesia errare non possit Interim non negamus saith he quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae quatenus spiritu sancto regitur fieri possit communiter soleat à fidelibus ipsis qui infallibilem spiritus sancti assistentiam ac directionem Ecclesiae promissam certâ fidei tenent his enim ejus testimonium ac definitio certa regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos Thus he of the Church as it is a Society manifested by Divine Revelation to be infallibly assisted in all necessaries by the holy Ghost But then as it appears to us before such revelation only as an illustris congregatio tot hominum excellentium c. he speaks of it on this manner Fidei divinae assensus in hanc authoritatem Ecclesiae non resolvitur tanquam in principium sed tanquam in extrinsecum adjumentum conditionem sine qua non Etenim authoritas illa Ecclesia non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principtum credendi fide humanâ sed non fide divina Quia fides divina est quâ Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem veritatem ejus consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humanâ credit Accedit quòd sicuti ipsimet Scotus Gabriel argumentantur assensus cognoscitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii quo nititâ—r assensus autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet quo fieri non potest ut assensus fidei divinae tanquam principio nitatur authoritati hominum vel simili motivo humano quippe quod secundum se absolute fallibile est § 131 Thus Fa. Knott †p. 358. in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true infallible divine faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent From the unlearned saith he God exacts no more but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities and use such diligence as men ought in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certain that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted did hear every sentence he spake but might believe some by relation of others who stood near And c. 1. p. 64. the same author saith That a Preacher or Pastor whose testimonies are humane and fallible when they declare to their hearers or subjects that some truth is witnessed by God's Word are an occasion that those people may produce a true infallible act of faith depending immediately upon Divine Revelation applyed by the said means And If you object saith he that perhaps that humane authority is false and proposeth to my understanding divine Revelation when God doth not reveal therefore I cannot upon humane testimony representing or applying Divine Revelation exercise an infallible act of faith I answer it is one thing whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain that I exercise an infallible act of faith and another whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an act Of the former I have said nothing neither makes it to our present purpose Of the latter I affirm that when indeed humane testimony is true though not certainly known to me to be so and so applies a Divine Revelation which really exists in such a case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith viz. from the divine supernatural concourse which he affirms †p. 358. necessary to every act of divine faith § 132 Therefore here it is much to be noted that divine faith quatenus divine which is therefore so called because we believe God that saith it for his own authority and veracity whose certainty or infallibility or unliableness to deceive infinitely exceeds all created certainties moral or natural all which are liable to a possibility of deception even that of our senses cannot be resolved into any thing further than 1st As to any external motive ground reason or principle thereof that is of equal certainty into that particular Divine Revelation which is first made known to me or from which in building of my faith I proceed to the rest which revelation is not to all alwayes the same but to some Christians one to some another in which ultimate Revelation this divine faith terminates 2ly As to the inward efficient thereof
into the power or grace of the holy Spirit both illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever things it revea eth and that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence of our faith thereto as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations § 133 Of which matter thus Canus †Loc. Theol. 2. l. c. 8. Si generaliter quaeratur unde fideâ—i constet ea quae fide tenet esse à Deo revelata non poterit Ecclesiae authoritatem inducere quia unum de revelatis est Ecclesiam errare non posse Non poterit i. e. as this Proposition Ecclesia non potest errare is the object of a divine faith from the Scriptures declaring it assisted with the holy Ghost and not the object of an acquisite saith from the prudential motives as the same Church is illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. Again Ib. Vltima fidei nostrae resolutio fit in causam interiorem efficientem hoc est in Deum moventem ad credendum Itaque ex parte objecti ratio formalis movens est divina veritas revelans sed illa tamen non sufficît ad movendum nisi adsit causa interior hoc est Deus etiam movens per gratuitum specialemque concursum And quantumcunque competenter ea quae sunt fidei proponantur necessaria est insuper causa interior hoc est divinum quoddam lumen incitans ad credendum Where he urgeth 1 Cor. 12. c. Nemo potest dicere Dominus Jesus nisi in spiritu sancto And Gal. 1. c. The adherence of this faith not to be shaken by the contrary testimony of men and Angels and that our faith must be the very same with that of the Apostles who received the matter believed immediately from God in its essence and as to the formal object and internal efficient thereof however the external motives thereof do vary by which infused and divine faith also he saith we believe Deum esse trinum I add or Ecclesiam non posse errare much more firmly and certainly than we can believe them by any acquisite faith from the prudential motives which we have thereof And of the same matter thus Layman in the place before quoted Major imò maxima certissima animi adhaesio quam fides divina continet non ex viribus naturae aut humanis persuasionibus provenit sed ab auxilio Spiritus sancti succurrentis intellectui liberae voluntati nostrae And speaking of the understanding and the will 's accepting of the first Divine Revelation beyond which it can proceed no further discoursively to any former Revelation Acceptat saith he †2. l. tract 1. c. 4. intellectus primae veritatis testimonium 1o. Per-scientiam infusam quâ intellectus elevatus evidenter perspiciat revelationem à primâ veritate fieri c. 2o. Per actum fides immediatum ad quem eliciendum i. e. acceptandum seu credendum revelationem à primâ veritate esse extrinsecè praerequiruntur humana motiva quibus acquisita fides immititur e intrinsecè vero in genere causae efficientis requiritur Spiritus sancti gratia supplens quod humanae infirmitati ad supernaturalem infallibilem fidei assensum eliciendum deest I add per quam gratiam fides divina producitur Here scientia infusa and Spiritus sancti gratia are made the first Operators of divine faith or assent to the first Divine Revelation This for the internal efficient of divine faith as for the external first principle thereof Quod verâ— saith he †Ib ad formalem fidei resolutio nem attinet expeditus ac verus dicendi modus est iste apud Caietan 2.2 q. 1. a. 1. Quòd fides divina ex parte objecti ac motivi formalis resolvatur in authoritatem Dei revelantis Credo Deum esse incarnatum Ecclesiae defintentis authoritatem infallibilem esse quia prima summa veritas revelavit Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse ulterius resolvi vel per fidem i. e. divinam probari non potest nec debet Quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur sed supponuntur onely as he said before maxima certissima animi adhaesio to this ultimate Divine Revelation provenit ab auxilio Spiritus sancti succurrentis intellectui c. But now fides humana or acquâ—sita can go on and give a further ground or motire both why it believes Deum veracem talia revelasse and se fidem hanc Deum revelasse habere ex auxilio Spiritus sancti and this a motive too morally-infallible viz. the Consent of the Church or universal Tradition Of which he goes on thus Verùm in ordine ad nos revelatio divina credibilis acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva inter quae unum ex praecipuis meritò censetur authoritas consentus Ecclesiae as understood above § 126. tot saeculis tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held alwayes necessary neither for an humane induction to divine faith For he proceeds Quamvis id non unicum nec simpliciter necessarium motivum est quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur c. And thus Fa. Knot †p. 358. quoted before A man may exercise saith he an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructor or proposer be not infallible because he believes upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infallible and is such indeed to wit the Word of God Who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every act of divine faith Here he grounds the infallibility of this act of divine faith on the supernatural concourse or operation of God's Spirit Otherwise saith he in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons And indeed § 134 from what is said formerly That a divine faith may be had by those who have had no extrinsecal even morally infallible motive thereof it follows that divine faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or alwayes as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And of whatever infallibility the immediate proponent of the matter of my faith or of Divine Revelation be yet divine faith ascends higher than it and fastneth it self still to the infallibility of him whose primarily is the Revelation So the Church which I give credit to declaring to me that the things contained in the Gospel of S. Matthew were divinely revealed I resolve my faith of the truth of those contents not into the Church's saying they are true though I believe all that true the Church sayeth but into Divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again when I believe
that all contained in S. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells me it is so and then believe that the Church telleth me true because God hath revealed in some one part of his Word that the Church in this shall not err here my faith is ultimately resolved again not into the Church's authority but the Divine Revelation concerning the Church But if 3ly I believe S. Matthew's Gospel true because the Church tells me so and again believe the Church's veracity in what it saith only from the forementioned prudential motives †§. 121. inducing me to believe so here I resolve my faith into these credible motives and this is no infused or divine but an humane and acquisite faith and the assent to the thing believed can rationally be no firmer or stronger then it is to these credible proofs thereof Thus then when the authority of the Relator is the same yet the things related are diversly believed by me according to the varying of those Grounds or that authority which the Relator urgeth to make them credible When a very credible person relates to me several things which he hath heard of two other persons of whom I have a very different esteem the one accounted by me very skilful and learned in his Art the other not so here I give an assent or belief to the words of these two persons though both related to me with the same fidelity very different much stronger to the related words of him whom I esteem as it were infallible in his skill much weaker to the others and I give a third assent different from both these to the veracity of the Relator or to the credibility of the person relating these things to me concerning them This being said of a divine faith in the several assertions precedent § 135 That it is produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost and grounded still on divine Revelation But that it is not necessary †§. 127 c. that such faith alwayes should have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes Yet 7ly It is also affirmed That there are morally-certain or infallible grounds or motives producible both for the Christian Religion and faith in General and for all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which grounds or any equal to them no other Religion besides Christianity nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit out of the Catholick Church can possibly plead or pretend to So that though many seducing spirits as it were in emulation of the Holy One do use to pretend and set up themselves for assurers of a divine Faith and many times do effect so firm an adherence to most false Revelations as that from this persuasion many have exposed themselves even to suffer death in defence of their errors yet this ever remains a constant way of distinguishing to the world and to all mens reason a true divine faith wrought by God's holy Spirit from these counterfeit ones wrought by the evil Spirit that Catholicks for this divine faith which the Holy Ghost only works in them as to such a supernatural powerful and vivifical efficacy thereof yet alwayes have besides this many extrinsecal motives and assurances to render it I say not Divine which such motives cannot do but in reason credible and acceptable to themselves and others which no false Religion no false faith can produce or lay claim to I mean still the former Motives which whenas the internal plerophory of this faith wrought by the Spirit is not publickly conspicuous or manifestive abroad are a standing rational evidence of the verity of Christianity against all other Sects of Religion and against all Hereticks c. Only of these motives it is affirmed That without the operation of God's Spirit they are never able to found a divine faith And. That by the holy Spirit many times a divine faith is produced without the concurrence of them Concerning this see the former quotations § 133. And here first a rational certainty or morally infallible ground of a Christians faith for this point § 136 that the Scriptures I mean as to the main body of them those few books set aside which the Protestants call Apocryphal are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein and all the Articles of the Christian faith that are grounded thereon infallible is affirmed by Protestants as well as Catholicks And 1st This certainty Protestants do affirm to arise from that plenary Church-Tradition which is found to have delivered these to be God's Word and Divine Revelation throughout all ages from the Apostles times which Apostles confirmed them with miracles Of which thus the Arch-Bp †p. 124. If you speak saith he to A. C. of assurance only in general and not of that by divine faith I must then make bold to tell you and it is the greatest advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And if consent of humane story can assure me this why should not consent of Church story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God And again Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habit of faith out non subest falsum i. e. speaking of an usual and constant moral certainty and non-falsity of things but he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine faith cui subesse non potest falsum i.e. speaking of an absolute possibility of falsity or mistake of things especially by the divine power interposing in which sence nothing is free from deception save Divine Revelation but by a divine testimony § 137 And Mr. Stillingfleet saith of the same tradition †p. 205 211 That the moral certainty that is therein ‖ p. 207. yields us a sufficient assurance that the matter delivered to us to be believed is infallibly true and considering the nature of moral things is a certainty as great and begetting as firm an assent as any certainty Mathematical or Physical the greatest Physical certainty saith he being as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oftentimes greater Though his discourse there †p. 207. That where God obligeth us to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true because God cannot oblige men to believe a lye from whence he would prove that we have a sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true only from a moral certainty thereof If he
