extare unde ea quatenus omnino ad salutem est necessarium cognosci indubitatò possit At nihil tale extare praeter sacras literas Nam si dicas Ecclesiam esse unde ea cognitio semper peti possit primum statuendum tibi erit Deum etiam decrevisse ut Ecclesia vera falsa enim ad eam rem inepta est semper usque ad mundi finem extet Sed ut Ecclesia vera extet à quâ omnes salutaris vâ—ritâ—tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant requiritur ut homines complures coetum aliquem qui in omnium â—oulos incurrat constituant At non est quod quis certam aliquam Ecclesiam hoc privilegio a Deo donatam esse contendat ut fide excidere nequeat Deinde non posse Ecclesiam veram certo cognosci nisi prius cognoscatur quae sit salutaris Christi doctrina praeterea indipsum saltem debuisse alicubi in sacris literis clarè ac perspicuè scriptum extaâ—e debere ab Ecclesia peti omnia quae ad salutem scitu sunt necessaria quaenam ea sit Ecclesia ac unde debeat cognosci clare describi ne quis in câ cognoscenda facile errare posset Nam si quippiam scriptu fuisset necessarium hoc sane fuisset sine quo reliqua omnia quae cripta sunt nihil aut parum admodum prodessent Denique eam Ecclesiam quam isti Pontificii perpetuo extitisse volunt constare multis in rebus atque adeo in iis quoquâ— quâ— ad salutem sunt necessariae gravissime errare Things usually pleaded by Mr. Chillingw and his followers but whether borrowed from these I can say nothing ‖ See below § 47. n. Thus the Socinians lay the platform of their Religion and when the Protestants for confuting their errour urge Fathers and Church-authority against them they reply That they have learnt this from them to receive nothing besides Scripture and to neglect the Fathers ‖ See Simlerus de Filio Dei S. Spiritu Prafat Mean-while Appeals of the Fathers in Controversies of Religion to the trial of the Holy Scriptures I acknowledge frequent and that also somtimes waving Church-authority ‖ See S. Austin contra Maximinum l. 3. c. 14. but never made in opposition to it former or present Their great humility which also kept them Orthodox hindred them from presuming this and had any of them done it posterity would not have stiled him a Father The second thing is §. 40. n. 2. that as to the sufficiency or intirenesse of the Scriptures 2 for the containing all those points of faith that are simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining salvation Roman Catholicks deny it not but only deny such a clearness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake or pervert Catholicks contend indeed that there are several things necessary to be believed by Christians according as the Church out of Apostolical Tradition hath or shall declare and propose them as touching the Government of the Church several Functions of the Clergy Administration of the Sacraments and some other sacred Ceremonies and particularly concerning the Canon of the Scriptures which are not contained in the Scriptures at least as to the clear mention therein of all those appertinents which yet have bin ever observed in the Church And touching the obligation of believing and due observing of several of these Traditions as descending from the Apostles learned Protestants also agree with them ‖ See Dr. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Dr. Tailor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant 1647. p. 9. and in particular concerning the believing of the Canon of Scripture though it be a thing not contained in Scripture See Mr. Chillingworths Concession p. 55. ‖ See also p. 114 where he saith That when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them that presuppose it divine and a Rule of faith as Papists and Protestants do containes all the material objects of faith is a compleat and total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule Where in saying all material objects of faith he means only all other after these he names presupposed and pre-believed But though I say Catholicks maintain several Credends that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed and observed by Christians after the Churches Proposal of them as Tradition Apostolical amongst which the Canon of Scripture Yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salvation and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto either raâ—ione medii or pracepti as the doctrines collected in the three Creeds the common Precepts of manners and of the more necessary Sacraments c. are contained in the Scriptures contained therein either in the Conclusion it self or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced ‖ Bellarmin de verbo Dei non scripto lib 4. cap. 11. Illa omnia scippta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem Stapleton Relect Princip Doctrinae fidei Controver 5. q. 5. art 1 Doctrinam fidei ab omnibus fingulis explicitè credendam omnem aut ferè omnem scripto commendarunt Apostoli The main and substantial Points of our faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White pag 12. are believed to be â—postolical because they are written in cripture S. Thom 22. q. 1. art 9. primus ad primum art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means câ—pâ—a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata sed quia pervesi homines Scripturas peâ—vertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proceâ—encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores Therefore the Church from time to time defining any thing concerning such points defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture And the chief Tradition the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sence and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures but many times not there written so clearly which traditive sence of the Church you may find made use of against Arianisme in the first Council of Nice ‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1 c. 8. Or
