renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholick nor Members of the Body of Christ 1. From whence they conclude 1. That a particular Person or Church differing or dividing from the whole in any one Point of Faith which is defined by the whole and their assent or belief required thereto cannot plead it self any more to be one Church with or a part of the Church Catholick because that it agreeth with it still in many or in all other Points of Faith As the Arian Churches agreeing in all other Credends save Consubstantiallity of God the Son with the Father became by this no longer a part of the Church Catholick 2. And likewise from hence they conclude that those who in their separation 1. first deny not the Church or Churches they separate from to be true Churches 2. Who profess themselves not to renounce an inward Communion with those departed from 3. Who renounce not external Communion neither if they may be admitted thereto on terms they can approve 4. Who exclude not those from whom they separate from their own external Communion that is if others will conform to them 5. Who do not set up any new external Communion at all 6. Lastly Who do not publickly contradict the tenents or customes of those Churches from which they separate Those I say who can plead all these things or themselves are not thereby cleared from Schisme because their Separation may be tho in none of these things yet otherwise faulty mentioned above and tho some Churches heretofore noted for Schisme have offended in some of these yet it hence follows not that those who offend in none of these are free from Schisme 3. Again they conclude from hence that those who refuse to conform to something which the Church Catholick requires of them that they may be Partakers of her external Communion and for this are by her thrust out of her Communion are guilty of Schism as well as those who before any Ejection voluntarily desert it Else Arians and many other Hereticks would have been no Schismaticks 4. Lastly That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholick yet stand guilty of Schisme so long as upon the same reason upon which the others left it they do not return to it or cannot be admitted by it 4. They maintain That any particular person or multitude joined together dividing from the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches of the present Age and even from those of their own Church as well as from the rest viz. from so many of it as continue what they were and what the Separatists also were formerly must needs in this separate from the external Communion of the Church Catholick of the present Age for either all or some of these Churches which they separate from is so and do separate from their lawful Superiors for such is the Church Catholick in respect of any part and so is guilty of that sort of Schisme which cuts off from the whole 5. They affirm that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy tho never so truly or validly ordaioned utterly unlawful and the Sacraments and other Ordinances of the Church to the Receivers in such Church unbeneficial i. e. to so many as are conscious of the Schism or only thro a culpable ignorance nescient HEAD XI Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism 1. CAtholicks affirm That all maintaining of any Tenent contrary to the known Determination of the supremest judgment of the Church in matters which she declares of necessary Faith is guilty of obstinacy and so is Heresy Likewise that all voluntary departure from the external Communion of the Church Catholick upon what pretences soever of its erring in faith or manners is truly causeless the Catholick Church being our Guide in Spiritual matters as to both what is true and what is lawful to whom we ought to assent and submit and so Schisme But 2ly taking the Protestant Description of them viz. That Heresy is an obstinate Defence of Error contrary to a necessary Article of Faith and Schism a causless Departure or Separation from the external Catholick Communion and so also being causless from the internal Yet Catholicks urge this as necessary that there must be some certain Judge upon Earth authorized to decide whether such Error be against necessary Faith and whether the Defence thereof be to be interpreted obstinacy and whether such Departure be causless So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy or Schism which this Judge pronounceth to be so Else what none can know and judge of none can punish or separate from nor the true extent of the Church Catholick and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schismatical ever be discovered 3. It is most reasonable that in any differences of judgment concerning these amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates or Courts of Judicature the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge to whom all ought to acquiesce Else if a particular Person or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors Heresy and Schisme will remain equally undiscovered between these two contrary Judges as if there were none And Heretical and Schismatical Churches will still free themselves of it by their own Judgment and that Person or Church which contends for such Priviledge at any time gives great suspition that they are in such manner faulty 4. It seems clear that all separation of a particular Person or Church from the external Communion of all the rest will always by such Judge either be pronounced causless or the cause thereof be rectified and so the Division cease if these Churches that are departed from be the Judges of it For doubtless these if they should condemn themselves will also correct in themselves what they do condemn HEAD XII Concerning Submission of Private Judgments to this Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads Concerning Submission of Private Judgments 1. IT is conceded by Catholicks That no man can believe any thing at all or do any thing lawfully against his own judgment or conscience as Judgment is taken here for the final Determination upon reviewing the former Acts of the Intellect and upon considering all reasons as well those taken from Authority as those taken from the things themselves of what we ought to do 2. But notwithstanding this 2ly It is taken for granted That one following his own judgment in believing or acting is not thereby secure from believing amiss or acting unlawfully and therefore that every one is much obliged to take care of rectifying his Judgment or directing aright his Conscience 3. That the same Judgment may be swayed contrary ways by several Arguments viz. One way from the Argument drawn from Authority and another way from his private Reason and that when this happens he is no less truly said to