Tradition namely that both of Christians and Mahometans than this that the Bible is God's Word and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence and Protestants themselves †See Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. do both allow and practise several Traditions as Apostolical which yet have not the same fulness of Tradition as the Scriptures nor indeed more than several of those points have whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition 2. Again the Tradition of a smaller number of persons if eminent in sanctity and miracles and other forenamed †§. 121. motives of credit may be as or more credible than that of a greater number not so qualified Of several other Traditions then what or how many in particular carry a sufficient fulness and evidence in them though all do not the same to beget a rational belief this after the Church's authority once established by Scripture and Tradition private men may safely learn from the same Church § 140 But 8ly This certainty of Tradition allowed by Protestants for Scripture's being God's Word and whatever is contained in it infallible seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof because wherever the sence of these Scriptures is ambiguous it will still be uncertain whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sence which only is God's Word or on the mistaken sence which is not so Next therefore Catholicks proceed farther yet And both from the same Scriptures thus established and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles for which see the proofs given before Disc 1. § 7. Disc 2. § 17. Disc 3. § 7. 87. c. do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church or its Governours for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith from which they do most firmly believe and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them as it is in this other of the Churches infallibility And from this infallibility of the Church believed all the definitions of the same Church that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversie and that are delivered by her as infallible and Divine Revelations are straight believed as such and among others these points also when the Church defines them in any doubtful case what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures or what are Traditions Apostolical § 141 Thus if I first receive and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition afterward from this Church-infallibility defining it I may become straight assured of the Canon of Scripture Or 2ly If I receive and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility afterward from this infallibility defining it I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned Again when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures afterward I may become from its definitions setled in the belief of all those Articles of faith wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures though believed by me before the Churches infallibility yet being ambiguous in their sence which sence properly and not the words is the Divine Revelation can beget no certain and firm faith in me until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating from God's Spirit assisting it the traditive sence of them to me So that though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church yet in so many points wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me I receive the firmness of my faith in them not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word but of the Church expounding them If then the Scripture or Tradition-Apostolick be clearer for this of Church-infallibility than for some other points of faith that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points who believes the Church infallible than another who believes only Scripture so and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points when the other not only may err in his Faith but become heretical in his error by opposing the definition of the Church So had the Arrians and Nestorians believed the Church infallible this Article of their faith firm and stedfast had preserved them from Heresie in some others § 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholicks Faith by reason of this Church-infallibility for many points wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates and varies For whilst the Protestant only extends and makes use of the certitude of the Church Tradition as to one of these points the delivery of the Scriptures and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition written in the Scriptures or unwritten for the other point the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted in the exposition of the same Scriptures and in the discerning of true Traditions And again while the sence of these Scriptures in many weighty points as experience shews hath been and is controverted the Protestant here for so many of these points as are upon such misinterpretation of Scripture defined by the Church in the definition of which Church assisted as he believes by the holy Ghost the Catholick remains secure hath no rational Anchor nor ground of confidence in his faith but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgment concerning the sence of God's Word and truth of Tradition and that judgment of his too for several points of his faith going against the judgment and exposition of the major part of the present Church and against his Superiors Where the last refuge Protestants betake themselves to ordinarily is this that they say In all things necessary the sence of Scripture is not ambiguous but clear enough to the unlearned and that in points not necessary there is no necessity of a right faith or of any decision of controversies and so no need of an infallible Church or any unerring Guide save Scripture which defence hath been examined in Disc 2. § 38. c. § 143 The sum of what hath been said here is this 1st I take it as a principle agreed on That a divine is such a faith as quatenus divine ultimately resolves it self into Divine Revelation § 144 2ly There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian which may be not to all the same but to some one to some another beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further and for proving or confirming which Revelation he can produce no other divine Revelation but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running
round Fides divina discursiva esse non potest circa omnia objecta sua quia alioquin sequeretur processus in infinitum Layman p. 181. quoting Caietan in 22. q. 1. art 1. Si dicas assentio huic revelato ex fide acquisitâ tunc fides infusa dependeret in esse infaciendo adhaerere alicui articulo à fide acquisit â sicut à principio Scotus l. 1.23 d. § contra fid § 145 3ly Concerning such ultimate particular Divine Revelation whether it be authority and veracity of Scripture or authority and veracity of the Church or of Apostolical Tradition or of miracles If we say further that we ground our divine faith of it upon God's veracity or because God is true and cannot lye an undisputable prime principle Yet note that God's veracity alone is not a sufficient ground of such faith of any particular Revelation since on this veracity of God in general many false Religions also are pretended to be grounded i. e. many false Religions believe that whatever God saith is true and further believe but falsely that God hath said what they are taught unless another proposition be joyned with it viz. that God who is thus True and cannot lye in whatever he saith hath also said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures our particular ultimate ground named before is true Of which thus Card. Lugo †De virtute fidei divin Disp 1. §. 7. Duplex est ratio formalis partialis cui ultimò fides divina nititur 1. Deus est prima veritas Et 2. Deus it a dixit and we know the certitude of any Conclusion must alwayes be built on two premises or principles And then letting the first pass unquestioned Deus est prima veritas the second that God hath said this or that must either be grounded that it may be the foundation of a divine faith on some other Divine Revelation from which we collect that he hath said it which still will proceed to the inquiry after another divine Revelation on which to ground that or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it and acknowledge that I have no divine faith that he hath said it which relyes on any other Divine Revelation and then why might I not have rested as well in the forenamed Revelations Lastly concerning that Divine Revelation which by due consequences seems to be the ultimate resolvent of a Christian faith those who disallow that which others assign let them assign another such as is truly a Divine Revelation and not mistaken only by them to be so as assigning the letter of Scripture taken by them in a wrong sence c. and it sufficeth § 146 4ly I take this also for agreed on by all that the internal efficient of all faith divine is the power or grace of the Holy Spirit both * illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals if perhaps the understanding herein needeth any light and also that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations * And perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence unto these Articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations § 147 5ly Now then If any Christian be asked concerning the ultimate Resolution of his divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built on it he can alledge none other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him by what means it matters not since this varies as to several persons or from which in building of his faith he proceeds to the rest Again if any ask concerning the internal efficient of such faith as is divine the answer must alwayes be one and the same for the divine faith of all Christians That it is wrought in the faithful by the grace of the holy Spirit § 148 6ly The Motives forementioned which are such a rational evidence of the verity of Christianity and of the several Articles thereof believed in the Catholick Church as no other forreign Religion or Sâ—ct in Christianity can produce do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the Holy and no seducing spirit But not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest alwayes on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine § 149 And by what hath been here said I think you may perceive the circle clearly avoided which is still so hotly charged on Catholicks though not for the resolution of their faith in general which resteth in the last place on the prudential motives yet for the resolution at least of the divine faith they pretend to For if a Protestant ask at large why I believe without inserting with a divine faith the Scriptures to be the Word of God It is answered because Apostolical Tradition which is the unwritten Word of God or Divine Revelation a thing conceded by the Arch-Bp †p. 81. testifies it to be so Again if asked why I believe there was any such Apostolical Tradition I answer because the Church which I believe in this matter infallible or not erring delivers such Tradition to me And if it be asked again why I believe the Church infallible in this It is answered I believe her but this is by an acquisite faith to be so from the motives of credibility forementioned †§. 121. which do so perswade me But note that this acquisite faith is not a necessary prerequisite to every one that believes with a divine faith for as Layman †Theol. moral l. 2. tract 1. c. 5. Non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur And as Estius before †See §. 129. Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei and in all this Protestants confess there is no Circle †See Stillingf p. 126. § 150 But if now putting in the word Divine the Protestant †Id p. 127. ask me again the two former questions why with a divine faith I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and then upon the former answer returned ask me why 2ly with a divine faith i. e. with such a firm assent as I give thereto transcending that of an acquisite faith I do believe that which the Church relates as Apostolical Tradition to be so indeed I answer now that I finally rest on this Revelation without having any other whereon to ground it But if asked why so firmly and if I may so say divinely without any further
divine evidence I adhere to it I answer from the internal operation and testimony of the Holy Spirit which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church as God's Word by Apostolical Tradition for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein Neither doth here again in the matter of divine faith appear any Circle at all And if it be further asked what rational ground I have to think this is a perswasion of God's and not of some evil spirit or this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so here I urge for these the prudential motives § 151 Again Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I do believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sence of those Texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Church I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit without having at all any further Divine Revelation from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine Or if any will go one step further and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did Miracles yet here he must conclude neither have we any further divine word or work to confirm to us their doing such divine works But then if I be asked further whether I do not believe with a divine faith the Church's relation concerning such Apostolical Tradition or Miracles to be infallible I excluding now this supposition which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God and so excluding this answer that I believe the Churches relation infallible with a divine faith from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church Here I answer No I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation and if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church and here must needs be a process in infinitum But in this place I answer That I believe the Churches Tradition or testimony being taken here in the latter sence mentioned before § 126 infallible only with an humane and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition or their Miracles not the Church-Tradition or her Relation that conveys to me the Apostolical With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church but I do believe the Church her truly or infallibly I mean not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise but to the prudential Motives relating this Apostolical Tradition with an acquired or rational faith § 152 The natural order of a Christians belief then seems to be this 1st The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons chosen by God and for the confirmation of their mission from him doing Miracles which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world the chief body of which these persons also draw up and deliver in writing Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them this is one That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit as never to err in teaching all truths or if you will in truly relating all Divine Revelations any way necessary to mens salvation which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is as it ought to be delivered among the rest to all posterity by these very Successors of whom it is spoken These things thus conveyed those to whom these Revelations are made do 1. with a rational and acquisite faith believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles who are rendred most credible to them by all those prudential motives mentioned before § 121. their multitude their sanctity their Martyrdoms in testimony thereof c. 2. But then applying themselves to the things related which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles they do believe these things related after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher and a divine faith wrought in them by the holy Spirit and resting it self not on the veracity of these secondary Relators but on the veracity of God himself from whom these Revelations are said originally to come yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them 3. Then further one of the Divine Revelations which the Church or these Successors do deliver to Christians as I said being this That these Successors of the Apostles who deliver their doctrine to us shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries from this Revelation I say delivered by them Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church or of these Successors not by a rational faith only grounded on the former motives of credibility but by a divine faith because grounded on a divine Revelation and consequently believe also all things delivered by these persons as necessaries with a divine faith on the same account § 153 After all this to reflect now a little on the objection We see 1st That no Circle is made in a Catholicks ground or resolution of faith divine or acquisite but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine though this not necessary to be alwayes the same whereon divine faith resteth and into which and no humane motives it resolveth it self and an inward operation of God's Spirit whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine is effected And again that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible or also morally infallible or as some of late express themselves not-possibly-fallible which if they can prove whenas it is in the natural power of all men even taken collectively abstracting here from any divine superintendencies to tell a lye none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion or any part thereof
with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of