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
consenting shall never err in necessaries And then in the last place if perhaps some smaller number of them do dissent from the rest since the Catholick Church is alwayes but one and is a Government at peace within it self and constituted in a due subordination of its members in respect of one another and also in respect of the whole here also it rationally follows that the greater and more dignified body of this Clergy in any division of some members from it must be of these two that Guide whom Christians are obliged to follow and the lesser and inferior part obliged to conform to and therefore this of the two the Guide unerring See before Disc 2. § 23. c. Disc 1. § 18. Here then ariseth a sufficient certainty in reason from the principles conceded by Protestants of the unerring of a lawfully general Council in necessaries without shewing the Decree of any Council for it § 89 3ly Setting aside any declaration of Scripture in this matter of infallibility and supposing the Gospel had not been writ yet both the Teachers of the Gospel for ever in their general Council at least must have been infallible in necessaries else from whom or by what other means no Scriptures being exstant could people have learnt the way to salvation And also this their infallible guidance must have been made sufficiently credible to the world by the tradition constantly descending from the testimony of our Lord and his Apostles who confirmed this their first testimony by Miracles else the Christian would have been no rational Religion By which testimony also it was that those first Teachers substituted by the Apostles had full credit with and did beget infallible and saving faith in their Gentile-Auditors before that the Holy Scriptures were delivered unto these Gentiles and therefore it appears that these Teachers might have been also to this day with sufficient certainty relyed on in their propagating and preserving the Christian faith among their Converts had there been no Scriptures at all to have taught the same things with them and to have born witness to their Doctrine Neither may it rationally be said that the Church's possession of these Scriptures hath disinherited them of any part of that Authority and belief which it is agreed that they might have challenged had there been no Scripture but that the present Church ought still in the same manner to be believed by her children to be infallible in all necessary truth as the Apostles were believed to be so by those who heard them and only from sufficiently credible witnesses had heard of but had not seen any of their miracles And then supposing first this their infallibility in necessaries to be thus made credible to us by sufficient evidence in point of reason †See Stillingf p. 559. we are to believe them also when in their Councils they tell us that they are infallible in all necessaries if this be a truth necessary to be known upon this account because they tell us so As he that once believes that whatever is said in Gods Word is true is to believe also that Gods Word is true because this Word saith so Here then you see that there would have been a sufficient certainty or assurance to Christians descending by Tradition of their being truly and infallibly guided by the Substitutes of our Lord to the end of the world without the decree of any Council presupposed and had there been no holy Scriptures extant The same infallible guidance therefore is now had and known sufficiently from them though we putting also the Scriptures § 90 4ly By primitive Tradition the Catholick Church in her General Councils hath alwayes thought her self authorized to define matters of faith upon Anathema to dissenters and to put them as thought fit in the Church's Creeds with an obligation laid on all to believe them Now either this will imply the infallibility of these Councils as they conceived in such points or if this be thought to argue something less let but the same priviledge still be continued to the present Church Catholick in her Councils and the same obedience yielded by her subjects to her present definitions and a sufficient certainty hereof granted viz. that such authority she hath and such duty they owe and any further extent of infallibility I suppose will not be claimed Here again we see that tradition in the practice of Councils without any their Decree shews a sufficient certainty of such an infallibility of Councils as is challenged Thus much in answer to this first Query Where the taking this for a Principle of Catholicks that none can have a sufficient certainty of any thing either from Scripture or church-Church-Tradition grounded at first on Miracles antecedent to the Church's authority defining it in a general Council causeth in some Protestants much misarguing in this and several other points But now if we return a like Query upon themselves who profess also a sufficient certainty in their faith even of those points that are in controversie or it sufficeth if they profess so much concerning any one such point and ask whence they have such certainty I see not what rationally they can reply For 1st They cannot build such a certainty on any Church-authority since they deny any infallibility or sufficient certainty as to such points in the Declarations or Doctrines of this Authority even in the supremest Collection thereof the Councils General present or past Nor yet 2ly on the Scriptures because the true sence of them in these points is not only disputed which is here urged by them as sufficient to null a certainty but by the much major part of Christendom and that after the Protestants manifesting to the world all the grounds of their persuasion said to be clear against their new pretensions But 3ly Since the Gospel was dispersed in the world by Christs Substitutes and Ministers and a multitude of souls saved thereby before