Poverty distance of Place Le ts of temporal Magistrate or voluntary also out of some unlawful respect Which Absence of some few in comparison of the whole if it can hinder the necessary Generality of the Council it is probable that there will never want within the Confines also of the Church Catholick now spread thro the Dominions of several Princes of contrary interests some either Bishops or Secular Governours that are averse from the meeting of such Council in respect of some Circumstances belonging to it at least those of time place c. 3. For these reasons therefore 3 such Council seems to be unquestionably General not to say here that none less their such can justly be so where are present in person or by his Legates the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See without whom no such Council can be held and by their Lieutenants at least all or most of the other Patriarchs such as are in Being and have some considerable part of the Church Catholick subjected unto them It is said most of them for the presence and concurrence of all of them was not thought necessary neither in the third nor fourth of the allowed General Councils And the Representatives of a considerably major part of the Catholick Provinces and more especially the Representatives of the largest and most dignified of these Provinces 4. In the Absence of some Patriarchs or chief Churches in such Council or in the presence there only of a smaller number of Delegates from the greater and more numerous Provinces and of a greater number from other less as five or six Bishops only delegated from the Western Churches were present in the Council of Nice or in any other deficiency of the representment of the greatest part of the Church Catholick in this Assembly yet when the Decrees and Acts of such smaller part being sent and made known to the Absent are both confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the Primate of the Patriarchs and of the universal Church and accepted also by the much major part of the Catholick Provinces tho these be not accepted by some others of them such Council ought either to be received as General or as equivalent thereto and the Acts thereof are obligatory to the whole Church Catholick For seeing that if all the Provinces had convened in one Place and Body the disagreeing votes of some Provinces in such Councils being fewer and lesser could not have justly hindred but that the contrary votes of the other much major part would have stood in force and obliged all to obedience then neither can their dissent out of the Council be rationally pretended to hinder the same And what engagement the several Provinces of the present Age have to such Council the same also all future seem to have for the same reason till an equal Authority to that which established such Ecclesiastical laws reverse them which in matters of necessary Faith will never happen So the Arian Churches of the fifth Age are as much obliged to the Definitions of the Nicene Council as those of the fourth And in any Age what means can there be of Preservation of Unity for matter of Faith in the Church Catholick if a few in comparison will neither be regulated by any one Person or Head Nor yet concluded by the much major part Here by acceptation of the much major part of Catholick Provinces is understood none other necessary then only a peaceful acquiescence in and conformity to the Decrees of such Councils and a not declaring against them tho such Acceptation proceed not so farr as to the passing of an Act to this effect in Provincial or National Synods For this last hath not been done to those Acts of Councils universally held General 5. To go yet a little further Considering the present Condition both of the Eastern Churches and of such Patriarchs as are yet left besides the Roman such now rather in name than in power the paucity poverty and illiterature necessitated by their great oppressions of their Clergy their incapacity to assemble themselves even in lesser Synods for consultation to say nothing here whether any of these Churches have declined from the former Definitions of the Church Catholick and so are become Heretical and so uncapable of sitting in Ecclesiastical Synods in these times a General Council such as ought to oblige may be well apprehended to receive narrower bounds than formerly And such a Council where those who are Catholick in Eastern Churches are wished for invited and if any come not excluded and to which all the Western Provinces yet flourishing in Religion and not obstructed from meeting are called and in which the Representatives of the greatest part of them joined with the Prime Patriarch are assembled such Council I say ought either to receive the denomination of General especially as to these Doctrines wherein the Eastern Churches consent or of the most General that the present times will afford or at least of a Patriarchal and lawful Superiour Council and so in the same measure accepted obligeth all the Provinces of the West to yield obedience thereto and therefore in such an Age for any Person or Church that is a Member of this Western Body to call for a larger Council than can be had is only an Artifice to decline Judgment and for any to Appeal to a future Council which can be no larger than that past to whose sentence they deny Submission what is this but to renounce the Authority they appeal to To which may be added that any Appeal to a future Council concerning such Controversies wherein one knoweth the unanimous Doctrine of the much major part of the present Christian Churches as well Eastern as Western to be against him seems bootless and affording no relief Because such Council can consist only of the Governours and so of the judgments of such particular Churches put to together and therefore such as the present Doctrine is of the major part of these Christian Churches and of the several Bishops presiding in them especially now after the cause reasons pretended demonstrations of the dissenting Party for so many years divulged pleaded considered such we may presume will be that of the Council For what can effect a Mutation of opinion in these Persons joined which altereth nothing now in them severed HEAD IX Concerning the Vnity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars § 1 1. CAtholicks affirm That the Church and Civil Societies are two distinct Bodies Concerning the Unity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars subject to their distinct Superiors and that the Church Catholick is but one in many States Again That the Civil State entring into the Body of the Church cannot thereby justly take from it any of its former Rights which are instated upon it by our Lord and which it did or might justly exercise in such Civil State before this State submitted it self to the
Christian Faith Nor yet the Church entring into any State take away any of the Civil Rights or Authority thereof which is given to the Governours of this State by God and which it was justly possessed of before the Church entred into it Takes away I say none of these Rights where Persons or Things formerly Civil do not by their Dedication to God become Sacred Nor the Church callenge any Temporal Right or Authority as to the use of the Secular Sword which the State doth not first invest it with α And That therefore these two Bodies may always without any jealousy most peaceably consist together Because the Principles of Christianity do most entirely secure and preserve all the Secular Rights of Princes And because in leaving only to Princes the use of the Temporal Sword the Church can never in any difference that happens be the invading but only the suffering Party § 2 2. Therefore 2dly in consequence hereof They hold That the Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Government such as are necessary for the exclusion of Heresies and Schisms and conservation of the Churches Unity Uniformity and Peace throughout several Nations And these which are instituted by Christ or his Apostles or are afterward established in the Church Catholick by Ecclesiastical Canons made by the chief Representative thereof I mean such Canons as can no way be justly pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government They hold That such Subordinations of Church-Government cannot justly be changed nor the observance of such Constitutions be abrogated or prohibited by any Secular Supreme Christian or Heathen within their own Dominions § 3 3. Since it is clear That Christ sent his Ministers to preach the Gospel and do other meerly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Offices in all Nations and in those Nations too then as now under some Supreme Civil Governor which Offices also those Ministers did accordingly perform for three hundred years tho the said Governors prohibited and opposed them So for Example the Apostles and other Church-Governors in those times assembled themselves in a Council at Jerusalem to consult and give orders throughout the Churches concerning the Abrogation of former Legal Ceremonses So St. Paul in those times gave Commission to Timothy for the of the Christian Church in Ephesus to Titus for the governing those in Creet to ordain Clergy thro the Cities there and in these Provinces to receive Accusations hear Witnesses promulgate the Doctrines formerly received silence False-teachers excommunicate Offenders c. 