not neglecting some means which he knows will certainly keep him from error § 11 2. But notwithstanding these This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side and is so by learned Protestants That in what kind of knowledge soever it be whether of our sence or reason in whatever Art or Science one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge that he is certain of any thing for a truth which all or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties in all the same external means or grounds of the knowledge thereof do pronounce an error Not as if truth were not so though all the world oppose it nor had certain grounds to be proved so though all the world should deny them but because the true knowledge of it and them cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect and omnibus paribus not to others Now for any disparity as to defect whether in the instrument or in the means of knowledge there where all or most differ from me it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self rather than them especially * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them and * whenas for my own mistakes I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions I say be this in what knowledge we please in that of sence seeing hearing numbring or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned § 7. So I can never rationally assure my self of what I see when men as well or better sighted and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same see no such matter And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Phanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit See Arch-Bp Lawd 〈◊〉 33. Consid 5. n. 1. and Hooker Preface § 6. their defining of a clear evidence or demonstrative argument viz. Such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it and therefore surely proposed to many men the mind of the most cannot dissent from it § 12 Consequently in the Scripture abstracting from the inward operations of God's holy Spirit and any external infallible Guide which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men differing in the sence thereof I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons for so many Texts or places thereof concerning the sence of which the most or the most learned or their Superiors to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented do differ from them From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words such certainty cannot arise unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished or taken in a diverse or unliteral sence but if it cannot be so taken then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sence For example For the literal and Grammatical sence what Text plainer than Hoc est corpus meum and yet Protestants understand it otherwise Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingwoith's to Fr. Knot †Chill p. 307 urging That the first Reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say answers he that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of their opinions whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such matter Besides as these is no term almost in any sentence but that is capable of several acceptions so since no falshood no discord is in the Scriptures there is no senrence in it however sounding for the expression but must be reconciled in its sence to all the rest and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary to attain the true meaning of many places that seem at the first sight most clear in what they say but that there are also other places as clear that seem to say the contrary And some such places it was and that in very necessary points too of which S. Peter saith That some wrested them to their own damnation wrested them because they wanted not industry but learning which the unlearned saith he wrest And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe †2 Pet. 3.16 because they know fewest reasons against it whilst by much study and comparing several Revelations one with another those come at last to doubt or deny that sence of some of them which at the first they took for most certainly and evidently true Pardon this long Parenthesis CONFERENCE II. 2. The Socinians Protestant-Plea For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 Now to resume the Conference The Protestant better thinking on it will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sence of Scripture but thus proceeds Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every one †Stillingf p. 58 59. as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes even in the great Articles of the Christian faith Therefore why do not you submit your judgment and assent to the sence of Scripture in this point unanimously delivered by the consent of the Catholick Church which also is believed alwayes unerrable in any necessary point of faith as this is Soc. First If you can shew me an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point and that as held necessary I will willingly submit to it But this you can * never do according to such a proof thereof as is required viz †Stillingf p. 57. That all Catholick Writers agree in the belief of it and none of them oppose it and agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians * That no later Writers and Fathers in opposition of Hereticks or heats of contention judged then the Article so epposed to be more necessary than it was judged before the contention * That all Writers that give an account of the faith of Christians deliver it And deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is of divine Revelation but with a necessiity of its being explicitely believed by all See before Disc 3. § 52. Now no such unanimous consent can be pretended for Consubstantiality For not to speak of the times next following the Council of Nice nor yet of several expressions in the ancients Justin Martyr Iraeneus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen that seem to favour our opinion †See Petavius in Epiphan Haer. 69 Nor of those Bastern Bishops which Arrius in his letter to Eusebius Nicomed ‖ Apud
and either these evidences remain still unsatisfied Or these satisfied yet some other new ones appear to call for a new consideration Soc. †Stillingf ib. Because it may also err it follows not it must err and it is probable that it shall not err when the former error is thus discovered and if the Council proceed lawfully be not over-awed c. †Idem p. 526 But however if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence yet I not convinced of the truth of its decree this silence is the uttermost that any future Council after its rejecting my reasons can justly exact of me and not belief or assent at all it may not oblige me that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all but that not divulge it whereas now by the Acts of former Councils I would gladly know upon what rational ground an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresie meerly for retaining this opinion which retaining it is called obstinacy and contumacy in me after the Councils contrary Definition CONFERENCE IV. 4. His Plea for not being guilty of Heresie § 23 4 PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath alwayes been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many wayes of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it †p. 271. being not an erring but an obstinate defence of an error not of any error but of one against a necessary or fundamental Article of the Christian faith 1st Though this which I hold should be an error and that against a Fundamental yet my silence practiced therein can never be called an obstinate defence thereof and therefore not my tenent an Heresie 2ly Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons and as Mr. Chillingworth saith †No Catalogue thereof p. 134. that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him †p. 98 99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assigne what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations § 24 to those that were without Law or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say †Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean onely this That all Fundamentals i. e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For †I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all fundamentals I cannot incur Heresie which is opposit to some fundamental †Chilling p. 367. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked * Id. p. 101 and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamentall or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sence you can have no security in your Fundamentall or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most general Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamentall Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter †p. 97 The Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the divine authority of Gods written word And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yeilds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the
§ 8. Reply § 9. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but conditional § 12. Reply That our Lords promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries made to the Clergy is absolute § 14. And this Indeficiency most rationally placed in the General Councils or other accord or consent of the Clergy equivalent to such Council § 15. Chap. 3. Some Protestant objections § 17. Answered § 18. Chap. 4. II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy some or other of them alwayes unerring in Necessaries but this not necessarily the superior or Major part of them § 25. Reply That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the superiour nor a few opposing a much Major part § 30. Chap. 5. III. Other Expressions of Protestant Divines granting the Churches Prelatick Clergy as defining her doctrines or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries when these Councils accepted by the Church universal § 32. Expressions to this purpose * Of Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bp. Bramhal § 34. Where Concerning what judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth In respect 1. Of the Church Catholick diffusive § 36 n. 1. 2. Of Councils General § Ib. n. 8. Where Of the Freedome of the Council of Trent § Ib. n. 9. * Of Bp. Lawd § 37. Where Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church Diffusive is onely necessary § 38. * Of Dr Field § 40. Chap. 6. IV. Learned Protestants conceding the former Churches Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries as that the Church Governed by them did not remain still True Holy and Catholick § 41. Chap. 7. V That according to this last Concession § 41. there seemes to be * a great security to those continuing still in the antient Communion § 48 As to avoiding Heresie or Schism Ibid. As to other gross Errors § 51. And * danger to those deserting it § 54. Where There Protestants Defence for it § 55. n. 1. And the Catholick Remonstrance Ib. n. 2. Chap. 8. VI. That according to the former Concession § 32. if so enlarged as ancient Church-practise and reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1. c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. THE SECOND DISCOURSE Proceeding upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants That the Pastors of the Church some or other in all Ages do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries to search which in any Division of these Pastors are those to whom Christians ought to adhere and yield their Obedience The CONTENTS Chap. 1. PRotestants grant 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. That these Governors some or other of them shall never err or miss-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation § 3. 4. That they and the Churches governed by them stand alwayes distinct from Heretical or Schismatical Congregations § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks further affirm 5. That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries the people are to learn from them what or how many points are necessary so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them § 6. 6. Again That the Necessaries wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary but extended to all such points of Faith as are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries 1. That there seemes no necessity that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them § 12. 2. That they may infallibly guide in them though not infallibly distinguish them § 14. 3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries and no distinction of these made ought to be believed in all points they propose except an infallible certainty can be shewed to the contrary § 15. 4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for Christians with a more particular explicite Faith to believe § 17. 8 That Christians submitting their judgment to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith ought also to submit it to them in declaring the sence of the Fathers or of the Definitions of Councils and former Church concerning the same Matters § 19. 9. That supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the concession of Learned Protestants ought to yeild the Obedience either of silence or also of assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. From whence it follows that none may adhere to any new Guides but only so many as can demonstrate the Errors of the former § 21. Chap. 3. 11. Granted by all that these Church Governors may teach diversly and some of them more or fewer may become erroneous in Necessaries and misguide Christians in them § 22. 12. In such dissenting therefore That there must be some Rule for Christians which Guides they ought to follow and that this is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the major part § 23. Where Of the Major part concluding the Whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Magnitude of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 13. That accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the Whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition or separation from the Whole be so § 27. n. 4. 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28. Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof St. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1. Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2. Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3. Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the
Church-Governours in it whose judgments can be had to be sufficient though some lesser party continue to contradict I think several Controversies that are yet agitated will appear formerly decided and the Church's Peace not so difficult to be setled For in the Church Catholick within this last thousand years have been assembled many Councils so General as the times permitted and as the Callers thereof could procure and these her Councils have made many Definitions contrary to the Protestant Doctrines and yet she hath not hitherto though importuned by several pretending Demonstrators of the contrary to these Definitions assembled her self in any other Synod equal to the former to recall such Councils or their acts such a tacit admission being all that the Archbishop requires ‖ See before §. 327. Nay when later Councils have been called from time to time yet in these she hath altered nothing concerning those Definitions in the former Nay a much major part at least of the Church Catholick have also out of Councils in their publick VVritings Doctrines and Practises not only not contradicted but owned the Legality of these Councils and the truth of their Decrees Now may we not hence conclude that the whole Church Catholick I mean whose judgment we can procure hath in such a sence as is necessary admitted and accepted them And that nothing hath been or is brought in that she takes for a demonstration to the contrary to what she hath defined And here may we not conclude that according to the Archbishop's sence these fore-past and so long unquestioned Councils are to be esteemed infallible Or if this we may not presume what hopes have we left of ever knowing the Church Catholick's mind her acceptation or non-acceptation of any thing or of enjoying at all as to Necessaries this her infallible Guidance promised us by Protestants in stead of that of her Council's VVe have waited now above 400 years since the Conciliar determination of Transubstantiation no Council equal to those which passed it hath been assembled by the Church Catholick to retract it I ask Hath not the Church then already sufficiently accepted it though some in some times have offered to her their seeming demonstrations against it In the expectation of new domonstrations of a new Assembly such as shall be called by the whole Church Catholick and not by the Pope and of a Council more full and compleat than any former for a thousand years have been wherein the Cophtites Melahites Armenians Abyssines Russians c are to have a part I ask what shall poor Christians do for a Guide that may secure them at least in Fundamentals If first The most supream Guides that they have and have had and such acceptation of their Acts as hath been may not be securely relied on and then such an infallible Guide as is promised them instead thereof can never be had Unless these Divines also will here retreat and make use of the Answer that is mentioned before § 8. viz. that nothing at all that is or can come into controversie is necessary to be decided § 39 But If the past Councils need an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church to render them infallible more than the acceptation that is fore-mentioned what must it be 1st Must it be that of another Council assembled by the Church For such thing the Archbishop mentions But how shall we know again of this Council whether the Church Catholick sufficiently accepts it And what if it accepts this no more amply than the former Or are there any such new Evidences or Demonstrations now discoverable in matter of Faith that are not as liable to be mistaken in one Council as in another in a later as in a former If you say Yes Because a Demonstration in the Archbishop's sence ‖ is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it I answer Such a Definition suits not with Theological but Mathematical Demonstrations such as this that twice two makes four for what or how few Theological Truths are they that all in their right wits and understanding the Terms immediatly assent to when proposed Or what Judge in these matters can promise such Evidence as that none having the use of Reason shall deny his Sentence Lastly As to one Council's accepting of another where can we stay if we may not in the first For will not this second Council be rendred as uncertain to us for it's Definitions and as liable to Appeals upon other new Evidences and Demonstrations pretended against it as the former was For when in it's Definition against these false ones that are already examined it corroborates the former yet this hinders not but that some other Evidences may be produced against it and against the same Definition that may be true Or 2ly Must it be such an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church out of Council that no person or at least Church contradicts such former Council This also is unreasonable For some not only Persons but Churches and these very considerable I mean in comparison of some other Churches though not in respect of the main Body of the Catholick Profession may stand condemned of Heresie and Schism by some former Council and therefore do become uncapable of any right now either of Voting in or accepting of a future Council I mean in such a manner as that their Vote and acceptation are any way necessary to the validity thereof Or such Persons or Churches if not condemned of former Heresie yet may be by the much greater and more considerable part of the present Council for some new Doctrine of theirs against the former traditive Faith of the Church either suspended from sitting and voting with them or admitted to vote as in a thing perhaps not so clear in former tradition yet when they are in the number of Suffrages much inferior in this case neither their contrary Vote in the Council nor their non-acceptation of it afterward are of any effect as to the annulling of the Acts of such Councils Otherwise no new Tenent can be condemned by the Church if those who hold it being a considerable number will not concur to vote or to accept the condemnation thereof Some Arrian Bishops never accepted the Council of Nice nor now the Socinians Unless therefore the former acceptation of the Church Catholick though perhaps deficient in some persons or also Churches may suffice to render or declare the judgment of that Council infallible who can be assured but that this Nicen Council erred in a point Fundamental if the Deity of our Saviour may be thought such The Church Catholick's acknowledged Infallibility in Fundamentals and her acceptation of Councils may not be obstructed with such unactuable Circumstances as that these can never in any particular come to be known This for the Archbishop § 40 Again thus Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 2. concerning the present Catholick Church in any one Age As
