should be free from error save in the Definition or conclusion only which I say not as denying sufficient former Revelation and Tradition whereon to ground every conclusion that hath been passed in any Council nor that such Revelation and Tradition is unknown to the Council but only that for the Councils not erring in the Conclusion this is not necessary that all the Principles or all the reasoning it useth be infallible and certain If it be asked how it is possible that the Council should be infallible or actually unerring for this is all that is meant in the Conclusion when fallible or erring in the making Premises or deduction I answer Because the Holy Ghost assists them that they should alwayes conclude right and that from some principles never failing Though some other such a conclusion be not solid I say some principle for since the same conclusion is provable by many several Mediums or Arguments or the Conclusion or Definition it self may descend by express Tradition and not be extracted only out of some former traditive Principle by deduction it cannot be shewed that any Council hitherto hath failed in either of these the delivering a proposition as express Tradition that was not so or the deducting it from principles none of which are true or Traditional Nor are we certain that more Arguments or Reasons were not used by any such Council than those only that are transmitted to posterity Nor do I see who are sufficient Judges of the misarguings of Councils unless it be some following Council of the same Authority It cannot be denied also that the Holy Ghost may preserve the Church in all necessary Truth by inspiring and illuminating their understandings in and exciting the adherence of their will to such Truth when they are mistaken in some of the rational evidence they think they have for it By illuminating them I say after the same ordinary manner in the Council as them or others out of it only this assistance here is constant to a competent number and they are disposed rightly for it in this supreme Ecclesiastical Court for the necessities of the Church whereas out of the Council the same persons when some way indisposed thereto often fail of it But in the last place if it be asked how they or others can know that that they do not err in the Conclusion where their premises or their deduction is supposed erroneous I answer 1st That they may know they do not err either from Tradition of the Conclusion or the certainty of other premises or evident deduction used 2ly That indeed they cannot truly be certain of their conclusion by this way viz. from their arguing if it be not right or from the Principle they use if this uncertain or false but yet they may be certain of their Conclusion still by another way from Christs promises if he hath ingaged to them a not erring therein and the confidence of their infallibility lies in this latter not alwayes the former which perhaps may be discovered sometimes to fail In the first Council Act. 15. there was much reasoning pro and con v. 15. and some reasoning that was amiss and yet to their Conclusion was prefixt a Visum est Spiritui Sancto 11. Again it is asked Q. 11. Why if these Councils secure of not erring § 108 at least in their Conclusions they do not straightwayes determine all Controversies some of which seem necessary to be so determined because of the great trouble they give the Church and particularly why the Council of Trent left so many unresolved that were agitated not only before but also in that Council by its own members I answer Because they have a promise of divine assistance not in deciding any point controverted but only those necessary And again they judge necessary to be decided only those points whereof they have a former Revelation and Tradition descended to them for in all necessaries by the divine providence these two fail them not a Revelation and Tradition thereof either in the formal Conclusion it self or in its necessary Principles In the considering of which Principles and deductions though the Guides are sometimes liable to mistakes yet the divine promise and superintendency * never suffers them to err in the matter that is concluded from them or also never suffers them to err in all those principles when they attempt by these to prove some tradition from which it may be concluded as is mentioned in the last Query whilst they pass not beyond the setling of those doctrines which are necessary for the edification of this Church * nor yet 2ly suffers them to pass these bounds of resolving necessaries so far as to burden the Church's faith with curiosities And this union of the divine direction together with humane reasoning may be observed in the very first Council held Act. 15. but now mentioned Where the assistance of the Holy Ghost is applyed to all or major part that sate in Council and concurred in making the decree not only to the Apostles and is found well to consist with the great reasoning disputing used there before the laâ—â— resolution Cum autem magna conquisitio fieret Vers. 7. And yet Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Vers. 28. There are therefore two sorts of Controversies which these supreme Courts ordinarily dismiss unresolved the one sort out of necessity namely those whereof they find no certain former Revelation or Tradition whence with good reason they conclude also the knowledge of them not necessary the other voluntarily such as appear to them of sufficient evidence but small consequence 12. Again it is asked Q. 12. How such infallibility of lawful General Councils doth any way differ from that of the Apostles § 109 or that of their decrees from the holy Scriptures I answer That whatever decrees of Councils are true they are as true as the Scriptures and in whatever the Church-Guides are infallible or unerring they are as infallible in it as the Apostles for one truth is no truer than another but that this their infallibility as to several circumstances thereof compared with the Apostles is much inferior 1st In that it is not extended so far for its matter as that of the Apostles they being infallible in all they delivered these only in their Conclusions or Definitions § 110 2ly In that though sometimes the reason why these do not err in such a Definition may be not their necessary deduction of it from an infallible Principle but the inspiration illumination immediate assent of faith or some other way of operation of God's Spirit at that time upon them in such manner as it works on other Christians when ever it opens their minds and makes them understand a truth beyond the rational arguments they have or humane industry they use to attain it yet such inspiration in this differs from that of the Apostles that as the Council collects not this their infallibility from any unfailable