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 2. Tim. 2.2 Tit. 1.5.11 3.10 And so he gave order also to them to hold publick Assemblies 1. Cor. 5.4 Heb. 10.25 for the common Worship of God and for the exercising of the forenamed Acts. And so the Successors of these first Church Governors also used the same authority for those three first Centuries in all dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial or Diocesan Governments tho the Secular Powers frequently resisted imprisoned executed the Church Officers for it These things therefore thus granted and allowed hence they infer that as a Heathen Prince cannot justly prohibit all Christian Clergy so neither can a Christian Prince amongst this Clergy justly prohibit all those whom only these Ecclesiastical Magistrates do judge Orthodox and worthy from professing and publishing the Orthodox Faith and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions Else as where the Prince is Heathen Christianity cannot be propagated in his Territories against Infidelity so where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical suppose an Arian as the Emperour Constantius was the Truth of Christianity cannot be preserved in his dominions against Heresy or where he Schismatical the Unity of the Churches Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects in his dominion For Confirmation of these three preceedent Theses see at large the Protestant Concessions in letter δ. To which is annexed an Answer to all their Pleas and Defences made by them for a lawful Reformation of Ecclesiastical Persons and Matters by the Secular Power § 4 4 Consequently to the Precedents seeing that as there are many temporal Jurisdictions descending on the Church originally from the Secular Power so there are also other spiritual Jurisdictions primitively belonging to and exercised by the Church and held from the donation of our Lord such as the forementioned viz. To hold publick Religious Assemblies to promulgate the Doctrines formerly delivered to administer the Sacraments of the Church to receive Accusations hear Witnesses in point of Heresy and Schism to bind absolve to silence False-teachers excommunicate obstinate Offenders and that in all Nations and within any Princes Dominions whatever They accordingly affirm 1. That no Secular Power can bestow or derive their spiritual Jurisdictions on any person but that to be in such dominions by any person lawfully executed these must first be conferred on him by the Clergy 2dly That the act only of some inferior Clergy against their Canonical Superiors or of the minor part of Clergy against the major can be no legitimate act of the Clergy for conferring such spiritual Jurisdictions but the contrary to it is so § 5 And hence 5ly They gather That tho Princes for the greater security of their Civil Government and the many secular obligations which the Church hath to them may nominate and present to the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Magistrates such persons as they think most meet to receive from the Church these spiritual Jurisdictions within their dominions yet if any Secular Power should possess such person of these Jurisdictions in any Province either by his own sole authority or by the concurrence of some inferior Clergy or minor part of such Province whom the major part of the Clergy of such Province or the due Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom according to Church Canons the conferring of such Jurisdiction doth belong to judge uncapable or unfit and therefore refuse the collation of them on such a subject They affirm such an Act of the Prince or Clergy assisting him to be unlawful and that it must needs open a way to all Heresy and Schism and dissolve the Faith and Unity of the Church Catholick Neither can any such Person so introduced tho he be validly ordained justly exercise such spiritual Jurisdictions neither do all such people as know receive any salvifical benefit by his unlawful administration to them of the Church's Sacraments or at least of the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution by reason of a defect of a right disposition in the Suscipients and the great guilt they contract in applying themselves to such a Person unless this be done in a case of necessity when there is no Catholick Clergy to repair to for such Offices So had Novatianus ordained and adhered to by three or four Bishops been upon this setled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolick Chair against Cornelius ordained and confirmed in these Jurisdictions by all the rest of the Body of the Roman Episcopal Clergy yet Novatianus would no less for this
accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p. 518. Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. ' Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And what they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisteth Patiarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 4. c. p. 42. § 14 External Jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction i. e. using Secular force or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church And by this Power saith he 4. c. p. 39. without Coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the world reduced to the obedience of Christ by this Power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for 300 years together But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive Power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such Truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church § 15 Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church 4. c. p. 234. The Power of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that Power which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still and publish the Catholick Doctrine when prohibited by them and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the Exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity See the same Author Epilog 1. l. 19. c. The contents whereof touching this subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the interest of Secular Power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible Ibid. c. 20. p. 158. he saith That he who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i.e. those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the sin of Sacrilege in seizing into its own hands the Powers which by God's Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence concurring to the doing of it Now among the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within themselves and then I suppose of publishing them made among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Dominions else why make them of electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398. and of Excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p. 385. The Power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God and the Power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion The Power of holding Assemblies which must be by meeting together in some place or other and by some Church Authority calling them Of which he speaks thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles And afterward I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service