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
acknowledge as much as C. G. or any man the authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And The Belief and Practises we forsook were not Doctrines defined by the Church saith Dr. Ferne ‖ Divis Eng. and Rom. Ch. p. 59. Upon such Concession concerning Councils universally accepted and upon these appeals made to them here are referred to the examination of all disinteressed §. 56. n. 3. and conscientious Christians these Considerables following the design of this discourse 1. The first Considerable is Whether the necessary points wherein our Lord is supposed perpetually so to assist his Church or her general Councils universally accepted as that she is infallible and doth not err in the decision of them and consequently whereto all her subjects are obliged to yield their assent ought not to be extended so far as to comprehend some at least of those points I mean either the Negative or Affirmative of them the disputes about which as things of the highest moment have so miserably afflicted the western Churches now for so long a time The necessary consequence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation as many Protestants maintain is the committing of Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread for our Lord Christ Is not this point then necessary and Fundamental to Christian Religion that in a Council meeting to decide it the contrary to Transubstantiation should be therein determined For the Affirmative can never be determined in such a Council where the Negative is necessary to be believed If the belief of Gods essential Attributes is a necessary and fundamental point of faith is not the defining the contrary and giving some of them to a creature in allowing Saint-Invocation a thing with which Protestants charge the Roman Church erring in a Fundamental and if it be then cannot a General Council universally accepted so define The same may perhaps be said of many other points Merit of works VVorship of Images Communion in one kind according to what esteem many Protestants have of these errors aggravated also by their fancy that the Pope is Antichrist But suppose none of them to be in necessaries yet they being affirmed by the more moderate Reformed to be-errors very grievous damnable c. then may not a right belief of them be thought necessary so far as that the Catholick Church and such a Council may be presumed to receive from our Lord a continual preservation in a right Faith of them if the Error in them be pretended so grievous And I desire that for this Dr. Hammond's words quoted below § 59. may be well weighed As likewise this to be considered ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. whether it is not all reason that the Church or these Councils not private men or Inferiors should judge of this Necessity 2ly If this may not be granted §. 56. n. 4. that any of these modern Controversies are about Necessaries or the points such that the Church Catholick or her General Councils universally accepted in their Definitions cannot err in them and so an assent to such Definitions be due from her Subjects The Second Considerable is VVhether at least when such Councils define them all particular Persons and Churches ought not to yield the external Obedience to them of Silence and not any further opposing or contradiction without these private men's or also Church's reserving still to themselves lest some Truth should be thus oppressed new Remonstrances and Demonstrations and a Liberty if upon these Remonstrances the Church Catholick neglect to assemble another Council or it called err again in the result a Liberty I say especially if it be a Church National to reform for themselves such Errors of Councils For with such Reservations what signifie their former appeals to or to what purpose any Meeting of such Councils when as 1st The present Controversies are not allowed to be in Necessaries in all which the Roman Church and Reformed are said by them to be already fully agreed 2 And then they will yield neither any internal nor external Obedience to any such Conciliary Decrees in the stating of non-necessaries But if such an external submission of non-contradiction be thought fit to be allowed though that internal of assent cannot be obtained yet this seems to secure the Church's peace for thus a Controversie once defined cannot be revived to the disturbance thereof and if they say some Truth somtime may happen thus to suffer yet being in a non-necessary as they say it is it may be spared Neither had this Duty been duly performed by our Ancestors do I see how the past Reformation as to many points could have found any entrance And therefore though some of the formerly recited appeals of Protestants promise fairly for such an absolute submission to Councils yet the Archbishop seems to allow no more than a conditional one and with an If or Vnless still annexed I pray you look in him § 32. p. 227. Far better saith he is that Inconvenience viz. of tolerating an Error till another General Council meet than this other that any authority less than a General Council should rescind the Decrees of it unless it err manifestly and intolerably And again Ibid. No way must lie open to private men to refuse Obedience till the Council be heard and weighed as well as that which they say against it yet with Bellarmine's Exception still here misse-applied ‖ De Concil l. 2. c 8. Bellarmine constantly denying that a General Council lawfully proceeding and confirmed by the Pope can err in any matter of Faith the Bishop here affirming it so the Error be not manifestly intollerable Nor is it fit for private men in such cases as this upon which the whole Peace of Christendom depends to argue thus The Error appears Therefore the Determination of the Council is ipso jure invalid But this is far the safer way I say still when the Error is neither-fundamental nor in it self manifest to argue thus The Determination is by equal authority and that secundum jus according to Law declared to be invalid Therefore the Error appears 3ly If this submission of non-gainsaying at least §. 56. n. 5. may be once granted the third thing recommended to a diligent Examination is Whether not only the Roman but all the Occidental Churches joined with the Western and Prime Patriarch the Exordium Vnitatis as S. Cyprian ‖ Cyprian de Vnit Ecclesiae with Bishop Bramhall's approbation stiles him ‖ Schism Guarded p. 4 25. and the Councils that have been heretofore assembled in the West be not for the Doctrines wherein we find the Greek Churches also consenting with them in such a sence the whole as that any Christian especially a Member of the VVestern Church ought to take these for their supream Guide in defect of any greater Meeting and ought to yield obedience of Assent to them in defining Necessaries or in not Necessaries of non-contradiction
from one another all concurring in the same judgment for a corporal Presence and a substantial mutation Or can there be any new Light in this Point since there are no new Revelations attainable in these present times which those were not capable of Or if there could is not much the major part of the present Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity still swayed on the same side against any present evidence pretended If we consider saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. n. 2 3. Gods great and wise and constant Providence and Care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful Servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit Scandals and False Teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly Servants If I say we consider these and some other such like General Promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the Errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should err in matter of faith I add to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without idolatry practise and therein find approbation and reception among all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostle's Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the General approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong Argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his Servants to fall into that Temptation Thus Dr. Hammond whose words I desire may be seriously considered with application to this great Controversie of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass We do not believe saith the same Doctor ‖ Ibid §. 14. n. 6. that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith ‖ See before §. 56. n. 2. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council ‖ Vind. c 2. p. 9. Or in defect of that a free Occidental Council ‖ Schism Guarded p. 136 saith Bishop Bramhal It seems very fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom that a general Council supposed thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or demonstration make the Errors to appear as that another Council of equal authority reverse it Saith Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ p. 227. Again An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the Mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think on to say it is demonstrative the light of a demonstrative Argument is the evidence which it hath in its self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a quarrel be made as was by Berengarius four or five times Who shall decide it No question but a General Council For if it be evident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly its probable it s no Demonstration and the Producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church ‖ Pag. 245 246. Thus Arch-bishop Lawd How then I say in the present point can the reformed reviving the former Arguments of Bertram Scotus Erigena Berengarius c. still trouble the Church again with urging of them after the judgment of so many Councils already passed upon them If the reformed tie us to obedience as of assent when the Council brings evident Scripture or Demonstration so of Silence when we cannot bring it against the Council and after our bringing what we think Demonstrative tie us to stand to the judgment of the Council whether it be so or no From hence it follows that as we may not gain-say a second Council after our Demonstrations proposed and disallowed by it so we may not gain-say the former or the very first Council if we produce no new demonstrations but such as were considered by such Council and rejected Now if Councils are thus to judg of Demonstrations brought against their former Decrees and the Contradictour to acquiesce in their judgment Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils in any matter for silencing future disputes if not for uniting variety of opinions than there have already bin of this And is there any reason that Protestants should refer themselves in this point as they do to the judgment of a new Council If all these Councils successively erred in this point so manifestly as that they could not lawfully oblige their subjects especially bringing no new Arguments to silence the next and the next to that of such Councils as ever we can hope for may err so too and the same obedience of silence be denied to them whilst one pretended Evidence or Demonstration quelled another new one starts up and demands satisfaction § 60 But if these Councils be invalid for establishing the belief or at least the non-opposition of a substantial Conversion Let us see the proceedings of the Reformation here to repeal their Acts and establish the contrary to them After all these Councils forenamed and that of Trent added to them A. D. 1562. a Synod is called at London of two Provinces only of the West consisting of about twenty four Bishops and two Metropolitans And by these against all the former Councils abovesaid it is decreed ‖ Article 28. That the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament If then the rest of Christendom have no more then Protestants here say they have for many ages they have had no Sacrament of the Lords Supper amongst them Next in obedience to this their decree they tie their subjects not to silence or a non-contradiction of it but to subscribe ‖ Synod 1603 Can. 63 that they acknowledge it i. e. confess believe it to be agreeable to the Word of God i.e. to be true
non posse ut Christi Corpus tanto intervalio a nobis disjunctum in coenâ revera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc Mysterium nec mente percipere nec liguâ explicare posse And thus also Rivet ‖ Animad in Grot. p. 85. against it Si Corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitativè i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia Corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est Corpus Now if it be said here that though the Real Presence of Protestants to the worthy Receiver admits indeed some seeming contradictions yet doth the Roman Real Presence to the Symboles suâ—â—er many more 1st I answer that a Tenent involving one true contradiction is as far removed from Truth as that which involves a hundred And 2 ly That I know no just bounds but that if ineffable incomprehensible may be used for salving three or four seeming impossibilities so it may be for forty § 69 As for the Fears suggested by some ‖ Still p. 117. 567. Tillots p. 275 That if the judgment of all mens sences is not to be relied on in the matter of the Eucharist then it will be impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For what assurance can be had of any Miracles c Why not the Apostles be deceived in Christ's being risen from the grave For might it not be an invisible Spirit under the Accidents of Christ's Body And since hearing may fail as well as sight may not we thus question all Church-Tradition That nothing is to be admitted by us as certain which admitted we can be certain of nothing c. As for such Tragical Consequences I say they need not much terrifie us § 70 For 1st If it be not true in the Eucharist I suppose it is in another instance that under the outward accidents and appearances to the sences of one body was contained the substance or presence of another viz. under the external appearance of men the persons of Angels so that the sences of all men that looked upon them were actually mistaken Gen. 18.19 And so would so many more as had beheld them Doth it follow now from this deception of Sence or Reason here which cannot be denied that after this it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith or that any assurance can be had of Miracles c. Or lastly That we can be thence-forward certain of nothing If not how follows it from the like supernatural Operation supposed in the Eucharist An Argument drawn from our Sences is not from any of these supernatural effects deceiving sence weakned for proving any Truth save only in so many Particulars wherein we have or pretend divine Revelation concerning such deception of our sence If then there be such Divine Revelation for a deception of sence or natural reason in the Eucharist I hope all will see these aggravating consequences to be vain But 2ly If this Revelation be mistaken yet cannot that deception of sence which is only believed upon its supposal be from hence justly extended to any other thing where this is not supposed So that whether such Revelation be or be not Catholicks and the truth in such hasty and unweighed Argumentations are much wronged This from § 62. I have annexed though somwhat besides the design of this Discourse that the reluctances of our Sence or Natural Reason may do no prejudice to our Faith and humble submission in this great Mystery to the Traditions of the Church and Definitions of Councils The End of the first Discourse THE SECOND DISCOURSE Proceeding upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants That the Pastors of the Church some or other in all Ages do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries to search which in any Division of these Pastors are those to whom Christians ought to adhere and yeild their Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. PRotestants grant 1st That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2ly That the present Pastors and Governors thereof have authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3ly That these Governors some or other of them shall never err or miss-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to Salvation § 3. 4ly That they and the Church governed by them stand always distinct from Heretical or Schismatical Congregations § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks further affirm 5ly That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries the People are also to learn from them what or how many Points are necessary so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them § 6. 6ly Again That the Necessaries wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary but extended to all such points of Faith as are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7ly Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries 1. That there seems no necessity that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them § 12. 2. That they may infallibly guide in them though not infallibly distinguish them § 14. 3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries and no distinction of these made ought to be believed in all points they propose except an infallible certainty can be shewed of the contrary § 15. 4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for Christians with a more particular explicite Faith to believ § 17. 8. That Christians submitting their judgment to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith ought also to submit it to them in declaring the sence of the Fathers or Definitions of Councils and former Church concerning the same Matters § 19. 9ly That supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the concession of Learned Protestants ought to yield the Obedience either of silence or also of assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. From whence it follows that none may adhere to any new Guides but only so many as can demonstrate the Errors of the former § 21. Chap. 3. 11. Granted by all that these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them more or fewer may become erroneous in Necessaries and miss-guide Christians in them § 22. 12. In such dissenting therefore that there must be some Rule for Christians which Guides they ought to follow and that this is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the major part § 23. Where Of the Major part concluding the Whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianisme § 26. n. 2. 13. That