on their own side as to decline a trial by any other way save by the Scriptures only Add to this that several such strange and damnable Opinions arose after this Rule written even in the Apostolical times From which Errors and Heresies from time to time by the intervening definitions and diligent search of the Rule and traditive Exposition thereof made in those supremest Ecclesiastical Courts that the times afforded the Church hath bin hitherto preserved Mean-while what satisfaction or comfort can a Christian § 11 in these present distractions of the Church receive from such persons who when asked whom we shall have to end our controversies 1st tell us ‖ Chillingw p. 115. and â—92 Whitby p. 104. 98. * That these if clear Scripture intelligible to every one decide them not are not controversies in any thing necessary and so needlesse to be ended and therefore one would think it not much material also on what side they are held Again * That the Plea for an infallible Guide to secure us from wandring out of the way to Heaven is invalidated by the plainnesse and easinesse of the way which we cannot misse unlesse we will And we now secure then 2ly changing their former note tell us That some of the present Controversies are such For example the Controversie of Transubstantiation St. Invocation and Images as that unless we believe them on that side as the Protestants state them we become if we practice according to our belief guilty of most gross idolatry and if it be idolatry surely then it destroys the very essentials or being of a Church 1 And then again that we in such a danger may not think of retiring to and relying upon our Guides in the third place tells us that in the not seeing this Rule of Scripture to be clear and manifest in these Controversies on the Protestant side and in the not perceiving the Protestant Reasons brought for it to be Demonstrations thereof both those great Councils that have defined the contrary to them and the greatest part of Christianity that now follows these Councils all Scripture being in these supposed for a Rule want or use not common Reason § 12 This of their first Answer restraining these Texts 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but condition and our Lord's Promises of Infallibility only to the Apostles and committing the succeeding times only to the Infallibility of the Apostles Writings But yet these not being secure here whilst some of the Texts as hath been shewed clearly enough promise Divine assistance also to the Apostles Successors which assistance can be none or nothing worth if not extended so far as to preserve them unerring in Necessaries they yet further allow from these Texts a Promise of Indefectibility in Necessaries to be made to the Catholick Church of all Ages after the Apostles taken in general as it is set down in the first Proposition ‖ §. 1. And not only to her but to her Guides also and Clergy But then they state these Promises as made to the Guides not to be absolute as they are to the Church but conditional only ‖ Chilling p. 176 Stilling p. 511 519 520. which condition they endeavour to shew also out of these Texts where such Promises are made As * in that John 14.16 And 16.23 The Comforter shall abide with you for ever and lead you into all truth True say they if you love me and keep my Commandments John 14.15 And * in that Mat. 28.20 I will be with you unto the end of the world True If you teach what I have commanded you * In that Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me True so often as ye speak my words not your own Therefore thus Mr. Chillingworth where he sets down several irrational ways as he calls them of ending a Controversie ‖ p. 130. § 7 8. descants on these and such like Scriptures We could saith he refer the matter to any Assembly of Christians assembled in the name of Christ seeing it is written Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We may refer it to any Priest because it is written The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's Chair c. To any Preacher of the Gospel to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised he will be with them always even unto the end of the world and of every one of them it is said he that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written Obey your Prelates and again He hath given Pastors and Doctors c. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called The House of God a Pillar and Ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican But these Means Mr. Chillingworth disallows because saith he they would fail us and contradict themselves This then they say that as these Scripture-promises are applied to the Catholick Church in general of all or any Age after the Apostles they grant them absolute But § 13 as applied to any particular Churches or their Guides since it is certain that such particular Persons and Churches may err even in Fundamentals and do somtimes contradict one another the Promises made to them must be understood to be only conditional and that before that any yield from these Texts any Obedience to them either of assent or also if in a matter of great moment of non-contradiction he must first look to it whether they have performed the condition of the promised assistance kept themselves to Christ's words kept his Commandments c. wherein also he cannot take theirs but must use his own Judgment and thus are these promises voided as to any certain benefit that the Subjects of the Church may expect by them and as to any certain Obedience which the Clergy can require for them § 14 To this way of expounding these Texts whereby in making the promises to belong conditionally to every man of the Clergy they would make them belong Reply That our Lord's promise of indeficiency in necessaries made to the Clergy is absolute absolutely to none of them I return this Answer 1st That by their representing Christ's promises only conditional in the manner above-mentioned ‖ § 12. they seem to unsettle the very Foundations of Christianity whilst from these Texts so expounded we can have no certainty of the Infallibility of the Apostles themselves to whom these things were said unless we be first assured of their performance of the Condition 2ly Seeing that themselves collect from these Texts an absolute promise of an indefectibility as to the knowledge and belief of all Necessaries which is the same as
but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked †See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously
and unresigned judgment for a review to those lower points yet these also of no small debate among persons straied once from this Guide of the lawfullness of bowing at the Communion Table of being uncovered in Churches of making the signe of the Cross in Baptism of Baptising one yet an Infant of wearing a Surplice c. Things high or low that trouble none who hath once undergone the mortification of dethroning his own judgment and captivated it to the unity of the Churches Faith 2. * Whilst now also after such an humble obedience and conformity first yielded he passeth further and comes to understand the doctrines of this Guide to be much other than they were formerly represented unto him and to be assented-to on good reason as well as submitted-to on just Authority saying with those new Converts in St. Austin †Ep. 48. Nos falsis rumoribus terrebamur intrare quos falsos este nesciremus nifi intraremus Gratias Deo qui expertos docuit quam vana inania de Ecclesiâ suâ mendax fama jactaverit For the Churches Doctrines are seldom by her adversaries delivered favourably and either the Sense of her Divines not given with their words or those Writers quoted who affect extreames and do afford more advantage to the Gain-sayer and the most of men whilst aliens from the Church and obliged by their secular interest to dislike and oppose her Tenents taking no great care to inform themselves what these are save only from those who disguise and misrelate them 3. But now thus undeceived in the last place he receives yet more contentment to see that Church spread over all Nations and once the Spouse of Christ not since to be as he formerly fancied for many Generations miserably apostatized from her primitive faith and purity and stained with a manifold Idolatry whilst the Great Antichrist sitteth in her cheif Chair and giveth her lawes poisoning the Nations with her gross errors and daily making more of them to drink of the wine of her Abominations and herself also drunk with the blood of the Saints for such things his Teachers once made him believe 2 Tim. 2.19 1 Tim. 3.15 Apocal. 