the penning or publishing of the New Testament or Gospel-Scriptures and therefore possibly might in the same manner have continued to have been dispersed to the end of the world or for a much longer time then it was so this Query will still sorer press them what certainty in such a case they I mean the world learning their faith from Teachers without Scripture could have had of their faith Or whence Or whether no certainty in such case to be had § 91 2ly Again it is asked ‖ See Archb Lawd p. 228 239 Stillingf p. 515 516 513. from whence General Councils should derive this their infallibility Because 1st The divine promises of infallibility if made to any are made only to the diffusive Body of the Catholick Church Neither can she bequeath or delegate this infallibility to her assignes in a General Council if no such power of devolution be contained in the original Grant nor it can be shewed that the maker of the promises did either appoint a General Council to represent the
these divine Revelations from those who were known by Miracles to be sent from God the multitude of them I say together with their wisdom their sanctity their unanimous consent throughout so many ages their affirming such truth much contrary to all their secular interests to the appetites of the flesh and ambitions of this world their delivering them both by word and writing to their children and posterity to be delivered again to theirs as matters of the highest moment and wherein it eternally concerneth them not to be deceived as also their strict charge to deliver nothing in these matters of faith to their children which they have not received from their Forefathers their suffering many times cruel deaths for the verity of their testimony the miracles in several ages done also by them which miracles when done for the testifying of their Faith such in those ages as have seen have had the like evidence of this Faith as those who saw the miracles of the Apostles and those who have not seen but believe the credible Relators of them have the like evidence of their Faith as those also had in the Apostles times who believed as doubtless many did not seeing but only hearing of their miracles If I say I proceed thâ—s to prove the Church-Tradition infallible from these motives of credibility Here again it is asked concerning these motives whether they also be pretended infallible and whether they carry a certainty in them equall to that infallible assent of divine faith that is given to Divine Revelations and particularly to this of the infallibility of the Church which assent of divine faith is pretended to be more firm than any humane knowledge can be because it doth ultimately rest upon divine authority and yet which divine faith at last to avoid a Circle is by Catholicks for its certainty made to rest upon these prudential motives It is asked therefore in the last place whether these motives be pretended not-possibly-fallible or no. If not how can an infallible or divine faith be grounded on motives only highly probable or only morally certain or the thing that is proved or Conclusion be rendred certain and not-possibly-fallible to me from a possibly-fallible proof or medium since the thing proving or the ground of my assent must be more credible evident and certain to me than the thing proved But if these motives also be affirmed infallible 1st How can that be since all men however taken divided or conjoyned single or a multitude vulgar or wise and learned are possibly liable both to deceive and to be deceived and 2ly Thus at least divine faith will at last be built upon and resolved into not divine but humane authority contrary to the Doctrine of Catholicks § 122 And if it should be said here that the resolution of divine faith into these prudential motives whether fallible or infallible is only as into extrinsecal prerequisites or introductives to it not as into the formal cause or ground of it for so I ground alwayes the divine and infallible assent I give to any Article of my faith upon Divine Revelation and the prime verity because God who I believe saith it cannot lye It will be asked still since some Divine Revelation is alwayes the final motive of a Divine Faith from what other Divine Revelation I do believe such a point to be a Divine Revelation in which proceeding if it go not in infinitum I must come at last to some Divine Revelation concerning which I can produce no other revelation divine and so no ground at all why or from which I can believe it with a Divine Faith to be such unless I will betake my self to a Circle So for example in proving the Churches infallibility from Divine Revelation contained in the Scriptures and again the Scriptures God's Word from Divine Revelation unwritten delivered by the Apostles I can produce no further Divine Revelation that testifies such Revelation or Tradition to be delivered by the Apostles if I return not back to the Church's infallibility which returning thither makes a Circle And the same thing will happen the other way also in proving Scripture from Apostolical Tradition and this Apostolical Tradition again from Church-infallibility § 123 To which intricate Question to answer as distinctly as I can 1st It is agreed by all That the faith by which we are saved must be in it self most true and infallible or that there must be a certitudo objecti and those be true Revelations which our faith apprehends to be so 2ly Agreed also That such divine §. 124. n. 1. and saving faith doth alwayes ground it self on God's Word or Divine Revelation of those things which are believed and upon the authority veracity and goodness of God revealing such things And that Christians however coming to the knowledge of these Divine Revelations from their Parents Pastors or the Church in her Councils yet resolve this divine faith no otherwise as to the ultimate ground and reason of their believing than the Apostles themselves did who received these Revevelations immediately from Christ and God himself namely into the veracity of God delivering such particular Articles of their Faith 3ly Again agreed §. 