if we may believe Soave ‖ Hist l. 6 p 576. to have entertained this Maxim That to establish a Decree of Reformation a major part of Voices was sufficient but that a Decree of Faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict But this considerable part must always be understood of such as are Catholick i. e. by no formerly condemned Heresie rendered uncapable of voting in the Church's Councils And lastly if a Contest arises what a part may be called considerable to whom the judgment of this can be left save to the same major part whether in or out of the Council where-ever all are not agreed I see not This concerning the necessity and the ancient practice of a much major part at least we keeping still within the bounds of the Church Catholick its concluding the whole Where it is also worth the noting concerning times past §. 26. n. 1. that though we set aside here how necessary the Confirmation of Councils is by the always-esteemed most supream Authority Ecclesiastical on Earth the Bishop of Rome yet never any Heresie now universally so accounted hitherto can be shewed in any age to have been confirmed in any Council or accepted after it by the Major part of Christianity or of the Church-Governors thereof such especially as have Right to vote in Councils because guilty of no Heresie that hath been declared such by a former Council And for the Future likewise Before that any grievous and pernicious Error should spread so far as to infect a major part of the Ecclesiastical Governors and so be past all cure from this supream Court the Church's Vigilancy from our Lord 's promised perpetual assistance and favour may be presumed to be such as that her Councils either distributed in several Provincial ones or united in a General will condemn it And then after such censure though its Patrons should grow to a major part of Christianity yet do they now to all clearly appear I say not a less but no part of the Church Catholick But yet all those Texts of Scripture Prophecies and Promises there pressed by S. Austin against the Donatists and the many Arguments he drew from them seem to evince the contrary that never any such Sect shall be I mean of one Denomination or conspiring in any one Heresie at any time that shall for the multitude of its Followers and Latitude of its Extent exceed or match the Catholick As for Hereticks or Schismaticks of many different Tenents and Communions dissenting from one another what Magnitude or Bulk the whole Mass of them put together may amount to or whether not transcend the Catholick it much matters not For the Catholick Church being according to our Creed always but One and a Body united in a due subordination of its Governors in its Service Doctrine Discipline c. so far as these model them it is sufficiently for its magnitude and extent discerned from all the rest if of any one Society or Church that hath the former coherence in its Members the Catholick is the greatest and the most diffused Of which thus S. Austin observes ‖ De Pastoribus c. 8. Non omnes Haeretici per totam faciem terrae sed tamen Haeretici per totam faciem terrae alii hîc alii ibi Alia Secta in Africâ alia Haeresis in Oriente alia in Egypto alia in Mesopotamiâ Diversis locis sunt diversae sed una Mater Superbia genuit sicut una mater nostra Catholica omnes Christianos fideles toto Orbe diffusos Est in Africâ pars Donati Eunomiani non sunt in Africa sed cum parte Donati est hî Catholica Sunt in Oriente Eunomiani ibi autem non est pars Donati sed cum Eunomianis ibi est Catholica The summe is the Catholick Church is every where and every where Heresie but the Catholick every where one the other diverse the Greatest but many may be Heresies the Greatest that is one must be the Catholick There are two General Councils by Protestants frequently urged for decreeing §. 25. n. 2. or confirming Heresie the second of Ephesus and that of Ariminum But 1st For that of Ephesus Both the whole West out of the Council then the greater and more dignified part of the Church Catholick and the Pope's Legates and likewise many eminent Eastern Bishops in the Council suffering much persecution for it from the present secular power dissented from the Acts thereof and the main Body of Bishops also that in the Council subscribed to them complained in the following Council of Chalcedon of force used And 2 For that of Ariminum 1st Though the major part of it had been Arrians yet these having been declared Hereticks already by the Council of Nice and so now no true Members of the Church Catholick ‖ See before Prop. 4. could rightly have no Vote therein though the then Arrian Emperor forced upon the Council an admittance of them So that if the major part of the Church-Governors generally taken of that age had maintained an Heretical Tenent yet this was after that the major part of Christianity in a former Council and in a General acceptation thereof had condemned this Tenent for Heretical and so thence Christians might clearly discern the Maintainers of it to be no more Members of the Church Catholick nor their present Guâ—des Especially the rest preserving a Communion separated from them But 2ly He §. 26. n. 3 that pleaseth to examine the History of this Council and of these times I think will find no ground to affirm Arrianisme at any time to have infected or possessed a major part of Christianity Which because it is a thing much insisted on by Protestants labouring thereby to prove for some time a defection of the major part of the Church Catholick from one of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith I suppose it worth my pains though stepping aside a little from my present Design to give you a brief Narrative thereof In which if already satisfied you may omitting it pass on to § 27. n 4. If we review the Changes that were made in the Church before the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 1st For the East Though several eminent Catholick Bishops by Constantius his power favouring the Semi-Arrians were expelled from their Seats upon several particular false Criminations and among others the pretence of their maintaining Sobellianisme or confounding the Persons of Trinity yet was nothing then declared against the Nicene Creed And after this Expulsion there were in a Council held under him at Antioch A. D. 341 of 99 Bishops assembled only 36 Arrian the rest Orthodox ‖ See Baron A. D. 341. though the Arrian party indeed more powerful with the Emperor and the substance of the Form of Faith drawn up there was though diminutive to the Nicene yet Catholick and such saith Sozomen ‖ l. 3. c. 5. ut neque Arriani neque Concilii Niceni
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
for ever must be so infallible the Church-Catholick being ever so and never consisting of People only without Pastors It is necessarily devolved also upon the much major and more-dignified part of this united Body of the Clergy to be so Because else the Catholick Church would not be One in its Constitution but a Body divided in it self and so which could not stand if two several Parties in such Council without any just subordination to one another might both pretend themselves to be the unerring Guide 6ly For these Church-Guides being affirmed unerrable in Necessaries Catholicks here do understand Necessaries § 9 not in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all explicitly believed as that salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them But affirm they ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least all such points as are very requisite and beneficial to salvation either in respect of Christian Faith or Manners either for the direction of particulars or Government of the whole Society of Christians Of which see what is spoken more largely in the 2d Disc § 9. § 10 7ly Concerning the particular Manner or Measure of these Church-Governors when assembled in a lawful General Council their being affirmed unerrable or infallible 1st As Catholicks do not hereby understand them absolutely unerrable in any matter whatever which they may attempt to determine but only in such matters as appear to them of necessary Faith taken in the sence before-mentioned ‖ §. 9. Disc 2. §. 9. So neither do they hold touching these necessary points * any inherent habitual infallibility residing either in the whole Council or some Members thereof whereby they perceive and know themselves infallibly inspired as to such points after the same manner as the Apostles or Prophets did but only * an actual non-erring in those things which they define * from the promised Divine Assistance and super-intendent Providence constantly directing their Consultations into the Truth by what several ways or means it matters not to know or also * from the clear Evidence of former Revelation and Tradition of the point defined from which Evidence Protestants also grant that those may be certain for some divine Truths who are not infallible in all 2ly Catholicks affirm These Guides in all ages since that of the Apostles equally infallible and that the present Church doth not or way not pretend to any infallibility or exercise any authority consequent thereof which the ancient Catholick Church did not claim and also practise in the four first or other General Councils But yet as this ancient Church also required Assent under Anathema to its Definitions and inserted some of them into the Creeds and some of these also points of great difficulty and subtle discussion that so may the present or the future Church do the like § 11 8ly Catholicks affirm That of the several Councils that have been assembled in former ages to know which or how many of them have been lawfully general or in their obligation equivalent thereto any Christian without going about to satisfie himself in all those curious Questions moved by Protestants several of which are considered below § 86. c. may securely relie on the acceptation and acknowledgement or non-opposition of them and their Decrees * by the Church-Catholick of that age wherein they were held and of the ages following i. e. by the Teachers and Writers therein unanimously maintaining or not gainsaying the Doctrines of such Councils and by the Church's practice conforming to their Injunctions Or where some persons or Churches dissent from the rest * by the Major part of these Churches accepting them when these are united also with St. Peter 's Successor the always Prime Patriarch and Supreme Bishop of the Christian world the Bishop of Rome As for Example Catholicks hold that a Christian may securely embrace and obey the Decrees of those Councils as Generall or in their obligation equivalent thereto the Decrees whereof were accepted by the whole Church-Catholick tacitly at least in their Liturgies Writings Practices being conformable thereto or not dissenting therefrom at the Appearance of Luther and are accepted still both by the much major part of the Christian world and also ratified by the Supreme Pastor of the Church-Catholick § 12 The Reason of this 1 Because if a Christian may not securely rely on such an Acceptation a few persons or Churches resisting or standing out perhaps those who are condemned also of Heresie and Schism by such Councils This will void the obligation of all Councils whatever And upon the same termes the Arrian Bishops and their Churches that dissented will void the Obligation of the first General Council of Nice and those dissenting Persons and Churches of the Nestorians and Eutychians or Dioscorites some of which continue in the Eastern or Southern parts of the world unto this day will void that of the third and fourth General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon See more of this Disc 2. § 25. c. And 2 Because considering the nature of a multitude such thing can hardly be but that some will dissent from the rest and therefore it seems as necessary to proceed according to the same Rule in the Church-Catholick's accepting the Council's Decrees as in the Council's making them viz. that the Vote of the much major part conclude the whole to render the actions of such great Bodies valid § 13 9ly Concerning the Acceptation of Councils by the whole or major part of the Church-Catholick this seems reasonable That though the representatives of some considerable part of the Church-Catholick should be wanting in some of these Councils especially when they are assembled for deciding some Controversies arising only in that of Christianity where the Council sits yet the certain concurrence of that absent part of the Church-Catholick in their doctrines with the decrees of such Councils should pass for a sufficient acceptation of them and such absence no way prejudice the obligation of such Decrees For it may well be presumed the members of such Churches if present would have voted in the Council what they hold out of it hold before it contradict not after it § 14 10ly Catholicks do hold all particular persons and Churches taken divisim as being only a part of and subordinatâ—â—â— to the whole ‖ See Disc 2. §. 23. as also all particular Bishops are only single members of the whole Body of them assembled in a Council to stand obliged in submission of their judgement and in obedience of assent to the Definitions and Decrees of the whole in these Supremests Courts thereof wherein it can give its judgement viz. it s lawful General Councils when these accepted also by the Church-Governors absent in the manner forementioned § 15 The Reason Because these Supreme Courts are secured for ever by our Lords
gross damnable errours and the reason inducing them thereunto § 34 7 ly They say 1 st That though the Catholick Church cannot err in absolute necessaries Yet the Governors and Pastors thereof Yet these are they who are appointed by Christ to instruct and guide the rest are not so included in our Saviours promise of the Churches Indefectibility but that they i.e. the much major part of them even when met in a General Council if this not such as is accepted by the Church diffusive may err in their Decrees and that even in Credends and Practicals that are fundamental and necessary for obtaining Salvation even those necessary absolutely for such inerrability in absolutely necessaries they allow onely to the Church diffusive not to her representative 2 yl That as the Church diffusive so her General Councils though these by the Church diffusive universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries which non-necessaries in their sence thereof ‖ See before §. 24. and below §. 52. do extend to all points whatsoever except those few without belief of which both the being of a Christian Church and the attaining of salvation absolutely faileth § 35 8 ly Hence they say That so many of former Councils as are acknowledged to be lawfully general by the general consent of the Christian World or whose decrees when published are universally i. e. by the whole Church Catholick accepted they will allow for truly Oecumenical or equivalent thereto So Mr. Stillingfleet †P. 536. or as the Arch-bishop further ‖ P 346. for infallible also i.e. as to necessaries because the diffusive Catholick Church is held always in necessaries infallible †Ap. Laud p. 139 318 See §. 2. and That they will make this consent of the whole Christian World their judge in this case ‖ Still p. â—36 Ap. Lâ—â—d 195. l § 36 But then here are two limitations One of allowing these Councils infallible or unerring in ncessaries onely the other if such Councils be universally accepted which as they understand them seem to discharge them of all obligation of assent to the decrees of any though reputed never so lawful or general a Council I mean as to any grounding such assent upon its absolutely not erring by vertue of our Lords Promise 1. For from the first limitations of the Council's not erring only in Necessaries 1 st they hold no assent or submission of judgment necessarily or absolutely due to a Council in such things wherein it is errable as it is in all Non-necessaries 2. Next they say that these Councils that are unerring in Necessaries may not prescribe to them what points are necessary what not for so a Council might oblige their assent so far as it pleaseth and from whom else they should learn Necessaries I see not And till they can distinguish these they have no means to know whether such Council is unerring in those particulars which it defines as being Necessaries But according to their restraint also of Necessaries most conciliary definitions must be in Non-necessaries wherein therefore these Councils are fallible fallible though universally accepted But if such Council not universally accepted then fallible they say it may be also in Fundamentals § 37 2 ly For the second limitation requiring the universal acceptation of such general Councils or the consent of the Church diffusive to their Decrees many of the reformed seem to exact this consent so far extended to all particular persons or Churches as that scarce any of those Councils general even which they do allow have had one so entire For the reason why a general Council universally accepted erreth not in Fundamentals being this Because the whole Church or its Clergy diffusive that accepts it can never so err and they maintaining that in the Church diffusive not the much major part of it or of its Clergy I mean of those whose judgment can be procured but only some part or other thereof shall never so err which part how small or inconsiderable mean while it may be in number or dignity to the rest they know not hence any consent or acceptation of the Church or Clergy less than all or what is near it renders them not sâ—cure of its not erring Because here the promise of not erring may possibly be verified only in the small dissenting party See Doctor Hamond of Heresie p. 156. n. 6. where he saith That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of the Church were met together in that Council for if there be any left out why saith he may not the promise be good in them though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council ‖ See Chilling c. 2. p. 139. Stillingf pag. 251. And what he saith of the Council holds as much in the acceptation of it where some refuse this So therefore none can give faith to the definition concerning Christs Godhead of the Fathers in the Council of Nice upon our Lords promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against his Church if some few oppose it as the Arians did for in them not those of the Council may the Promise be made good And hence whilst they find in former ages a Berengarius a Wicliffe the Waldenses an Hus a Luther and some Followers varying from the judgment of the Councils called in their times they are willing to believe the Orthodox and Catholick Faith to have been preserved in these few Dissenters and the Councils though universally accepted by the rest to have erred from it nor to oblige them upon the account of so general an approbation and thus even the dissent of those persons who have no power to vote in the Council yet out of it is effectual to void the obligation of the Council So though they usually name the Greek and Gallican as well as Protestant Churches as non-acceptors of the Council of Trent yet if a sufficient acceptation thereof as to Protestant Controversies both of the Gallican and Greek Churches be proved to them nothing is gained hence for securing its merrability even in a Fundamental because the belief of all necessaries and the verifying of the Divine Promises they hold may be sufficiently conserved in the Protestants solely standing out against it And when they grant that Councils universally accepted cannot err in necessaries they say only this That some or other professing Christianity shall never so err and then conclude from hence that neither doth or can the whole so err in those things wherein it agrees with them But next admitting an infallibility in Necessaries to be allowed by the more sober and judicious Protestants to a Council accepted by a much major part of the Church-Catholick though some persons or Churches also dissent without which nothing even in the first General Councils stands firm yet herein still is continued a contest when the number of Dissenters
clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then matter of Faith or Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and would not have remained in the Communion of the Church Thus with him if one or two of the Ancients that are not therefore at that time accounted Hereticks for it can be shewed to dissent the concurrence of all the rest is held not sufficient to prove a Catholick Doctrine in a matter of Faith nor such an accord of them sufficient to be called a Catholick consent or such as that all maintaining the contrary thereof after it is declared by a Council to be such a Catholick Doctrine will be Heresie Whereas contrary it is manifest both that some Dissenters from a Catholick Doctrine of Faith especially if not so universally evident as some others are or a consequential that is in those times not so much considered are not therefore guilty of Heresie before a more publick declaration and clearing of such points by a Council witness S. Cyprian in the Point of Non rebaptization and yet that the Doctrine may be truly called Catholick before the Council and the Dissenters also perhaps not free from a culpable ignorance therein For if the dissent of some few Fathers in the Council as in that of Nice or Chalcedon hinders not that a Point may be declared then a Catholick Doctrine neither doth the dissent of some few Fathers before the Council hinder that then it was not a Catholick Doctrine But to return to Mr. Stillingfleet Such conditions they say must the Point have in which the Church-Catholick is unerring and the obligation to believe and conform to which is universal and the opposite whereof is Heresie which conditions if you please to apply to the Articles of Faith opposing the Arrian Nestorian or Pelagian Hereticks you shall finde scarce any of them but that the Opposers thereof upon a deficiency in some of these requisites may withdraw his obedience thereto without any guilt of Heresie But 2 ly They leave us also still uncertain which or how many these Fundamentals or necessaries are Or who shall judge what points have or have not such an universal attestation as they require from the Church and therefore they leave us also uncertain what is or is not Heresie leave us also uncertain by whose sentence and judgment such Hereticks may be restrained proceeded against and punished since they hold Councils no certain Judge concerning these Points what are necessary and Fundamentals or universally attefted what not and likewise since they hold these Fundamentals as to private men varying according to a sufficient proposal of them more Points being Fundamental to one than to another ‖ Chill p. 137. Still P. 98.99 and consequently Heresie in opposing them varying accordingly they having cast off also that of the Church from being a sufficient proposal of any ones conviction therein § 53 And indeed if 1 st Protestants maintain that no Councils or Church without tyranny may require belief or internal assent from their Subjects to their Definitions or Articles of Religion a practice much exclaimed against in the Church of Rome and if I misunderstand them not denied to be lawful by several reformed And 2 ly this be granted that the holding of a Tenent contrary to some Fundamental Point and not only the outward profession and publick maintaining of such a Tenent is Heresie I see not how the reformed Churches though they should declare a particular Tenent to be an Heresie yet can discover any Heretick whatever unless he voluntarily publish his Heresie nor how they can or do remove any such out of their Communion or also sacred Orders if 1 neither those who hold such Heretical opinions stand anathematized by their Canons nor there may be the exacting from such entring into Orders a confession of their belief or an acknowledgement of any internal assent to their Articles of Religion Both which for such Points are the practise of the Catholick Church But if it be maintained that this also is the practise of the reformed Churches or at least this of England why is the requiring of such assent to and belief of the contrary of that which she deems Heresie blamed in the Roman § 54 Lastly the description which is made by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 153. of that Catholick Church which our Blessed Saviour instituted in the world mentioned before § 41. seems to take away all such Judge upon the earth by whom Heresie can be discovered or made known for if the Church-Governors cannot prescribe infallibly i.e. infallibly without mistake for there is no need that infallibly here signifie any thing more in any Controversie on which side is Divine Truth but That men are to be left herein to judge for themselves according to Scripture that is what seems to them out of Scripture to be truth because saith he overy one is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Then neither could the Fathers of Nice Judge concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son a thing strongly questioned and put it into the Creed Nor those of Ephesus and Chalcedon judge so concerning one person of our Lord and 2. natures and put these in the Creed Judge I say so as that others can be obliged to hold that to be Heresie in these points which they pronounce so Nor was there then any way to convince the Arrians infallibly of Heresie but that they are still to be left to judge for themselves as bound to take care for their own souls and of all things that tend thereto The same may be said much more concerning Pelagianism and other errors formerly condemned for Heresie which do expresly oppose no Articles in our Creeds By this way then an Ecclesiastical restraint of external profession there may be but none of belief or opinions nor obstinacy in holding them where no Obligation acknowledged to hold otherwise This of those who express Heresie as an obstinate error against some Fundamental or necessary article of faith universally attested such by the Church in the manner before mentioned But Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 2.11 n p. 70. somewhat more condescending and enlarging the compass of Heresie though he makes it indeed to be an opposition of the Faith in any one or more branches of it by way of Emphasis and excellence that was once delivered to the Saeints and that was set out by Christ or his Apostles from him to be by all Men belâ—eved to their Righteousness and confest to their Salvation And an opposition of such faith saith he ‖ §. 5. n. 2. as descends to us from the Apostles by a Catholick Testimony truly such i. e. universally in all respects 1 of place 2
manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita Videbam ea manere in illâ Ecclesiâ quae Romanae connectitur Lastly we find it a Body generally professing against any Reformation of the Doctrines of the former Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever and claiming no priviledge of Infallibility to it self for the present which it allows not also to the Church in all former times This is the general Character of one Combination of the Churches in present being The other present Combination of Churches in the Western World §. 76. The Face of the present Protestant Church we find to be a Body of much different Constitution and Complection * Much of its Doctrin Publick Service and Discipline confessed varying from the times immediately preceding It consisting of those who acknowledg themselves or their Ancestors once members of the former and that have as they say upon an unjust submission required of them yet this no more than their forefathers paid departed from it * This new Church only one person at the first afterward growing to a number and protected against the Spiritual by a secular power and so we find it subsisting and acting at this day under many several Secular Heads Independent of one another without whose consent and approbation first obtained what if such head should be an Heretick It stands obliged not at any time to make or promulgate and enforce upon its Subjects any definitions or decrees what ever in Spiritual matters ‖ See 25. Hent 8. c. 19. As to its Ecclesiastical Governours we find it taking away the higher subordinations therein that were formerly and affirming an Independent Coordination as to incurring guilt of Schism some of all Primates others of all Bishops very prejudical to the Vnity of Faith We find it standing also disunited from St. Peters Chair yet this a much smaller Body still than that which is joyned thereto and therefore in a General Council supposing all the members thereof to continue in and to deliver there their present judgments touching points in dispute such as must needs be out voted by the other and hence by the Laws of Councills in duty obliged to submit and conform to it Neither seems there any relief to this party to be expected from the accession to their side of any votes from the Churches more remote I mean the Greek or other Eastern Churches if we will suppose these also to persist in their present judgment whose Doctrine in the chief controversies is shewed ‖ §. 158. c. to conspire yet without any late consederacy with that of this greater Body which these reformed Churches have deserted § 77 We find also this new Combination of Churches in stead of pretending to assume to it self Whatsoever de facto it doth of which see more in the following Chap. § 83. c. in its Synods the same authority in stating matters of Faith which the ancient Councills have used 1. zealously contending that Councills are fallible in their determinations for so it supports the priviledg of using its own judgment against superiour Synods 2. and accordingly teaching its Subjects that it self also is fallible in what it proposeth 3 and engaging them that they may not be deceaved by its authority upon triall of its Doctrines and search of the Truth and examining with the judgment of discretion every one for him self and then relying finally on that sentence which their own reason gives 4. allowing also their dissent to what it teacheth till it proves to them its Doctrine out of the Scripture or at least when ever they are perswaded that themselves from thence can evidence the contrary Therefore it is also more sparing or pretends to be so of which see more below § 85. c. in the articles of its faith and Religion especially positive many of its Divines holding an union of Faith requisite only in some necessaries and then contracting necessaries again in a narrower compass than the Creeds and because it allows of no judge sufficient to clear what is to be held in controversies ‖ See 2. Disc §. 38. therefore holding most controversies in Religion not necessary at all to be determined and much recommending an Union of Charity there where cannot be had an Vnion of Belief We find them also restraining Heresy to points fundamental and then leaving fundamentals uncertain and varying as to several persons fewer points fundamental to some more to others and this no way knowable by the Church Again making Schism only such a departure from the Church as is causeless and then this thing when causeless to be judged for any thing that appears by those who depart by such notions leaving Hereticks and Schismaticks undiscernable by the Catholick Church and unseparable from it and therefore many seeming to understand the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in the Creed to signifie nothing else than the totall complex of all Churches whatever professing Christianity unless those persons be shut out who by imposing some restraint of opinion for enjoying their Communion are said to give just cause of a separation Accordingly we find this Body spreading its lap wide to several Sects by which it acquires the more considerable magnitude and receiving or tolerating in its communion many opposite parties of very different Principles and hence as it grows elder so daily branching more and more into diversity of Opinions and multiplying into more and more subdivisions of Sects being destitute of any cure thereof both by its necessary indulgement of that called Christian liberty and allowance of private judgment and also by the absolute Independency one on another of so many several supream Governours both the Secular and the Ecclesiastical who model and order diversly the several parts thereof As the other Church in her growing elder grows more and more particular in her Faith and with new definitions and Canons fenceth it round about according as new errors would break in upon it Further we find several amongst its Leaders much offended §. 78. n. 1. that Church-Tradition should be brought in together with Scripture as an authentick witness or Arbitrator in trying Controversies See the Protestants Conditions proposed to the Council of Trent ‖ Soave p. 642-344 366 that the Holy Scripture might be Judge in the Council and all humane authority excluded or admitted with a condition Fundantes se in S. Scripturis taking great pains to * discover the errors of the Fathers and their contradicting of one another See Daille's vray usage de Peres and * to shew several of the works imputed to them and admitted by R. Catholicks supposititious and forged See Cooks and Perkins and Rivets Censures Taking no less pains to shew the non necessity of Councils in General to number the many difficulties how to be assured which of them are legal and obliging what their Decrees and what the sence of them to discover the flaws deficiencies in
the days of Edward the Sixth Expedit quidem saith he prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis quae sibi nimium licere volunt claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctriâ—ae ab omnibus recepta quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi Parochi jurejurando adstringantur ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclaesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive and Preach such a certain forme of Doctrine and to practice such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governours In which thing if He speaks reason what can more justify the proceedings of the Church-Catholick in restraining not only her Subjects tongues but tenents and opinions in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief Notwithstanding these evidences cited above §. 84. n. 1. implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England yet her Divines when charged therewith by Roman Catholicks do return many answers and Apologies whereby they seem either to deny any such thing or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tiranny 1 rst Then they say α That they require not any oath but a Subscription only to these their Articles ‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264. 2. β Require subscription only from their own not from strangers See Bishop Bramhall vindic p. 155. And This Church prescribes only to her own Children whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World saith Bishop Lawd ‖ P. 52. 3. γ Nor yet require it of all their own but only of those who seek to be initiated into holy Orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment ‖ Bishop Brambal vind p. 156. 4. δ These Articles not penned with Anathemas or curses against all those even of their own who do not receive them 5 ly ε Subscription not required to them as Articles of their Faith or at least as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith as belief is required to all hers as such by the Church of Rome but only required to them as Theo ogical veritie ‖ Bâ—amh Reply p. 350. and Inferiour truths †Stillingfleet p. 54. To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350. We do use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Thelogical verities for the preservation of unity among our selves Again ‖ Ib. p. 277. Though perhaps some of our negatives were reveald truths and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith which rule of Faith he saith there consists of such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to believe them ‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation And ‖ Reply p. 264. We do not saith he hold our 39. Articles to be such necessary truths extra quas non est â—alus nor enjoyn Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as Theological truths And thus the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 51. All points are made Fundamental and that to all mens belief if that Church the Roman hath once determined them whereas the Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith To which they add ζ That as for those of these Articles that are positive doctrines and Articles of their Faith they are such as are grounded in Scripture and General Truths about which there is no controversy ‖ Bramh. vindic p. 159. and such saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 54. as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self η And then as for the rest of those Articles they are only negative as the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 52. refuting there where the thing affirmed by the Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it Or as Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. p. 159 They are no new articles or innovations obtruded upon any but negations only of humane controverted Traditions †Reply p. 279. and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles ‖ Ib. p. 277. And though some of them were revealed truths c. as before yet do they not therfore make up the rule of Faith ‖ i. e. as this Rule is before explained θ 6 ly That such subscription whether of positives or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side Though the Church of England saith the Aâ—chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far shoâ—t of the Church of Romes severity whos 's Anathema's are not only for 39. Articles but fer very many more about one hundred in matter of Doctrine 7 ly ξ Concerning the just importance and extent of such subscription several expressions I find that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles § 84. n. 2 and the reason given because the Church is fallible but only * not to oppose not to contradict them To this purpose We do not look saith Bishop Bramhall ‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism garded p. 190 Stillingf p. 55. upon the Articles of the Church of England as Essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And Si quis diversum dixerit we question him Si quis diversum senserit if any man think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not ‖ Vindic. p. 156. Again λ Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement so he did not publish it by word or writing After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 104. The Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe
means infallibly true to us and applies infallibly not to the object but act of faith seems faulty Because God may oblige us to believe either a thing to be infallibly true i. e. as to us so as that there can be no possibility of our error in it or only most credibly so according to the proof or ground we have of such belief Therefore though it is true which he saith That God never obligeth us to believe i.e. to be absolutely true what is really a lye or false and true also that if we know that God obligeth us to believe a thing to be infallibly true we have the greatest assurance that such thing is infallibly true Yet so 1. Is this true that God obligeth us to believe nor for infallibly but only for most credibly true what is from those principles which right reason can attain of it only most credibly so And 2. So is this also true that God hath not obliged us to believe Christianity as infallibly true from the moral certainty we have thereof supposing that this moral certainty is not absolutely infallible I mean as to a possibility of the contrary Upon this supposition therefore that our moral certainty or assurance on which we ground the verity of Christian Religion involves a possibility of falshood God doth not oblige us to believe Christian Religion with an acquisite or rational faith from this evidence as freed from all possibility of falshood or as absolutely infallible but to believe in the same degree the one to be credible as we do the other in the same degree Christian Religion true as we do the ground thereof and no further And here Mr. Stillingfleet seems to incur the fault he imputes to others †Ibid. of making the conclusion surer than the premises if he would make Christian Religion by this way any whit more infallible than moral certainty is So also in the next page †p. 208. if he pretends to prove from that text of Scripture Joh. 16.13 any infallible assurance and not only a moral certainty to us of the Apostle's infallibility in the conveyance of Scripture himself must incur the Circle he objects to Catholicks For since we have this Text of Scripture only from their conveyance I cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of it till first so assured of their infallibility in conveying it 3ly It is true also That when reason is not rightly used by us and when that seems to us from false reasoning most credible which in right reason is not yet that here also God obligeth us to believe this the most credible but then he obligeth us to believe this most credible hypothetically only and upon supposition that our reasons and reasonings are good and therefore we are obliged by him herein only to believe a truth namely this thing to be most credible hypothetically c. though the thing which we believe thus hypothetically most credible is absolutely not true As also God obligeth us to follow an erroneous conscience Neither do we sin in this following it to which God obligeth us and which we do only upon supposition that it is not erroneous for if we knew it erroneous we might not follow it but we sin in not better informing it where God also obligeth us to the contrary But to let these things pass I grant what Protestants affirm That the moral evidence we have from Tradition is sufficient to produce such an assurance of Christian Religion as God requires us to have of it by an acquisite and rational faith and that both this evidence of the truth of Christian Religion and our faith built on it are morally infallible This of the sufficient certainty of Church-Tradition concerning Scripture and so concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith that are built thereon affirmed by Protestants Upon which ground also they freely grant †See Chillingw p. 114. Stillingf p. 216. That if any other point wherein they dissent from Catholicks can be proved by as universal a Tradition as that of the Scriptures they will subscribe to it § 138 2. Again the same sufficient certainty Catholicks also affirm to be in Church Tradition for what it delivers but withall they urge many motives of credibility concurring in it †See before §. 121. which are not so much insisted on by Protestants some of which motives may add to a Tradition of a less latitude a moral certainty as great or greater from the dignity of the persons as a more universal Tradition may have from the multitude of Testators amongst which motives also are the miracles done in several ages by such persons And by these motives also Catholicks affirm * that the true Religion may be rationally evident and discerned from all false ones whether they be within or without the pale of Christianity none of which Sects can produce like evidence for their faith and * that by these our faith is demonstrated a rational service Rom. 12.1 1 Pet. 3.15 These motives likewise are acknowledged by them to be the ultimate resolution of an humane faith which is begotten by them and that in respect of such a faith they are the formal principle of believing nor that such faith doth exceed the certitude of this principle and that the assent we yeild to the Articles which we believe only on this account is no stronger or certainer than these motives be on which it is grounded All which things as Protestants earnestly contend for †See Stillingf p. 137. 140. Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 61. so there seems no reason why they should be denied them Of this matter thus the fore-quoted Author Layman out of Scotus and others ‖ Theol. moral p. 183. Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solumodò humanâ credit And Authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti which we learn from Divine Revelation the Scripture's being the Word of God first supposed sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi fide humanâ And Accedit quòd assensus cognoscitivus non potest excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur § 139 This is said concerning a sufficiently certain evidence in Church-Tradition c. agreed on both by Catholicks and Protestants That the Scriptures at least the books of it called by Protestants Canonical are the Word of God But then 2ly The Protestant's declining the admission of Church-Traditions that are less universal than that of Scripture is thought unreasonable 1. Because of two Traditions whereof one appears more universal than the other yet the lesser also may have a sufficient certainty in it whereon to build a rational belief and hence Protestants may have reason enough to admit several other Traditions though not all equally universal or any so universal as that of the Scriptures For the wars of Caesar and Pompey descend by a more universal
Grecian opinions are since but what they were when first the Reformation was made Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation and Cyril's above 50. years after his 2ly Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions the words of Knowles ibid are considerable who there saith That he was a reverent and learned man and that he desired to reform many errors and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church as these others were in the Western which also appears from the complaints and persecution against him more than against his Predecessors by the Agents of the Roman Church upon this pretence Knowles ibid. And he is said †Spondan A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei p. 528. at last for certain crimes objected to him and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks to have been imprisoned and shortly after executed and another Cyril ab Iberia formerly rejected to have been repossessed of his Chair But 3ly How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias yet the same testimonies above-named †§. 158. n 2. 165 162. that shew Jeremias's to be the doctrines of the Greek Church shew Cyril's whoever had new reformed him not to be so But 4ly Indeed his declaration though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions is very short and sparing general and unclear extending to few points and waving the rest and forbearing there to mention any one point save that of the procession of the holy Gho t wherein the Greeks differ from the reformed as surely in some they do and again those points therein in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict both Jeremias's and the Roman tenents namely the denying of Purgatory and of Transubstantiation if therein he intend to deny all sorts of Purgatory though not by five and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist are unquestionably singular and not owned by the Greeks as is shewed before and as is witnessed also by some reformed †§. 167 169. c. out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions and practâ—ces 5ly If Cyril or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reformed and new opinions diverse from his predecessors whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church These are to be stiled not its doctrines but his own and it is not denied that Patriarchs as well as others may be heretical for in several ages some have been so But 6ly If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation then will this only follow that it is true of the Greek Church as of the Protestant that they also have reformed from the whole Catholick Church 1. from the former as well Greek Church as Latine and so this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice if a departure from the Church Catholick bâ— Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and
my faith § 2 Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule which in this point you do not Soc. However I believe in this point truly or falsly I am secure that my faith is entire as to all necessary points of faith Prot. How so Soc Because as Mr. Chillingworth saith †p. 23. p. 159 367. He that believes all that is in the Bible all that is in the Scriptures as I do believes all that is necessary there Prot. This must needs be true but meanwhile if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you or the true sence of some part of that you know for the Scripture as that Author notes †Chill p. 87. is not so much the words as the sence be mistaken by you how can you say you believe all the Scriptures For when you say you believe all the Scripture you mean only this that you believe that whatsoever is the true sence thereof that is God's Word and most certainly true which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing or also your believing the contrary to the true sence thereof and then you not believing the true sence of some part of it at least may also not believe the true sence of something necessary there which is quite contrary to your conclusion here § 3 Soc. †Chill p. 18. I believe that that sence of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is is certainly true And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths against which I err Next †Chill Ib. I do my best indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence thereof By my best indeavour I mean †Chill p. 19. such a measure of industry as humane prudence and ordinary discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Of using which endeavour also I conceive I may be sufficiently certain for otherwise I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures this due indeavour being the condition which Protestants require that I shall not be as to all necessaries deceived in the sence of Scripture Now being conscious to my self of such a right endeavour used †Chillingw p. 102. For me to believe further this or that to be the true sence of some Scriptures or to believe the true sence of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my faith or salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed †Chill p. 18.92 For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a tyrant § 4 Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 â— But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles †Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine †Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpretor no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sence of Scripture also which I embrace a sence you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the preface to his book de uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum literâ—ram testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firmâ—ssimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostritenuitatem sublevat c Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilia adeo quidem ut eorum vim deâ—linare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut à verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression other texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socinians maintain Joh. 14.28 17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their cause but to shew their confidence § 7 Prot. O strange presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sence of these Scriptures because you strongly perswade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is
p. 506. 537. No authority on earth can oblige to internal assent in matters of faith or to any farther obedience than that of silence Prot. Yes you stand obliged to yield a conditional assent at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts i. e. unless you can bring evident Scriptures or Demonstration against them Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this I find indeed the Arch-Bp †§. 32 n. 5. §. 33. Consid 5. n. 1. requiring evidence and demonstration for inferiors contradicting or publishing their dissent from the Councils decrees but not requiring thus much for their denial of assent and I am told ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48. 49. Division of Churches p. 45. That in matters proposed by my Superiors as God's Word and of faith I am not tyed to believe it such till they manifest it to me to be so and not that I am to believe it such unless I can manifest it to be contrary because my faith can rest on no humane authority but only on God's Word and divine Revelation And Dr. Field saith †p. 666. It is not necessary expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council Till I am convinced then of my error the obedience of silence is the most that can be required of me § 20 But 6ly I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither considering my present perswasion that this Council manifestly erred and that in an error of such high consequence concerning the unity of the most high God as is no way to be tolerated and I want not evident Scriptures and many other unanswerable Demonstrations to shew it did so and therefore being admitted into the honourable function of the Ministery I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an higher authority to publish this great truth of God and to contradict the Councils decree § 21 Prot. But you may easily mistake that for evident Scripture and those for Demonstrations that are not Concerning which you know what the Arch-Bp and Mr. Hooker say †Ap. Lawd 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them †Id. p. 227. You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors or to the Church desiring a redress of such error by her calling another Council And if these Superiors acquainted therewith dislike your demonstrations which the definition saith if they be right ones they must be by all and therefore by them assented to methinks though this is not said by the Arch-Bp in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations and remain in silence at least and no further trouble the Church Soc. May therefore no particular person or Church proeed to a Reformation of a forme doctrin if these Superiors first complained to declare the grounds of such persons or Churches for it not sufficient Prot. I must not say so But if they neglect as they may to consider their just reasons so diligently as they ought and to call a Council for the correcting of such error according to the weight of these reasons then here is place for inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such error without them Soc. And who then shall judge whether the reasons pretended are defective or rather the present Church negligent in considering them Prot. Here I confess to make the Superiors Judges of this is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his grievance these Superiors whose faith appears to adhere to the former Council being only Judges in their own cause and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing †Still p 479.292 Soc. The inferiors then that complain I suppose are to judge of this To proceed then To these Superiors in many diligent writings we have proposed as we think many unanswerable Scriptures and reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our party to the former Nicen Council and therefore from which evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary sentence and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this point we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church Pastor or Bishop for to reform for themselves and the souls committed to them in an error appearing to them manifest and intolerable as for the Protestants or for Dr. Luther to have done the same for Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass and other points that have been concluded against the truth by several former Councils Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils as that of Nice was Soc. Whatever these Councils were this much matters not as to a reformation from them for had they been lawfully General yet Protestants hold †See before Disc 3. §. 34. c. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in non-fundamentals errors manifest and intolerable and so may be appealed from to future and those not called their error presently rectified by such parts of Christianity as discern it and also S. Austine †De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c. is frequently quoted by them saying That past General Councils erring may be corrected by other Councils following § 22 Prot. But I pray you consider if that famous Council of Nice hath so erred another Council called may it also not err notwithstanding your evidences proposed to it For though perhaps some new Demonstrative proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained yet you will not deny this sufficient evidence to have been extant for that most learned Council to have seen the truth having then the same entire rule of faith as you now the Scriptures in which you say your clearest evidences lye for their direction When a future Council then is assembled and hath heard your plea will you assent to it and acquiesce in the judgment thereof Soc. Yes interposing the Protestant-conditions of assent if its decree be according to God's Word and we convinced thereof Prot. Why such a submission of judgement and assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing whereof you are convinced by me may this future Council then challenge no further duty from you why then should the Church be troubled to call it Soc. †Stillingf p. 542. Though this future Council also should err yet it may afford remedy against inconveniences and one great inconvenience being breaking the Church's peace this is remedied by its authority if I only yield the obedience of silence thereto Prot. But if your obedience oblige not to silence converning Councils past because of your new evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err