by others but the same Authors as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders Interest and Truth to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Authority chiefly by this way namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy or some lesser against a much major part the judgment of which superior's and major part do canonically conclude the whole I think it necessary in this a matter of so great consequence to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight which I have met with in these Writers whereon they build the lawfulness of their Reformation by the secular Arm and to shew the invalidity of them § 34 To this purpose then I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded See Dr. Fern Answer to Champny p. 300. That the secular Sovereign Power is to be satisfied or as it is there § 21. to have it by Demonstration of Truth evidenced to him that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it Ibid. p. 294. And this in respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss Thus Dr. Fern. Well But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his Dominions without him Or may not the Prince also establish something as the Law of Christ when it is as he conceives evidenced to him to be so by some other without or against the Clergy or only with some minor or inferior part of them when opposed by the superior and major i. e. by the Canonical Ecclesiastical Judge The first of these is denied by him the later affirmed For saith he Ibid. p. 308. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by Factions or worldly Interest Therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon Evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their Decrees And Ibid. 2. c. p. 73. The Sovereign Prince is not bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious Interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned Men of the Church to be the Law of Christ shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it Where also p. 295. he approves the Concession of the Clergy under King Henry the Eighth In binding themselves by Promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to exact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent Here you see the Clergy's power so tied up that they can publish no Christian Doctrine to the People that is to Christ's Flock which they do not first evidence to the Prince and have for such publication his consent but on the other side whatever is any way evidenced to the Prince he may publish without and against their consent and yet they not he are made by these men the ordinary Judges in Spiritual matters § 35 Now here suppose the Prince receives the Directions of some Clergy men in any thing he doth yet since the Clergy is a subordinate and well regulated Government and these his Spiritual Directors oppose the main Body he is not here directed by that Clergy that ought to be his Judge but those that are against it Yet still some reason were there in this if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence so as not to mistake i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal But since things are much otherwise and evidencing Truths to any one by reason of different Understandings Education Passions and Interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power when not patient enough to be informed when misled and prepossessed by a Faction when not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c. to what an uncertain and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince 2. § 36 Next they urge That in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws and the Truth of the Gospel If in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles or Laws given to the Church by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign Power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted i.e. that Body of the Clergy whose Acts conclude the whole else if only some other Clergy miscarry this Body serves the Prince for their correction shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign Power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Thus Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church p. 273. § 37 Now here to omit that such suppositions and fears that the Clergy taken in the largest capacity and supremest judgments to which the Prince is to repair when lower are suspected shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths are groundless of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 6. c. And Second Discourse § 12. c. what reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and which the Succession of the Clergy opposeth Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord but always will profess the contrary Nay will say That the Succession of the Clergy
of proving that these Kings did reform against the Clergy it be urged that at least they might have done it because no way subjected in matters of Religion to the judgment of the Priest many Texts may be produced evincing the contrary as particularly that Deut. 17.8 9. c. where the Judge named beside the Priest may either respect those extraordinarily sent by God and sanctified in a special manner with his Spirit as Samuel and some others or also in general the supreme Civil Power joined for the Execution with the Ecclesiastical or as for the Decision the one judging for the Civil and Regal the other for God's Laws but however it be the Judge in such a Conjunction is no way authoriz'd to give Sentence in a matter of God's Law without or against the judgment of the Priest Which appears more clearly if this Text in Deut. be compared with those other relating to it 2. Chron. 19.8 9 10. Ezek. 44.24 Haggai 2.11 Mal. 2.7 8. Hos 4.4 or if these Texts will not evince such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy belonging to the Priest in the Old Testament at least other Texts do in the new From which Texts the former Protestant Concessions grant such a Power as to the judging of Controversies of Faith and of Heresy and that without the Civil Power 's having herein a Negative Voice This to the Kings of Judah To β. That urged concerning Aaron To β. I answer That this Sin of his was before his being enstalled High-Priest § 46 and at such time as Moses was appointed by God the supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical Affairs Yet that the Tribe of Levi following Moses remained then not only constant but valiant and zealous Professors of the true Religion for which God afterward chose this Tribe for the sacred Ministery See Exod. 32 27. Deut. 33.8 9. That the High-Priest should be suspected or accused of Idolatry the judgment of this as also of Heresy and the expelling of him found guilty out of the Church by Excommunication belongs to the Clergy united in their supreme Council and the punishing him by other temporal Censures to the Prince To γ. St. Panl's Act To γ. I answer that the supreme Court for deciding Ecclesiastical Controversies in St. Paul's time § 47 was that newly established by our Lord the Council of the Apostles not the Sanedrim of the Jews That St. Paul's Appeal to Caesar was in no such Ecclesiastical Cause but in an accusation of raising Sedition of which he was charged as well as of being a Sectary Act. 24.5.12.18 wherein