124. n. 2. That this Divine Faith is wrought no otherwise in the soul than by the operation of God's Spirit †See S. Thom. 22. q. 6. De causâ fides many times begetting so firm an adherence to the things believed not only that what is Divine Revelation cannot deceive but that such particular points are Divine Revelations as exceeds that adherence we have to any humane Science whatsoever wherein there is often a possibility of deceit though not as to the thing yet as to us i.e. that we may think we know what and when we do not For this see the Arch-Bp †p. 72. Faith he means the habit or act of a saving faith is the gift of God alone and an infused habit in respect whereof the soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole infufer the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but he Which virtue of faith of whatever Article though it receive a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the faith yet iâ— ends in God's revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without And p. 75. Man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe though after he once believes his faith grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other reason or knowledge can in this life quoting in the margin S. Thom. †p. 1. q. 1. a. 5. Quia sâ—ientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia antem quae dâ—cet objectum
round Fides divina discursiva esse non potest circa omnia objecta sua quia alioquin sequeretur processus in infinitum Layman p. 181. quoting Caietan in 22. q. 1. art 1. Si dicas assentio huic revelato ex fide acquisitâ tunc fides infusa dependeret in esse infaciendo adhaerere alicui articulo à fide acquisit â sicut à principio Scotus l. 1.23 d. § contra fid § 145 3ly Concerning such ultimate particular Divine Revelation whether it be authority and veracity of Scripture or authority and veracity of the Church or of Apostolical Tradition or of miracles If we say further that we ground our divine faith of it upon God's veracity or because God is true and cannot lye an undisputable prime principle Yet note that God's veracity alone is not a sufficient ground of such faith of any particular Revelation since on this veracity of God in general many false Religions also are pretended to be grounded i. e. many false Religions believe that whatever God saith is true and further believe but falsely that God hath said what they are taught unless another proposition be joyned with it viz. that God who is thus True and cannot lye in whatever he saith hath also said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures our particular ultimate ground named before is true Of which thus Card. Lugo †De virtute fidei divin Disp 1. §. 7. Duplex est ratio formalis partialis cui ultimò fides divina nititur 1. Deus est prima veritas Et 2. Deus it a dixit and we know the certitude of any Conclusion must alwayes be built on two premises or principles And then letting the first pass unquestioned Deus est prima veritas the second that God hath said this or that must either be grounded that it may be the foundation of a divine faith on some other Divine Revelation from which we collect that he hath said it which still will proceed to the inquiry after another divine Revelation on which to ground that or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it and acknowledge that I have no divine faith that he hath said it which relyes on any other Divine Revelation and then why might I not have rested as well in the forenamed Revelations Lastly concerning that Divine Revelation which by due consequences seems to be the ultimate resolvent of a Christian faith those who disallow that which others assign let them assign another such as is truly a Divine Revelation and not mistaken only by them to be so as assigning the letter of Scripture taken by them in a wrong sence c. and it sufficeth § 146 4ly I take this also for agreed on by all that the internal efficient of all faith divine is the power or grace of the Holy Spirit both * illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals if perhaps the understanding herein needeth any light and also that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations * And perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence unto these Articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations § 147 5ly Now then If any Christian be asked concerning the ultimate Resolution of his divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built on it he can alledge none other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him by what means it matters not since this varies as to several persons or from which in building of his faith he proceeds to the rest Again if any ask concerning the internal efficient of such faith as is divine the answer must alwayes be one and the same for the divine faith of all Christians That it is wrought in the faithful by the grace of the holy Spirit § 148 6ly The Motives forementioned which are such a rational evidence of the verity of Christianity and of the several Articles thereof believed in the Catholick Church as no other forreign Religion or Sâ—ct in Christianity can produce do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the Holy and no seducing spirit But not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest alwayes on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine § 149 And by what hath been here said I think you may perceive the circle clearly avoided which is still so hotly charged on Catholicks though not for the resolution of their faith in general which resteth in the last place on the prudential motives yet for the resolution at least of the divine faith they pretend to For if a Protestant ask at large why I believe without inserting with a divine faith the Scriptures to be the Word of God It is answered because Apostolical Tradition which is the unwritten Word of God or Divine Revelation a thing conceded by the Arch-Bp †p. 81. testifies it to be so Again if asked why I believe there was any such Apostolical Tradition I answer because the Church which I believe in this matter infallible or not erring delivers such Tradition to me And if it be asked again why I believe the Church infallible in this It is answered I believe her but this is by an acquisite faith to be so from the motives of credibility forementioned †§. 