2.1 But this Church to be a Foundation abiding sure and the Pillar of Truth for ever Our Lord walking still amongst her Candlesticks and holding her Stars in his hand and by them from age to age enlightening the dark places of the world Internal and External Sanctity Corporal and Spiritual mortifications accompanying one another and growing together to an Angel-like purity in her Saints and those who order their actions according to her most excellent Doctrines and Councils of Perfection In the lives of which Persons found in all later ages a most exact pattern of the former he now examines the Holiness of this Church and not in those others whose crimes in every age are by the Church's Adversaries curiously sought out and divulged to shew that most scandalous persons have professed the Roman Faith as who was ever so wicked as one of our Lord's Disciples Whom he now discernes to have departed no further from Goodness than they also did from her Rules and Lessons and well perceives that a continued purity of the Church's doctrine is more rationally collected from the Sanctity of the one than a Corruption therein from the viciousness of the other because it may rather be presumed that the wicked should transgress the Churches lawes than the virtuous transcend them and because both of Persons and Ages some may be observed to have been much more impious than others as perhaps the 9th or 10th age than the 11th or 12th where yet the Churches Doctrines or Lawes are confessed to have suffered no mutation and therefore such wickedness not to have proceeded from their influence and where those holy men of the same times who are produced to reprehend the faulty yet are known to have continued still with them in the same Communion and Faith * Whilst now he also discernes an uniform descent of the Church's faith and a true concatenation between the doctrines of the former Fathers and latter Schoolmen and the sentences of the one constituting the Theology of the other these later ascending indeed by pursuing the necessary consequents of former Principles into the highest subtleties of this divine Science but without pretending a Reformation of any thing formerly delivered or imposing their new discoveries on any one 's Faith And therefore no more now doth he look into them only as a Spy into the Camp of the Enemy to discover the specious fallacies of these great Wits against truth and to give intelligence to his own party to beware of their Sophisms Or at best turnes ore their Volumes only to pick here and there a flower as it were out of a Garden overrun with weeds But now reads them as a dutiful Son or docible Schollar doth the lessons of his Master or prescriptions of his Ancestors to transcribe and follow their Institutions and rules and propagate to posterity what he learnes from them Neither on another hand takes he now any more disgust and scandal at her Moral Divines and Casuists considering them according to their proper imployment not as persons conversing with Saints and drawing up Rules of perfection but applying themselves to the Confessions of Sinners and with as equal a ballance as Theology affords them weighing the culpableness of such actions as are brought before them in order to exciting a due and proportionable Penitence and Contrition Where he easily sees that it were an equal injustice in them to aggravate as to lessen faults and to put mens Souls into false scruples and terrors as to leave them in false securities Hence are they mostwhat busied in setting forth the utmost bounds which an action not to be perfect or praise-worthy but lawful or sinless is capable of or also not this but only what bounds it must not pass to be not sinning mortally or not mortally in such a particular species thereof though perhaps in some other it is so * Which Casuists he now discerns to be greatly wronged when some sentences of theirs commonly stript also of some of the necessary circumstances are produced as recommending or encouraging an action that is only by them declared no sin or as countenancing or excusing a sin that is only declared by them no such crime as excludes from Grace and the state of of Regeneration or as calling Evil good when as that Circumstance is concealed by the Accuser upon which supposed only and not absolutely they pronounce such action Good or lawful Again * Whilst now being thus established in a right understanding of the Church and of her Doctors He proceeds to look upon those Heterodox persons who from time to time have gone out of this Church not as departing out of Babylon but out of the City of God and that have all till Luthers last defect on after a short blaze come to nothing And again looks
14.16 26. 16.15 Compared with Acts 15.28 Joh. 5.20 27. 1 Cor. 12.7 8. his promising them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an Assista that should abide with them for ever to teach them all things and to bring all things to their remembrance For ever i. e. Not with the Apostles only For then what would become of the Nations that after their times were still to be instructed especially when any Controversies should arise concerning the understanding of the Apostles Writings which Writings are miss-understandable in things necessary and which S. Peter saith in his time the unlearned wrested to their own destruction ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 but with their Successors also * See Mat. 18.20 compared with 17 18. his promising that when they were gathered together in his name to hear the Causes brought to the Church brought to her still daily notwithstanding the Scriptures he himself would be in the midst of them and would ratifie in heaven what they should upon earth which implieth also that he would assist them on earth at least when this is a supreme and unappealable Church-authority to do as to the main both what was meet to be submitted to by those whom he sent to their Tribunal and what was meet to be ratified by the heavenly Tribunal But if after the Rule of Scripture the necessity of such Tribunals ceased why are these afterward continued and in Controversies of Faith appealed repaired to * See Mat. 16.18 19. his promising that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against those to whom he gave the Keys i. e. against the Clergy nor against the Church built by and upon them And * see Luk. 23.31 the not failing of S. Peter's Faith prayed for by our Lord in order to establishing his Brethren * See 1 Tim. 3.15 the Church unlimited to the Apostles days said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth surely this from its Teachers being so For so the Apostle elsewhere using the same Metaphor frequently calls these Teachers Gal. 2.9 Pillars Eph. 2.20 Foundations and Grounds amongst which Teachers Timothy being admitted is warned here to be very circumspect and careful of his behaviour And * see 2 Tim. 2.19 compared with 16 17 20. the Foundation of God the Church standing sure notwithstanding that Hymeneus and some others as Vessels in this great house of God not of Gold and Honour but of Earth add Dishonour had erred from the Truth of God * See Eph. 4.11 13. his giving these Teachers that