brought hefore Festus's Tribunal he pleaded Not-guilty and upon his Adversaries seeking to kill him before judgment given appealed to Caesar's i.e. from one Civil Tribunal to another higher To. δ. The Acts of the Emperors To δ. and that especially of Thedosius § 48 I answer That these being mentioned before for Branches of the Royal Primacy in Ecclesiasticals as to confirm those Acts in Spiritual matters which the Church owneth as legal and canonical so to suppress and annul the illegal and uncanonical Acts of any Ecclesiasticks contrary to those of the Church in both which the temporal Powers equally assist the Church those Acting of the Emperors in Church matters that are here urged are only in these two kinds and so are allowed and such in particular was that Act of Theodosius in dis-avowing the Decree of the second Ephesine Council which Decree being opposed by the Bishop of Rome's Legates in the Council and by himself and all the Western Churches and divers of the Eastern Bishops out of it and several of those who voted for it in the Council being with threats forced thereto as appears by their complaint made hereof in the following Council of Chalcedon Contil Chalced. Act. 1. was illegal and not obliging and upon this ground or motive the Emperor's assistance requested by Leo for the nulling of its Acts as may be seen in the beginning of the Epistle he writ to him wherein upon such reasons given he desires the Emperors favour Epist 43. To ε. The Practice of later Christian Princes preceding the times of Henry the Eighth much pressed by Bishop Brambal in Vindication of the Church of England To ε. 5th and 7th Chapters I answer § 49 that all oppositions whatever of Civil States to the Ecclesiastical Power are not denyed to be just or lawful but only those which oppose his Decrees Canons or Government relating to matters purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical that the most of those which the Bishop instanceth in are not so not about matters of Faith and Manners or Church Discipline or the Sub-ordinations of the Churches Judicatures and Execution of her Laws and Censures as to these but Contests either about those things which the Church possessed not by her own right but Princes former Donations or in matters apprehended by Princes some way hurtful or prejudicial to their Civil Rights and Liberties As for Example About the Patronage of Bishopricks and Investiture of Bishops several Revenues and Pensions given to or exacted by the Church and Exemption of Lands and Estates from Tribute Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Courts in Civil or also Criminal matters Appeals made to or Bulls brought from Rome relating to matters the Cognizance whereof belongs to the King's Court and therefore these matters to be considered by the Prince whether not such before that his Subject may submit to them Of which may be used the Bishops forecited § 17. Observation on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see that all here is Political But then granting that some other instances are such as offend against the Churches native Rights as some Contests here in England did for opposing which some holy Bishops here suffered much Persecution yet the proving such Facts to have been done even before the times of Henry the Eighth proves not their lawfulness to be done and next how far soever such Acts may be shewed to have passed in restraining some claims of the Church yet the Bishop confesseth that for Henry the Eighth's abolishing the usurped Jurisdiction as he calls it of the Bishop of Rome or Western Patriarch he finds no Pattern in these former Acts of Christian Princes His words are Vindication of the Church of England p. 184. Lastly Henry the Eighth abolished the usurped Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his it Dominions The Emperors did not so Whether saith he conjecturing at the reasons of that they thought it not fit I add or lawful to leave an old Patriarch or because they did not sufficiently consider the right bounds of imperial power especially being seconded with the Authority of an Occidental Council but no such Council would second them or did Henry the Eighth in this business or because they did not so clearly distinguish between a beginning of Unity and an universality of Jurisdiction for if they had they had wronged this Patriarch or because they had other remedies wherewith
cum nullam in talibus Potestatem quenquam potestatum vel Caeterorum Laicorum habore conveniat Unless here perhaps the Concession of the particular Clergy of such a Prince be urged but none such can be valid against the Canons of their Superiors Dr. Hammond being asked this Question How Princes come by such a Right of Translating Patriarchs by S. W. Answers thus Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 174. I that meant not to dispute of such Mysteries of State c. finding the same things assumed by Kings as their Right and yielded by the Church to be enjoyed by them both which Catholicks deny nor do his Instances prove it thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were by God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any Nation were the Medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclin'd either to enquire or to take upon me to determine Not knowing you see which way safely to take For if this Priviledge were conceded by the Church may not the Church according to their Principles resume it when abused But if this originally a Civil Right the Church hath usurped their Power in her making Constitutions concerning it § 63 3. Such Priviledge granted to Princes would utterly overthrow the Unity of Church-Government there seeming for preserving this as great a necessity of subjecting the Prelates of several Regions and Countries to one Patriarch as of several Bishops in the same Country to one Metropolitan or Primate or more In that Church-Divisions are apter to arise between States totally independent on one another than in the same State united at least in one Secular Head And that which is urged for a reason to induce the independency of National Primates viz. the Division of the Empire into so many absolute Principalities infers rather the contrary that the universal Government of the Church which is but one in all these Kingdomes should be now if possible closer linked together then formerly and the more likely that Sects and Distractions are to grow in the Church by reason of so many States some of which may be perverted by Heresy or Schisme the more need of an union in some one Ecclesiastical Head As the Roman Common-wealth in more dangerous Invasions of Enemies chose a Dictator and Armies are thought freest from Mutinies and Seditions when committed to one General § 64 Not can it be faid that it is a sufficient guard of this Unity that in a General Council all these Primates and other Members of the Church Catholick are collected and joined For 1st if it lye within a Prince's Power to free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synods why not also from a General Council i. e. so far as that the Acts thereof shall not conclude such National Clergy without their consent And if the Church-Canons ordering the contrary bind them not for the one Submission to Patriarchs when the Prince orders otherwise why for the other Submission to General Councils But next were a General Council a standing Court or often or easily convened there might indeed be some remedy from thence but these hapning so seldome and that on the terms Protestants require them perhaps can be never the standing Superiority and Jurisdiction not moveable at pleasure of Patriarchs over Primates and so of