121. which do so perswade me But note that this acquisite faith is not a necessary prerequisite to every one that believes with a divine faith for as Layman †Theol. moral l. 2. tract 1. c. 5. Non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur And as Estius before †See §. 129. Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei and in all this Protestants confess there is no Circle †See Stillingf p. 126. § 150 But if now putting in the word Divine the Protestant †Id p. 127. ask me again the two former questions why with a divine faith I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and then upon the former answer returned ask me why 2ly with a divine faith i. e. with such a firm assent as I give thereto transcending that of an acquisite faith I do believe that which the Church relates as Apostolical Tradition to be so indeed I answer now that I finally rest on this Revelation without having any other whereon to ground it But if asked why so firmly and if I may so say divinely without any further
divine evidence I adhere to it I answer from the internal operation and testimony of the Holy Spirit which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church as God's Word by Apostolical Tradition for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein Neither doth here again in the matter of divine faith appear any Circle at all And if it be further asked what rational ground I have to think this is a perswasion of God's and not of some evil spirit or this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so here I urge for these the prudential motives § 151 Again Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I do believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sence of those Texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Church I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit without having at all any further Divine Revelation from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine Or if any will go one step further and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did Miracles yet here he must conclude neither have we any further divine word or work to confirm to us their doing such divine works But then if I be asked further whether I do not believe with a divine faith the Church's relation concerning such Apostolical Tradition or Miracles to be infallible I excluding now this supposition which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God and so excluding this answer that I believe the Churches relation infallible with a divine faith from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church Here I answer No I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation and if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church and here must needs be a process in infinitum But in this place I answer That I believe the Churches Tradition or testimony being taken here in the latter sence mentioned before § 126 infallible only with an humane and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition or their Miracles not the Church-Tradition or her Relation that conveys to me the Apostolical With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church but I do believe the Church her truly or infallibly I mean not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise but to the prudential Motives relating this Apostolical Tradition with an acquired or rational faith § 152 The natural order of a Christians belief then seems to be this 1st The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons chosen by God and for the confirmation of their mission from him doing Miracles which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world the chief body of which these persons also draw up and deliver in writing Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them this is one That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit as never to err in teaching all truths or if you will in truly relating all Divine Revelations any way necessary to mens salvation which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is as it ought to be delivered among the rest to all posterity by these very Successors of whom it is spoken These things thus conveyed those to whom these Revelations are made do 1. with a rational and acquisite faith believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles who are rendred most credible to them by all those prudential motives mentioned before § 121. their multitude their sanctity their Martyrdoms in testimony thereof c. 2. But then applying themselves to the things related which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles they do believe these things related after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher and a divine faith wrought in them by the holy Spirit and resting it self not on the veracity of these secondary Relators but on the veracity of God himself from whom these Revelations are said originally to come yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them 3. Then further one of the Divine Revelations which the Church or these Successors do deliver to Christians as I said being this That these Successors of the Apostles who deliver their doctrine to us shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries from this Revelation