the world should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine In whose Doctrine therefore in order to this end this Doner hath fixed some stability neither can it be applied only to the Apostles or their times seeing that the experience of so many various winds of Doctrines even since all their VVritings and concerning the sence of their VVritings see 2 Pet. 3.16 Blowing in the Church and carrying the unstable to and fro argues the same necessity of such Doctors still And * see Rev. 1.13 16. Where our Saviour to denote his perpetual presence to these succeeding Teachers and Governors of his Church after all the times of all the Apostles save St. John is described though in Glory yet walking in the midst of the seven Mother-Churches of Asia and holding their Bishops in his hands And therefore he hath commanded an Obedience to these Governors proportionable to his assistance that those who will not hear them should be reckoned as Heathens or Publicans he being in the midst of their Assemblies and ratifying in heaven what their Sentence binds or looseth on Earth * See Mat. 18.17 18 20. And hath said concerning them ‖ Luke 10.16 that he that heareth them heareth him From which may be gathered that that Clergy who have still the same mission from him may require the same audience in his stead CHAP. II. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles § 8. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but conditional § 12. R. That our Lord's Promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries was not made to the Apostles only but to their Successors § 9. And to their Successors not conditional but absolute § 14. And that this Indeficiency in Necessaries is most rationally placed by the Church § 8 in her General Councils or such accord and consent of the Clergy as is equivalent to such Councils § 15. IN Answer to these Texts some of the Reformed ‖ Chillingw p. 92. 115. 19. Stillingf p. 256 2 8 259 519. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles would restrain these absolute Promises only to the Apostles or first Promulgators of the Gospel for this reason because no need that they should be extended to any more For by these first for all succeeding times was a written Rule left clear and plain even to the unlearned and to all that use common reason in all necessary points of Faith and therefore that all Controversies which these plain and clear Scriptures intelligible to every one decide not are not Controversies in any point necessary and need not to be decided nor do Christians now having an infallible and plain Rule for Necessaries need afterwards besides this another living unerrable Guide in them But such an Answer 1st Seems neither any way sufficient to satisfie the Texts as hath been partly shewed already in the Explication of them § 9 which do promise to the world's end not a Rule only but Persons Reply 1. sent to preserve us from every wind of Doctrine and which command Obedience not to a Rule only but to Persons expounding it under pain of being ejected as Heathens and Publicans and under pain of being bound in Heaven when they bind us upon Earth an authority exercised not only by the Apostles but upon the strength of these and the like Texts extended beyond the former Limitation by their Successors also Only this Order is required to be observed in our Obedience that we perform it in the first place to the supreme Church-authority and then also to particular persons or Churches only as they are conformable to and united with the whole who otherwise as experience shews may err even in Fundamentals and so our obedience to them ruine us Nor 2ly seems such answer sufficient to satisfie the Necessities of the times following the Apostles wherein § 10 whether there have not risen controversies notwithstanding the clearness of the rule left us some of which have bin in matters necessary and wherein the people greatly needed the directions of their spiritual Guides I leave to your Judgment if you please to reflect on either the old Arrian Nestorian Pelagian or the new Socinian Solifidian Church-Anarchical both anti-episcopal and also anti-presbyteral errors all maintain'd by such who have presumed as much as any that they have common reason to understand plain Scriptures Nay who account these so clear
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
a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the
sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum The third is Calvins Confession of faith ‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702. written two years before his death and directed to the Emperor and Princes of Germany Porrò saith he qui nos accusant quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis valde sunt in nos injurii Non enim hîc quaeritur quid Deus possit sed quid verbo suo velit extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum ut hoc aut illud divinemus Quare illam quaestionem omittemus an Deus possit facere ut Christi Corpus sit ubique sed cum omni modestiā intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus qu◠perhibet Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis quam illi qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis secundum humanam naturam distantiam non impedire quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet habitet in nobis nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui sanguinis virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse quod nobis imponitur quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est simpliciter admittere quod Scriptura nos docet And de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist ' Quasi vero saith he hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur This then I hope may be said with the approbation of Protestants that the interposings of sence though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our sences all that being really there which they perceive there but in our reason only arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject or the interposing of Reason and Philosophy are not to be hearkned to in this matter till first it be cleared what is the divine Revelation concerning it which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them we may with modesty enough use that expression of F. Cressies causlesly censured ‖ Tillots p. 276. That we have learnt not to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation This hath bin produced out of the Scriptures 2. For a corporal presence of Christs Body and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it Many texts urged if taken in their most literal proper and natural sence very express for it as Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 Jo. who speaking of it here omits it in the History of the Passion 6.51 53 54. 1 Cor. 11.24 27 29. 