Primates over inferior Bishops seems a means of Unity most necessary in the long intervals of the other highest Courts Else supposing That a Valentinian or a Constantius having the Power to translate and erect Primates and Patriarchs shall transfer Ambrose his Primacy or Siricius or Athonasins his Patriarchship to the Bishop of some other City so as Henry the Eighth is supposed to have translated Clement the Seventh's Patriarch-ship to the Bishop of Canterbury and what Heresy may not such Emperor advance as he pleaseth if he can find at least some Clergy on his side And what wrong did those Popes and Councils to the Emperor Constantius in their maintaining Athanasius still in his former Authority and Jurisdiction against him § 65 The Doctor 's Instances will not much trouble us Concerning α α the first and chiefest the Bishop of Justiniana Prima The Emperor Justinian's Novel 131. runs thus Sancimus per tempus beatissimum Primae Justinanae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. Et in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Where it is said That this Bishop should locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae not that he should have the Place or Dignity of an Apostolical Seat As Dr. Hammond p. 103. would have it but the Place of the Apostolical See of Rome viz. as his standing Delegate for those parts subordinate to him the Phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other Sense which is acknowledged by Dr. Field who saith Of the Church p. 563. He was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vice-gerent in those Parts to do things in his name and by his Authority Naming there many other Bishops in other places executing the like Vicar-ship for the Pope The Bishop of Sevil Arles Thessalonica and others and this also the words following in the Novel Secundum ea quae definita sunt a Sanctissimo Papa Vigilio do sufficiently declare To which may be added the Request of this Deputation of the Bishop of Justiniana made by the Emperor Justinian to Agapetus Vigilius his Predecessor who delaying his Grant of it returned him this Answer Epist. 4. De Justiniana Civitate gloriosi Natalis vestri conscia necnon de nostrae Sedis vicibus injungendis quid servato beati Petri quem diligitis Principatu vestrae Pietatis affectu plenius deliberari contigerit per cos quos ad vos dirigimus Legatos Deo Propitio celeriter intimamus If you would have yet more Evidence see the Pope's continued Confirmation of this Primate or Arch-Bishop tho consecrated by his own Bishops as usual by sending him the Pall and his deputing the judgment of Causes to him in his stead Greg. Ep. 4. l. Indic 13. Ep. 15. And 10. l. 5. Indic Ep. 34. And 2. l. Ep. 6. The same things may be said of the Primate of Carthage pretended only to be admitted to the like Priviledges with the Bishop of Justiniana Prima Concerning β the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ravenna β As the Pallium is taken for an Archiepiscopal Ornament derived from the Emperors own habit to add the more Honour to such Prelates § 66 for which see Dr. Hammond in Schism disarmed p. 149. So it might be solely in the Emperors Donation but as it is a Ceremony used at the Instalment of a Bishop in the Archiepiscopal Jurisdictions so it belongs only to the Spiritual Superiors who
only can bestow such an Authority as before Constantine's time so after 2. Whatever Priviledge that was That John Bishop of Ravenna claimed who Dr. Hammond saith was the first that publickly contested his Right with the Bishop of Rome perhaps a Donation of this Pall at once for that Bishop and all his Successors not to be reiterated from the Pope's upon every new Election it appears clearly from St. Gregory 2. l. Ep. 54. that he claimed such Priviledge not singly from the Emperors Rescript but also from a Grant of the Roman Bishop St. Gregory there denying any such Grant And also the same Gregory in 5. l. Ep. 8. in his sending the Pall after this to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna and confirming his Priviledges Quae suae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae mentions the Motive to be Provocatus not only antiquae consuetudinis or dine which Dr. Hammond takes notice of Ibid. p. 151. and applies to the Emperors Rescript but first Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia which Dr. Hammond omits Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus are the Popes words But such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretended to be received from the Church Tho St. Gregory saith this Pretence was false no way fits Dr. Hammond's purpose of the Princes bestowing such a Priviledge when the Patriarch opposeth 3. As for the Subjection of the Provinces of Aemilia unto it by the Emperor if this be supposed done by him without the Churches consent it seems contrary to the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which permits not to Princes the dividing or changing the former Jurisdictions of Prelates Yet were this thing wholly permitted to the Prince so long as the Confirmation of such new-erected Primates is still to be received from their Canonical Superiors no Faction Division or Independency can be hereby introduced into the Church nor the Protestant Cause any whit hereby relieved To γ The three Canons To γ. In the first it appeareth that the Prince attempting to dispose of half the Jurisdictions of a certain Metropolitan to a new Prelate set up by himself the Council prohibits it and reserves still the whole Jurisdiction to the former therefore in this Councils judgment the Prince could do no such thing justly In the two last the Prince changing or erecting a new Metropole or Mother City for the Seat of Judicature the Church not the Prince and so this proves no Right of his to do it orders with very good reason the change of the Seat of the Metropolitan to this Place of greatest Concourse These Canons then which the Dr. urgeth for his Cause are they not to good purpose for the contrary I pray you view them But meanwhile concerning the Point so much driven at the Princes making new Patriarchs I must remind you here again of the Canon of the 8th General Council Can. 21. Definimus neminem prorsus Mundi Potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem Sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae c. To δ. The Kings of England transplanting Metropolitanships To δ. dividing Bishopricks erecting new ones exempting Ecclesiastical Persons from Episcopal Jurisdiction c. Such things are denyed to be justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the consent of Church Governors general or particular of which see the 8th General Council Can. 22. about Election Nor doth the Negative Argument of the Church's consent to this not mentioned prove such Facts to have been without it especially as to the confirmation of Persons so promoted by the Prince in their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Which thing being once taken from the Ecclesiastical Canonical Superiors and this power of Erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several Priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince supposed to be not Orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical Obedience to such Superiors and subbmitting to their judgment and decisions in Spiritual matters By which means this seduced Prince may sway the Controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth so long as there be some Ecclesiasticks of his own perswasion whom he may surrogate in the places of those others that gainsay Remember the times of Constantius Meanwhile if the Churches Rights of a Canonical Subordination of