Church Where the Dr. seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgement are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. else here concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers St. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Churche's censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood out against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guesse whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience the plea which you also here make for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse †See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. §. 19. § 26. What say you to this Soc. What these Authors say as you give their sence seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles †See Dr. Potter p. 165.167 Dr. Hammond of Heresie § 7 n. 3 §. 9. n. 8 Des of L. Faukl c. 1. p. 23. See before Disc 3. §. 41 n. 1. and their own positions elswhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisy For since they say That lawfull General Councils may erre in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intolâ—erably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councels may erre in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councels may erre also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Councel may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisy or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning autocatacrisy as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also findes sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramball †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and alwayes shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings alwayes so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and alwayes ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not the resisting saith he †p. 128. the voice or definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my selfe Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Drs. reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to inquire whether the Decrees of an universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to reject them out or not to receive them into their beliefe And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils †Se before Disc 1 §. 6. and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth
judgment I am conscious to my self of no disobedience as to either of these for an actual conviction I am sure I have not and supposing that I have had a sufficient proposal and do not know it my obedience upon the Protestant principles can possibly advance no further than it now doth The Apostles Creed I totally imbrace and would have it the standing bound of a Christian Faith For other Creeds I suppose no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicen Creed than is required to those of the Athanasian And of what kind the necessity is of believing those Mr. Stillingfleet states on this manner †p. 70.71 That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary either as to the matter because the matter to believed is in it self necessary or because of the clear conviction of mens understandingâ— that though the matters be not in themselves neâ—â—ssary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this belief doth extend no further than the clearness of the conviction doth Again that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Churches definition upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality doth depend up on the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed Now this principle neither I nor yet Protestants accept Then he concludes That as to the Athanasian Creed and the same it is for the Nicen It is unreasonable to imagin that the Church of England doth own this necessity purely on the account of the Churches definition of those things which are not fundamental it being directly contrary to to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles Now which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental she defines nothing nor do the 19 20. or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Churches Definitions even as to Fundamentals And hence that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear conviction that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation Thus he Now for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed that it is in it self necessary or that they are divine Revelations I do most readily yield my faith and assent thereto Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected § 38 The Act 1º Eliz. allows no Definitions of the 1st General Councils in declaring Heresie but with this limitation that in such Councils such things be declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture On which terms I also accept them § 39 Dr. Hammond affirming That all additions settled by the Vniversal Church if he means General Councils are in all reason without disputing to be received as Apostolical Truths that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christ's Successors may receive all uniform submission from us suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned †See before §. 26. For thus if I rightly understand him all the definitions of General Councils and of the Christian Governors in all ages as these being still Christs Successors are to be without disputing embraced as truths Apostolical § 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signifie any more than this That any person convicted of Socinianism i. e. by publishing his opinion shall upon such conviction be excommunicated and if it be understood adequate to this Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri Anathema sit and that the Church of England for allowing her Communion is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary then I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of Trent or other late Councils or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here the reason of such faulting them is because these require assent not being lawful General Councils such reason will not pass 1st Because neither the English Synod exacting assent in this point is a General Council 2ly Because it is the Protestant tenent that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions Or if it be affirmed either of General or Provincial Councils that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees Viz. Those evidently true and divine Revelation such as Consubstantiality is but may not to others Viz. Those not manifested by them to be such then before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's or its requiring of assent we must know whether the point to which assent is required is or is not evident divine Revelation And then by whom or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided for those that judge this who ever they be do sit now upon the trial of the rightness or mistake of the judgment of a General Council Or when think we will those who judge this i. e. every person for himself agree in their sentence Again If on the other side the former Church in her language Si quis non crediderit c. Anathema sit be affirmed to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you to mean nothing more than Si quis Haresin suam palam profiteatur hujus professionis convictis fuerit Anathema sit Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such Anathema's will be concluded causeless and unjust But indeed though according to the former sentences her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion if wholly concealed so far as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated and lie actually under this censure of the Church because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby Yet her Anathema also extends even to the internal act or tenet after the Churches contrary definition known which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience and contempt of her authority so far as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christs Body though externally he is not as yet so cut off And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated before and without conviction if externally he doth or speaketh any thng whereby he is convincible and not if there be any thing proved against him but if any thing at least provable and such a one upon this to be obliged in conscience not only to confess his heretical opinion
for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his reinjoying the Churches Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrines it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Preface § 39. That the doctrine of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib § 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. § 39. I am perswaded that the constant doctrine of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ib. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of this Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he †Chill p. 376 so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of jud gment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to indeavor to find the true sence of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. indeavouring to find the true sence of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sence shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sence Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth That with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Vnity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS Addenda PAge 30. line 31. After Turky Add. Brerewood Brerw Enquir p. 84. 88. computing the whole Body of Christians in Asia including also those united with Rome not to amount to a twentieth part of its inhabitants and all the Turks Dominions in Europe not to exceed the magnitude of Spain Ib. p. 67. Throughout whose Dominions also the chief c. Page 30. line penult After Field p. 63. Add. And Brerewood's inquire c. 19. p. 147. Page 31 line 17 After reside Add. To which in the last place may be added that great Body of the same Communion that hath long flourished and daily enlargeth it self throughout the West-Indies Page 51 line 4. After practice Add. To all these may be further added the early Condemnation that is found in Antiquity of those modern tenents of several Protestants in opposition to a subordination of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to the utility of Prayer for the Dead of Invocation of the Saints Veneration of Saints Reliques set Fasting-dayes Festivals Vigils Abstinence from certain meats Monastick vows especially that of Virginity and Celibacy Hermitages Disparity of the Coelestial Rewards and degrees of Glory The maintainers of which long ago Arrius Vid. Epiphan Haer. 75. August Haer. 53. Jovinian Vid. Hieron contra Jovin Austin Haer. 82. Vigilantius Vid. Hieronym contra Vigilant were condemned as Hereticks i. e. as opposers of those points that the general Church practice received and allowed as lawful by the Fathers of those times and being crushed by their Censures were prevented from receiving any further sentence from a Council Lastly why was there made a departure from the Church at least for many of these points c. Page 66 line 19. After Himself Add. And so this Person supposed by Protestants to have been raised up by God to vindicate his Truth yet was permitted by him to dy in their conceit a Desertor of it i. e. reconciled to the doctrin of the Church Page 93 line ult After exordium unitatis Add. The Ecclesiasticalunity in which Bishop Grotius conceiveth so necessary as that he saith Rivet Apol. discussio p. 255. Non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jung antur cum iis qui sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua saith he nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Again Inter causas divulsionis Ecclesiae non esse primatum Episcopi Romani secundùm Canones favente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc esse Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum Thus moderate Protestants of the Churches unity founded Supremely as to single persons in the Bishop of Rome Page 96 line 15. After Coeteris Add. And accordingly in all those instances gathered out of Antiquity by Arch-Bishop Lawd § 24. n. 5. where inferior Synods have reformed abuses in manners or made Decrees in causes of Faith as it is willingly granted many have done it cannot be shewed that any of them hath done either of these in matters stated before contrarily by a Superior Authority a thing with which Protestants are charged Somthing was then stated or reformed by Inferiors without nothing against their Superiors Page 103 line 36. After times Add. Baron saith A. D. 358. That In tantâ errorum offusâ caligine qui substantiae Filii Dei assertores essent a nostris in pretio habebantur ut pote quod ut soepius est dictum nullâ aliâ re viderentur a Catholicis differre nisi quod vocem Consubstantialitatis non admitterent Page 104 line 8 After mentioned Add. So but that the words are well capable of an Orthodox sence So that the seventeenth and twenty sixth Articles in the first Sirmian Confession as they are understood by Sozomen in the Semi-Arrian l. 5. c. so are they compared with the antecedents expounded by St. Hillary De Synodis in a Catholick sence The Semi-Arrian Bishops it seems c. Page 125 line ult After errores Add. And Ib. q. 5. a. 3. Omnibus articulis fidei inhaeret fidei propter unum medium sci propter veritatem primam propositam a nobis in Scripturis secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae sane intelligendis See several Authorities to this purpose collected by Fr. a S. Clara in System Fid. c. 7. Page 206 line 3. After Accesserunt Add. Concerning 1 the corruption of humane nature and bondage under sin 2 Justification gratuital and 3 Christs Sacerdotal Office thus he censures ancient Church-Tradition Resp ad Cassand offic Pii viri in Cassand oper p. 802. Verum si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures inter nasi cerei si absque Traditionis subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit quid jam fiet praeciputs Fidei nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causa proferam 1. Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati Tyrannide 2. Gratuita justificatio 3. Et Christi Sacerdotium apud vetustissimos Scriptores ita obscurè attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omuis Fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur a Spiritu sancto formemur in obsequium justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continua pro nobis intercessio quarum rerum luculenta explicatio in Scripturâ passim occurrit Itaque novo hoc Magistro Cassandr Authore quaecunque ad salutem apprimè cognitu necessaria sunt non tantùm manebunt semi-sepulta sed quia nulla Traditio suffragatur i. e. in Antiquity certitudine carebunt Thus he And it is very true that of such a Doctrin as many Protestants deliver in these matters no footsteps will be found in antiquity and that nulla Traditio suffragabitur Page 230 line 35. After censetur Add. And Ib. q. 5. ar 3. Si quis non pertinaciter discredit articulum Fidei paratus sequi in omnibus doctrinam Ecclesiae jam non est haereticus sed solùm errans Page 342 line 28. After Prot. Add. No person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversie as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the cause of Arrius can rightly or properly be said to be on that side for which he gives sentence a Party Nor doth their giving sentence once against any side prejudice them as enemies or opposites or interessed from sitting on the Bench as oft as need requires to passe it again alone or with others But if every one may be afterward called an Anti-Party who once declareth himself of a contrary Judgment I perceive c. FINIS