10.16 It being very observable here 1st That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers Matthew Mark Luke and Paul without any variation or Exposition of any impropriety whereas it is not usuall so constantly to retain without Explication a tropical or figurative speech especially in a matter where the truth is so necessary to be known 2 Again that the fourth of these Writers cautiously as it were useth not his own stile in this matter as in others but chuseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words what I have received that I deliver c. And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum without changing afterward any impropriety in them with the like words following Hic est sanguis and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur i on the Cross to shew he was real in these words and meant no Figure Notwithstanding this the true sence of these Scriptures was called in question by a party not now only but eight hundred years ago contending that they were not properly but figuratively to be understood And upon this the usual remedy for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted was then repaired to and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted for deciding and declaring the true and traditive sence of these Scriptures in this important controversie concerning the real substantial corporeal presence of our Lords Body as was formerly for declaring the traditive sence of the Scriptures controverted concerning the Divinity of Christ A General Council i.e. the most general that the times would permit was assembled in the West in our Forefathers days nay of these more than one as hath bin shewed ‖ §. 57 c. a substantial Conversion of the Elements and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sence of these Scriptures and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery not one Bishop in these Councils for any thing we know in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting and those of the Eastern Churches absent consenting in the same judgment ‖ See Disc 3. §. 158. what more can be done Ought not sence reason philosophy here to be silenced and ought not such a Decree to be if not assented to yet even in the judgment of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted ‖ § 56. n. 2. 59. acquiesced in so far as not to be by any contradicted § 65 But 3 ly what now if many of those contradictions and absurdities which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholicks 3. do as much overthrow that real presence that is maintained by Protestants I mean the Calvinists and so many in the Church of England as have not deserted their Forefathers and to flie the father from the Church of Rome are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius changing a real into meerly a spiritual presence or a presence only of Christs Spirit uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven But heretofore at least it hath bin the common Tenent of the English Divines to affirm not only a spiritual presence or a presence only by effect operation or grace but a substantial presence in the Eucharist and that is here on earth not to the Elements indeed but to the worthy Receiver of the very same Body of Christ that suffered on the Cross and that is now at the same time as here also in heaven § 66 To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit And Institut l 4. c. 17. § 7. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos spiritus modò participes faciunt praeteritâ carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent
due to this much greater though some smaller part dissenting and that an Opposition of their definitions in matter of faith becomes heresie and a separation from their Communion upon their requiring an approbation of and conformity to such their decrees becomes Schism if an opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 28 14. As for that way or those marks that are given usually by Protestants ‖ See Calv. Instit l. 4 c. 1. §. 9. by which Christians are to discern Prop. 14. in any division of them the Society of the true Church Guides whether these happen to be more or fewer of a higher or lower rank than the other as they say somtimes they may be the One somtimes the other from the false namely these two 1 The right teaching of the Christian doctrine 2 And right Administration of the Sacraments 1st If any are directed to finde out by these marks those Guides not only whose Communion they ought to joyn with but from whose judgment they ought to learn which is the same true Christian doctrine and which the right administration of the Sacraments i.e. are by those marks first known to find out those persons by whom they may come to know these marks as for example if one that seeks a Guide to direct him what he is to believe in the Controversie of the Consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father is first to try if Consubstantiality be true and then to chuse him for his Guide in this point that holds it The very Proposal of this way seems a sufficient confutation of it For what is this but to decide that first themselves for the decision of which they seek to anothers judgment And there is no question but after this they will in a search pitch on a Judge that decides as they do but then this is seeking for a Confederate for a Companion not seeking for a Guide for a Governour When they can state the true doctrine themselves their search for a Guide to state it is at an end and they may then search rather to whom to teach it than of whom to learn it T is granted indeed §. 29. n. 1. supposing the marks above-named were only to be found among the right Church-Guides which is not so ‖ See §. 29 n. 2. that these right Guides may be discerned from false by this mark i.e. by the truth of that doctrine which they reach by so many as can attain the certain knowledge of this true doctrine by some other means or way as by the Holy Scriptures Fathers c. Nor is private mens trying the truth of the Doctrine of these differing Guides by these denied here to be lawful nor denied that the Proposal of such a trial to the People may by the true Guides even by the Apostles be made use of with good success because the Scriptures c. may evidence to some persons intelligent in some Controversies less difficult the truth of those Doctrines which some of the learned out of great passion or interest may gainsay But then for all such points wherein a private man's trial by Scripture is very liable to mistake and the sense thereof not clear unto him as no private person hath reason to think it clear in such points of Controversie wherein the Church-Guides examining the same Scriptures yet do differ among themselves and perhaps the major part of them from him here he must necessarily attain the knowledge of his right Guide by some other Marks prescribed him for that purpose and not by the truth of that doctrine or clearness of those Scriptures for instruction in the truth or sence of which he seeks such a Guide Unsound therefore is that Position of Mr. Stillingfleet's Rat. Account p. 7. That of necessity the Rule I suppose he means and by it the Truth of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgment of any Church And very infirm that arguing of his and so all that he afterward builds upon it where he deduceth from this Proposition conceded That a Church which hath erred cannot be relied on in matter of Religion therefore men must be satisfied whâ—ther a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relied oâ— or no for though this be allowed here that such Church as may be relied on hath amongst other properties or sure marks this for one that she doth not or cannot err yet many other Mark or Properties she may have by which men may be assured she may be relied on who are not first able to discern or prove all her Doctrines for truth or demonstrate her not erring Such arguing is much-what like to this That Body which casts no light cannot be fire therefore a man must first be satisfied whether such a body gives light before he can judge whether it be fire Not so because one blind and not seeing the light at all yet may certainly know it is fire by another property by its scorching Heat Or like this No Book than contains any false Proposition in it can be the Book of Holy Scripture therefore men must be satisfied whether such Book contain any false Proposition in it or no before they can judge whether it be the Book of Holy Scripture or no. Not so for men ordinarily by another way viz. universal Tradition become assured that such Book is Holy Scripture and thence collect that it contains nothing in it contradictory or false and so it is for the true Church or our true Guide that though she always conserveth Truth yet men come to know her by another way and of her first known afterward learn that truth which she conserveth But 2ly These Protestant Marks viz. Truth of Christian doctrine and right Administration of Sacraments §. 