all the Clergy be strictly observed I know not what other Indulgment about Clergy Preferments may not with sufficient preservation of the Churches Catholick Unity be conceded to the Prince This from § 59. of their Ninth Plea the Prince's Power to erect new Patriarchs § 68 10. In the last place they say That a National Church hath within it self the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Power and Government 10. See Dr. Fern's Case between England and Rome p. 26. in which a Primate is the highest and thus far only ascends Dr. Hammond and so hath a supreme and independent Power in managing all Ecclesiastical Affairs within it self and delegating its Power to others To which I think there needs no further Answer the Subjection of these Primates or lower Patriarchs to higher sufficiently appearing from frequent ancient Church Canons and being conceded by other Learned Protestants For which not often to repeat the same things I must refer you to what is said before in γ. And in Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. c. as also their Subjection to Patriarchal or General Councils in that it hath been ordinary to execute their Censures upon such Primates or also Patriarchs when Heretical or otherwise faulty HEAD X. Concerning the Vnity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions Concerning the Unity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions 1. CAtholicks do hold That one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church mentioned in our Creed is not always a Body coextended to the Christian Profession or involving all Christian Churches if I may so call them or Congregations or Sects But that some Christian Churches or Societies there are or may be that are no part of it but do stand contradistinct to it 2. They willingly grant That not all differences or divisions in Spiritual matters between particular Persons or Churches where there is no Subordination between them do render one or both of them guilty of such Schism as to become thereby no Members of the Church Catholick But 3ly they maintain that all such Division wherein a particular person or Church departs from the whole or wherein a Subordinate Person or Church from all their Spiritual Superiors for such matters wherein Obedience is required from them by all these or by the whole is such Schisme as
follow and do according to his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason then he who judgeth it meet and so doth the contrary i. e. follow his own Reason and reject Authority or which is the same follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evidencing to him such a Truth Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority to be God's word when we find in them some seeming contradictions which perhaps our private Reason cannot reconcile And every one who believes that God hath commanded him an assent and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors doth in yielding it follow his own Judgment even when in yielding it he goeth contrary to his own private Reason 4. It is freely conceded That supposing that one hath infallible certainty of a thing from private Reason or any other way whatever such person cannot possibly yield obedience of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary to be believed by him 5. But notwithstanding 5ly It is affirmed by Catholicks That every one ought to yield assent and submit his Judgment even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd in all Spiritual matters wherein such assent is required to the Authority of the Church and those Spiritual Superiors who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith And also That none can ever have from private Reason an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe 6. But supposing that such a certainty in some Points by some persons could be had yet 6ly If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority than only those who pretend infallible certainty as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority and so divinely assisted then the most part of Christians I mean all the unlearned at least unfit to read Fathers compare Texts of Scripture c. in matters controverted will always be obliged to follow this Authority tho against their private Reason And for the other since one may think himself infallibly certain who is not so for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently both plead it these seem to have as little humility so little security in relying thereon especially when so many others having the same Evidences and as these men ought to think better Judgments and having larger promises of Divine assistance and lastly appointed for their Guides shall apprehend so much certainty of as to decree the contrary 7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Authority or amongst many pretending to it which of them it is to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters to such a one the use of his private Reason in the Quest thereof is not denyed by Catholicks But 1st they affirm that such Guide being found here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things wherein he is enjoined obedience to it which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty 2ly That if by reason of a faulty search such Guide is not discovered by him none is therefore held excused from obedience to such Guide or licensed to use his liberty in both which he is culpably mistaken 3ly That as it is left to our reason to seek so that it is much easier for us by it to find out this Guide that is appointed to direct us than to find out the Truth of all those things wherein she is ready to direct us more easy to find out the Church than to understand all the Scriptures and that from the use of private Reason in some things none may therefore rationally claim it in all HEAD XIII Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical Concerning the necessary means of attaining faith Divine and Salvifical 1. IT is certain that all Faith Divine or wrought in us by God's Spirit is infallible or that the Proposition which is so believed never is or can be false 2. Again Catholicks affirm that the Authority or proposal of the Church is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith From which Infallibility in the Church which is clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical delivering such Points unto them they also maintain a firm Faith is had among Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying this Infallibility in the Church either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points or can have no external firm ground of their believing them 3. Catholicks affirm also that a right Belief of some Articles of Faith profiteth not as to Salvation persons Heretical in some other But 4ly many learned Catholicks deny That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith or a certainty not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit whereby a man is without all doubt but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith that he cannot err is necessary that Faith may be truly Divine or Salvifical See Card. Lugo De Virtute fidei Dis 1. § 12. n. 247.251 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. d. 13. § Layman Theol. Moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. or consequently That such external motive or means for producing Divine Faith needeth to be to every man one and the same Or lastly That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other Next Concerning the necessity of an explicite or sufficiency of an implicite Faith Concerning explicit and implicite Faith 1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholicks that to some Articles of the Christian Faith an explicite or express Faith wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known and professed is necessary to all Christians that have the use of reason of what condition or calling soever But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary it is not easy punctually to determine 2. Catholicks teach that all Christians are obliged by what means soever afforded them to acquire an explicite Faith of all other Articles of Faith or Precepts of good Life which are any way either necessary or profitable to their Salvation so far as their capacities or callings do permit or also require them 3. That all Christians ought in general or implicitely to believe that whatever God hath revealed or the Church in her Definitions or Expositions of the Divine Revelations delivereth as matter of Faith and to be believed is to be believed and ought also to be ready explicitely to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such And other implicite Faith than the