29. n. 2. if we could attain a certain knowledge of them another way and needed not to learn them from the Church yet are no infallible Mark of that Catholick Body and Society to which Christians may securely adhere and rank themselves in its Communion because such Body when entirely professing the Christian Faith yet still may be Schismatical and some way guilty of dissolving the Christian Vnity as Dr. Field amongst others freely concedes Who ‖ Of the Ch. l 2. c. 2. p. 31. 33. therefore to make up as he saith the Notes of the true Catholick Church absolute full and perfect and generally diginguishing this Church from all other Societies adds to these two the entire profession of saving Faith and the right use of Sacraments a third Mark viz. an Union or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments Under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed and authorized to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation Which Pastors lawfully authorized he ‖ l. 1. c. 14. grants those not to be who though they have power of Order yet have no power of
not so plain in Scripture but that a General Council as to the major part of them the highest Authority by which the Church Catholick can direct us at least if not in their sence universally accepted for this Exception is put in by the more moderate ‖ See Disc 1. §. 32. c. may mistake in them so far as that the unlearned have even for these Necessaries no security to rely on their judgment I must tell you saith Mr. Chillingworth to F. Knot ‖ p. 150. you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible Director in Fundamentals or Necessaries Now this also he was considering his Engagement forced to say and gives the reason that made him say so I suppose for satisfying his own Party rather than his Adversary in the words following For saith he if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is fundamental and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such And what harm in it say I if you did But this he well saw would have destroyed the Reformation which was contrary to the Doctrines which the publick Director that was then in being delivered But. if these Necessaries at the last are not so few or so plain in Scripture but that the judgment of the Church-Guides even when met in their supreamest Consults may err in them will he allow us then to follow some other's judgment that is in these points fallible If so why not to follow theirs still But if not so whose judgment will he direct us to that shall less err than these Guides or that shall certainly not err in the undrstanding of these plain Scriptures wherein these Guides mistake Methinks he should * forbear here to name to us our own Judgment even when we unlearned too and yet none else can he name And * much more forbear here to alledge Passion Faction Interest c as great Blinders of this publick judgment unless he could first shew the private not at all or less liable to them which corrupters of a clear understanding seem indeed more incident to persons of a lower rank and that have much relation to and dependance on others and therefore what more common than for avoiding those to make Appeals from inferior to a more general judgment as expecting in the most general the most impartial dealing And what private person can we produce thot doth not range himself with some party and that hath not in matters controverted a strong secular Interest for one side to be truth rather than the other according to the Church and State he lives in § 43 But 3ly As it is necessary that God some way or other do clearly reveal to all even the unlearned using their due Industry that which he requires necessarily to be believed by them so it is not consequent at all that God should do this as to every thing necessary in the Scriptures First Because God cannot be said to have been deficient in a competent revelation of Necessaries to all men if he hath left as indeed he hath sufficient evidence and clearness in the Scriptures that are first generally agreed on to be his Word to every man rightly using his private judgment or common reason as to one point only viz. this That it is his divine Will that private men for all those Scriptures the sence whereof is any way dubicus or controverted should constanâ—ly be guided by and adhere to the judgment of those spiritual Superiors that he hath set over them and in any division of these should still hold to the Superiors among these Superiors according to the Subordinations by him established amongst them For thus we see after a Christian's private judgment or common reason used only in one point for all other points private judgment is now discharged and in stead thereof obedience to Authority takes place so far as its stating of any point thinks fit to restrain therein other mens Liberty of Opinion The testimony of which Church-authority as a thing clearly demonstrated and ratified by the Scriptures S. Austin in more difficult matters of Controversie often appealed to See Disc 3. § 82. n. 4. Puto saith he si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment de hac quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae And by this which is so often retorted by Protestants that Catholicks also are forced to allow to Christians the necessary use of their private Judgment will be verified only in this one point The Choice or the discerning of their Guide whereas the Protestants make it necessary for all Points and who sees not a vast difference between these two for the hazard which a Christian incurs therein 1 The being in all controverted matters of Religion and sence of Scriptures meerly cast upon his own reason and skill to steer himself aright therein And 2 The being left to it only in one matter and that one as Catholicks contend in the Scriptures very clear after which examined and judged by him all the rest wherein he may want a resolution are without his further solicitude to be judged for him by another So there is a great difference when a person falls sick between his being left to the use of his private judgment in making choice of a Physitian according to certain Rules prescribed unto him by a wise and experienced man in that behalf and then this once done submitting himself afterward to this Physitian in all things that he shall prescribe for his cure and between this sick person's undertaking by Hippocrates his Aphorisms or other Physick Books to prescribe all particular Remedies to himself upon this reasoning that if his private judgment serves for directing in the one making choice of a Physitian why not in all the other fit Medicines for his Disease Which Argument is only good where all the Objects about which our judgment is exercised are equally easie and clear to it And therefore unconsequently seems that Question to be asked ‖ Stillingf R. Ac. p. 7. If the Scripture may and must decide one Point that of the Church why may it not as well all the rest If the Scripture be not in all other Points equally clear and not-mistakable This then is one way of sufficient Revelation besides Mr Chillingworth's way I mean that of all necessary Truths being clearly revealed in Scripture viz. a sufficient Revelation of one point in Scripture concerning that Guide from whom we may securely learn all the other points not clear to us in Scripture § 44 2 ly Because God besides and before the New-Testament Scriptures left
the present Roman Church where Christian Religion now as anciently enjoys its freedom to see which of them resembles the constitution aspect and manners of the ancient Catholick Church we find them of a very different temper proportion and pretentions One of them by much the greatest and through the Universe most dilated Body and Communion that is in Christianity I mean such as is united in the same Government Laws Faith and Discipline with a certain subordination of all the Members and Officers thereof one under Ecclesiasticall Head So that if we suppose the Church-Catholick where are many divided Christian Societies or confederacies separated from one another in their Communion to be but one unanimous Body of them concerning which see 2 Disc § 26. n. 1. § 27. n. 3. and it again to be for universality the greatest of those bodies this must be it And again if we suppose a General Council assembled of all these its votes would have the predominancy over any of the rest taken a part and in any conjunction of them all in such a meeting it may reasonably be imagined from the agreement which the most considerable of the other Churches have with it in most of the Western Controversies that in voting them its party would be increased sooner than any other § 73 Again This great Body also we find hath continued to this day united to and joyned with the See Apostolick and Chair of S. Peter like that Church-Catholick in the Primitive times And we find it using its authority still after the same manner as then did the true Catholick Church still pretending it self upon our Saviours promises in its supreme Councils joyned with the authority of the same Chair a certain and infallible Guide in the determination of all necessary Faith to whom all its Subjects owe not only silence but submission of judgement and belief We find it from time to time as the ancient Church when any new Controversies Opinions and Sects arise any way dangerous making new definitions and more explications of the Catholick Faith and enlarging from age to age for which also its adversaries complain of it the particular and explicite knowledge and profession thereof amongst her Children as the Heterodox grow more particular and multiplicious in those errors that would any way undermine it as also anciently the Nicene Creed was thought a necessary supply to the Apostolick and again the larger Athanasian to the Nicene Creed And these her definitions now as then she passeth under Anathema to opposers or dissenters declares Hereticks still as they were esteemed anciently such as oppose them because such after them judged to be now wilfully and contumaciously erring and Schismaticks such as depart on what cause soever from her Communion as vindicating to her self compounded in her supreme representative of all those particular Churches that remain undivided from S. Peters Chair the true Title and right of the Catholick Church § 74 Again upon the same grounds and as authorized immediately by our Lord we find her holding her self obliged and taking upon her to give and promulgate her Laws in matters clearly Spiritual and Divine secular powers whether favouring or frowning to all her Subjects however dispersed in several temporal Dominions presuming still and thinking great reason for it to use as much spiritual authority in their States when Princes a e become Christian and her Sons as all grant her lawfully to have done when they were yet heathen and her Enemies We find her also pressing this obedience to her Decrees on her Children not * from promising as S. Austin ‖ De utilit Credendi c. 1. saith the Manichees anciently did which was the occasion of his writing his book De utilitate Credendi Ecclesiae before that the things we believe are proved to us evident proofs or demonstrations though these are not wanting but * from her authority and commission received from our Lord to decide all controversies she thinks necessary and * from the traditive sence of holy Scripture delivered to her from her Fore-fathers And so also it is in this Church that her subjects as soon as any thing is cleared to them to be the Church's doctrine dispute it no farther but presently resign their judgment thereto And §. 75. n. 1. as we find it publishing with great authority its Laws to all its Subjects and Members where ever residing So also by our Lords order Mat 28.19 diligently sending forth its Missions into all quarters of the world amongst strangers and those out of its fold whether Infidels or Hereticks for converting or reducing them to the Christian and Catholick Faith And to this Body and that since the time of Gregory the First when also it was much-what the same as it is now do most of the Northern Nations owe their Conversion to Christianity and at that time our Ancestors among the rest under Ethelbert and his Successors received that Roman Profession of Religion which 900. years after under Edward the Sixth they cast off And by the same indefatigable Zeal Labours and Sufferings of its Missioners are still those great conversions of Mahometans and Heathens made both in the West and East-Indies and Southern parts of Affrick not to insist here on the late reduction of some of the Christian Sects also of the Northern and Eastern parts to the Roman Communion Where in calling to mind Gods gracious promises of the Gospel to be preached to all Nations ‖ Mat. 24.14 Mark 13.10 and the fulness of the Gentiles to be brought into his Fold †Rom. 11. which we see both heretofore and at the present to be effected solely or principally by this Body through great hazards and much expence of its blood I desire all sober persons to consider whether the good God having thus promised to the Nations Bread * would give them instead thereof but a Stone and having promised them the Revelation of his Truth yet * would not send it to them but abased and mixed with a manifold Idolatry as Protestants imagine the worshiping of dead men and of a breaden God and these brought in amongst them by Antichrist himself if the Head of these Missioners the Pope be so thus only Satan fighting against Satan and Popery against Heathenism * would not I say communicate unto them these waters of life to drink of unless mortified as it were 1 st with several errors as the Protestants say gross damnable and perilous to their Salvation and from which the external Communion of all true Believers ought to separate And again the end of the world and as the Protestants say of the reign of Antichrist whom they count now above 1000. years old his full age being foretold to be 1260. being now not far off I desire him next to consider * whether that which is said to be instead of the Roman the most pure and Orthodox Religion recovered by Luther and to which therfore these Nations if not already must be
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