eternal save only upon his free and gracious promise made to them or at least in commutative justice do deserve it from any worth in them that equals it and for both these doth not always depend only on the Merits of Christ is held by Catholicks to err from Truth and to be guilty of a most false presumption 2ly For the true concurrence that good Works have by Christ's Merits thro God's free promise for obtaining or meriting life eternal here also as every one ought in general to believe most certainly and infallibly that all who perform such Evangelical Obedience shall obtain life Eternal So they affirm 1st That none is obliged to believe specially that his own Works or Obedience is such as cannot miss of it or that if he have not a full perswasion of the merit of his own Works or of his own Justification or Salvation or of the particular application of Christ's Merits to himself he cannot be justified or saved or partake of his Merits 2ly That by reason of the liableness of the once justified by or in their Baptisme to fall away again by committing Mortal Sin from their Justification and then the difficulty of discerning exactly among their Sins committed what are Mortal and losing the Divine Grace what are not then again by reason of the difficulty of knowing in our regaining a second Justification when we have a sufficient repentance or sorrow and contrition for our former Sins without which the Churches Sacraments do not profit us and a different measure of which is required according to the greatness of our fault and when we have not And 3ly by reason If we were ascertained of our regained estate of the great allay and impairment which our actions in this estate may receive from the mixture of many Venial sins so that our faults do many times equal sometimes exceed our good deeds nay sometimes that which we think a good act is no better than a true tho Venial Sin and is augmented also in our presumption that it is none By reason also of the difficulty to distinguish between Evangelical Counsels and Precepts in respect of which a different observance is required under penalty of falling into some Mortal Sin or only failing of Perfection And lastly by reason of the uncertainty of our perseverance and that our present Merits or Piety may not be all evacuated by some future miscarriages I say by reason of all these Catholicks affirm it the safest course especially for those who have not attained to any great perfection not to put any or much least it should happen to be a mistaken confidence in any merit or sufficiency of their own present works to those ends for which God requireth them of us But rather wholly to trust in and rely on God's mercy both for our present condition that if it be not safe he will through Christ's Merits by improving our Faith and Repentance change and amend it and for our present actions when we are in a safe condition that if they be full of defects and miscarriages he will for Christ's Merits remit these and for the future more sanctify them and give us also perseverance in them We ever remembring that of the Apostle 1. Cor. 4.4 Nihil mihi conscius sum sed non in hoc justificatus sum qui autem judicat me Dominus est Of which matter thus the Council of Trent Sess 6. c. 9. Sicut nemo pius de Dei misericordia Christi Meritis Sacramentorum virtute efficacia dubitare potest Sic quilibet dum seipsum suamque propriam infirmitatem indispositionem respicit de sua gratia i. e. of his Regeneration formidare timere potest 7ly Yet lastly they grant That such justified as are eminent in Sanctity both may have by special revelation which God sometimes condescending to a great familiarity communicates unto them an infallible certainty of their present justification and if persevering Salvation and may also without such revelation tho not attain any infallible certainty or perswasion cui non potest sub-esse falsum by reason of the possible defect of their judgment about some of the aforenamed particulars upon which therefore can never be built any Divine Faith the object of which is only Divine Revelation and therefore that only which is absolutely infallible yet have a strong and moral-certain perswasion or faith cui non sub-est dubium or dubitatio may have a fearless and calm security that they are actually justified and consequently if persevering shall be glorified Which is called the Testimony of a good Conscience grounded on their present Obedience as the condition and service required of them for rendring them capable of such a reward and of Christ's most perfect obedience the adequate meritorious cause thereof See 2. Cor. 1.12 1. Jo. 3.18 19 20. c. 24.4.17 2. Pet. 1.10 2. Tim. 4.7 8. To which Testimony of a good Conscience is added also the witness within them of the Holy Spirit Rom. 8.15 tho this witness as also it s other ordinary operations in us most-what is not certainly known by us to be its witness or operation for if it were so this would amount to special revelation Catholicks therefore affirm not a particular application of Christ's Merits to themselves or a confidence of their own Salvation in any justified to be unlawful but only an infallible certainty of these to be except by revelation unattainable and whilst they say that one tho in the state of Justification de sua gratia formidare timere potest yet they say not that every one timere debet ξ. ξ. See the Roman Writers quoted to this purpose by Dr. Field Append. 3. l. p. 318. c. And by Bishop Forbes de Justificat 3. l. 1. c. p. 95. c. Where Communior Romanensium sententia saith he libenter admittit ex vivae fidei sensu seu charitatis bonorum operum experimento certitudinem aliquam minoris inferioris gradus oriri quae conjecturalis probabilis nominari potest quae licet non omnem formidinem pellat tamen tollit omnem anxietatem haesitationem Progrediuntur alii quidam Romani ulterius certitudinem aliquam aliam minorem quidem certitudine fidei divinae Conjecturali tamen majorem quam certitudinem moralem appellandam censent admittunt Ita ut nullam habeant de sua justificatione formidinem deceptionis The Pharisee very confident Luk. 18.11 went home unjustified the Publican very fearful justified and so the Leper believing Christ's Power but doubting his good Pleasure si vis potes yet was cleansed Matt. 8.2 HEAD XVII Concerning Sin Venial and Mortal Concerning Sin Venial and Mortal THE Catholick Doctrine is 1. That all the Baptized are truely Regenerate 2. That a Man falls not from this state of Regeneration or from God's Grace and favour by committing any Sin how small soever nor yet continues still in this State whilst committing any Sin how