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
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
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
recuperemus And Agni Dei praecones velut oves mactari sancti Martyres huic assidue exposcite simulque nobis debitorum remissionem donari In the Office in time of pestilence Goar p. 793 795 Vehementibus continuis doloribus perculsi tibi virgo cuncti procidimus potenti tuâ protectione cunctos salva O pura miserere Dei sponsa ab hae pernicie morbo gravi nos praeserva infirmit atibus medere O Domina And A grassantis morbi angustiis Apostoli Jesum Dominum servatorem deprecantes nos educite Martyrum turmae sacri Doctores c. aegrotorum dolores vestris intercessionibus mitigate salutem conferte Some of these too in as high expressions you see as those found in the Roman Church But if we will permit which is all reason those who use such words to expound their meaning they understand only by them the Blessed Virgin Saint's procuring of God by their intercessions those favours and mercies which they ask of them †See Bell. de sanct Beat. l. 1. c. 17. nor are they apprehended to preserve of save people any otherwise than S. Paul did 1 Cor. 9.22 See Jeremy the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his first answer to the Lutheran Divines †p. 128. Ad Dominam nostram ad sanctos exclamamus Persancta Domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus Omnes sancti Angeli Apostoli c. foeminarum sanctarum caetus orate pro nobis That Exposition therefore of this Patriarch which some †See Mr. Stillingf p. 502. make use of to perswade the credulous as if the Graecian in the Doctrine of invocation differed from the Roman Church ‖ Hierem. p. 127. i. e. Invocatio quae ad Sanctos fit non propriè Invocatio fit sed per accidens si◠dicendo per gratiam Non enim Petrus aut Paulus i. e. virtue naturali exaudiunt invocatores suos sed illa gratia quam habent secundum illud quod Dominus dixit Ero vobiscum usque ad consummationem is not thus to be understood that none of these Saints hear or at least by some other way know mens prayers though as Cardinal Bellarmine observes †De sanctorum beatitudine l. 1. c. 20 neither thus could Saint invocation be vain if others at the least for them heard and granted their supplicants requests for the same Patriarch's saying afterward p. 243. that it may be many wayes shewed that the Saints invocated do help and relieve doth presuppose also that they know mens necessities and therefore the Lutheran Divines in their Reply endeavour to prove this against him among other things that Saints hear not mens prayers But he meaneth only that they hear them not suis viribus naturalibus but per supernaturalem gratiam Dei as he explains himself also in his second answer p. 245. Sanctos multum posse cum per gratiam sint Dii inquit enim Psalmorum author Deus stetit in Synagogâ deorum dignitates scilicet distribuens ut interpretatur divus Gregorius And In sua vitâ plenos fuisse Spiritus sancti atque post funera ipsorum ejusdem Spiritus gratiam non excessisse ex ipsis § 162 e Concerning the fifth The Prayers of the Greek Church for the deceased are not only made for remission of sin at the day of judgment a happy resurrection at that time glory life eternal in the Kingdom of Heaven c. for the person of the defunct but also for present remission rest light peace refreshment cum spiritibus justorum consummatis in sinu Abrahae in Paradiso in loco refrigerii lucis unde dolor aerumna suspiriuiu exulant c. for the souls of the defunct viz. of such defunct to use the Patriarch's expression †Hieremiae Patri primum Resp c. 21. Qui inter paenitendum preventi morte fuere nondum autem peccatorum maculas eluere potuerunt for rest and refreshment for them in sinu Abrahae c. i. e. in the present celestial region of happy souls imagined inferior to that they shall inhabit after the day of Judgement So in the modern Greek Mass it is said Offerimus tibi c. pro requie remissione animae servi tui N. in loco lucido à quo abest dolor gemitus And Fac eam quiescere ubi circumspectat lumen vultus tui And in their Officium exequiarum apud Goar p. 525. Cum spiritibus justis consummatis animae servi tui salvator da requiem in vitam aeternam quae à te est custodi illam benigne In quietis loco quo sancti tui cuncti resident animam servi tui compone Domine quia tu solus es clemens Tu Deus es qui in infernum descendisti compeditorum aerumnas solvisti ipse animae servi tui da requiem § 163 Next As these Five Points were universally held and practised at the coming of Luther so it may seem as clear to any moderate Protestant that the forenamed Points together with four more added to them viz. 1. Communion in one kind 2. Veneration of sacred Images and Pictures 3. Monastick vows and Celibacy of the Clergy And 4 Auricular or Sacramental Confession of all mortal sin and the injunction of due pennances for them are the main points in the Roman Church that are thought to give just offence and to have necessitated a Reformation But in these four last also it may easily be shewed that the Roman Church stands not alone but that these points also are and were at the appearance of Luther the common practice of the Eastern Churches in such a manner as Protestants disallow and oppose 1st For Communion in one kind The modern Greeks also are known to communicate the Ecclesiasticks and the Laicks after a several manner for they give the Clergy the Symbol of Christ's Body into their hands after which in their order they suck the Blood of our Lord out of the Chalice standing on the Altar with a pipe but they communicate the people only with the Symbole of Christ's Body intinct in that of his blood taken out of the Chalice with a little spoon and so put into their mouths Not eating therefore the Body and drinking the blood of our Lord apart as Protestants contend our Lord not only instituted but commanded it This former way of communicating the people in both kinds having been changed in both Churches upon the same ground namely the many abuses and irreverences which have happened in giving the consecrated bread into their hands and allowing so many Communicants of all ages and conditions to drink out of the Chalice Lastly they communicate the Sick only with the Symbol of Christ's Body consecrated on Maunday Thursday for all the year following and then on that day be sprinkled with the Symbol of his blood and softned again for the sick with common wine at the time when they administer it †See
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
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
true That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her selfe in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the presâ—rvation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several points imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of opinion or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds and concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90. acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils And the Act 1. Eliz. †cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenent hath received a mortal wound †But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Churches censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoynes Now I yeeld all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. what obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st silence or non-contradiction †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of