I say delivered by them Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church or of these Successors not by a rational faith only grounded on the former motives of credibility but by a divine faith because grounded on a divine Revelation and consequently believe also all things delivered by these persons as necessaries with a divine faith on the same account § 153 After all this to reflect now a little on the objection We see 1st That no Circle is made in a Catholicks ground or resolution of faith divine or acquisite but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine though this not necessary to be alwayes the same whereon divine faith resteth and into which and no humane motives it resolveth it self and an inward operation of God's Spirit whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine is effected And again that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible or also morally infallible or as some of late express themselves not-possibly-fallible which if they can prove whenas it is in the natural power of all men even taken collectively abstracting here from any divine superintendencies to tell a lye none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion or any part thereof
But here seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives than Catholick writers have formerly maintained and the adversary also allows on which an acquired or humane faith securely resteth these motives carrying such an evidence with them as no other Religion differing from the Christian nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholick Communion can upon any rational account equall 2ly That the infallibility of the Church grounded on divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of the Catholicks faith for any other Articles thereof that are established by the same Churches definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him but I say not the Church doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Church's infallible authority the Protestants faith is destitute 3ly That the faith of all such Articles grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority is by this grounded also on divine Revelation Where note That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility I mean as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word or divine Revelation whether written the Scriptures or unwritten Tradition Apostolical or into Apostolical Tradition or into Scripture is in general all one and the same resolution i. e. into divine Revelation and ultimately is only believing a thing because God saith it saith it in the Scriptures or also out of them by his Apostles or by the Church succeeding the Apostles by it I say as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted truly to relate and expound what the Apostles or Scripture have formerly said where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these and not into any proper authority or infallibility of the deliverer and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church or of the Apostles we mean into Gods infallible Word delivered mediately by the one or immediately by the other And whilst to one that asketh me why I believe the Scriptures I answer because those who wrote them were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations And again to one that asketh me why I believe the Church I answer because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith Here it is clear that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted and communicated to man by God's Spirit so must the other though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit is different as is explained before § 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion then all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles and from them of the Church following them to which Church for ever though without any testimony of Scripture the same promises must be supposed to have been made for the writing of these Scriptures surely was no cause of these promises And next these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical related only by the Church and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church concerning such promises made to it as is now given to the Scriptures testifying it 4ly Yet that this Church-infallibility or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it is not necessarily the first or the ultimate divine Revelation into which every Catholick's faith concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved for the divine faith of several persons concerning particular points may have a various resolution as they come by divers wayes or from divers principles to believe it and one Article of faith may be savingly believed without the present knowledge or belief of another whereon it hath dependance as one may believe with a divine faith either the Scripture's or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition one before the other as they happen to be first proposed to them of which see what is said before § 128.145 and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon attain eternal salvation And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases the Scriptures and the Church For both are Pillars of Truth †1 Tim. 3.15 and both alwayes bear witness as to it so also to one another And what thou hast thus joyned O Lord let no man be able to separate nor the Gates of Hell ever so far prevail against them as that any should prosper in their indeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruines of the other Amen § Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith The Conclusion and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries maintained in the former Discourses and affirmed also easily discernable from all other Pretenders After all which in the last place the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself whether if indeed there be such a Catholick unfailing Guide as is here pretended and that Church also whose conduct he hath renounced be It whom our Lord hath left amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions to bring men by a sure way to Heaven whether I say notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments that have been here and are elsewhere by Catholicks frequently urged in demonstration thereof yet his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent and invincible that he dares rely on this Plea at the appearance of our Lord for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her And next to consider whether if indeed she be what here she is pretended there can be any secular interest so valuable as any way to recompence the loss he sustains in his present separation from this Church by foregoing all that means of salvation and growth in grace and advantages of an holy life which he might with great spiritual content enjoy in her happy bosom Of which advantages because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought for a conclusion of the whole I beg leave not to stay only in universals but to represent some particulars to the begetting in Him by the aid of the Divine Grace an holy emulation and longing for the re-fruition of them and a greater resentment of his present impediments and defects § 155 Let him then in the name and fear of God consider the great benefit as to the working of his salvation which he might happily enjoy in this Church by these particulars following * By
infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain that any one of them hat not failed § 114. Chap. 10. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation and all Divine Faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation It is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if said from the Testimony of the present Church which is in the former manner i. e. by divine Revelation infallible The question returns whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible without making a Circle in proving this present Church to be so infallible from Gods Word written or unwritten and then again proving infallibly such to have been Gods Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it from the Motives of credibility or from any thing else but only from a divine Revelation i. e. from Gods Word because divine Faith can never resolve it self into any ground that is not divine Revelation § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That divine Faith alwayes ultimatly resolveth it self into divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a processe in infinitum or turning in a Circle § 124. n. 1. 132. 143 144. 3. That divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of Gods Spirit § 124. n. 2. 4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith whatever uncertainty be in the extrinsecal proponent thereof § 125. 5. That Church-Tradition in delivering unto us the divine Revelation is only the Introductive not the object of a divine Faith § 126. 6. That there in no absolute need either of it or any other extrinsecal infallible Introductive or proponent for a Christian 's attaining a divine Faith § 127. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion besides the Christian nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit can pretend to § 135. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith thus far at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. 8. But further that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries wherein the true sence of Scriptures or verity of Tradition Apostolical is questioned and disputed is believed by Catholicks From which infallibility of these Church-Guides clearly revealed to them in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical they retain a firm Faith of all those points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides and only allowing that of Scripture miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points or can have no firm ground of their believing them § 140. Shewed from the Precedents That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused or acquisit and humane Faith § 143. c. Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th § Wherein is shewed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental in the chief points of present Controversie 1. Transubstantiation § 158. n. 2. 177. 2. Adoration of the Eucharist § 159. 177. 3. Sacrifice of the Mass § 160. n. 1. 177. 4. Invocation of Saints § 161. 5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed as betterable thereby in their present Condition § 162. 6. Communion in one kinde or of the Symbol of our Lords Body onely intinct § 163.178 7. A Relative Veneration of Images or Pictures § Ibid. 8. Monastick Vows And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders § 164. and § 179. n. 1. 9. Auricular or Sacramental Confession § 165.179 n. 2. The Replies made hereto by Protestants considered § 182. c. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant-Grounds Divided into Five Conferences The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture § 2. The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 The third Conf. Nor contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. The fifth Conf. Nor of Schism § 28. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and Considering the Varying Judgments of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE CHAP. I. The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. Of Protestant Divines I. Some granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. R. That-the Divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belongs to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. § 1 FIrst that the Church Catholick of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable for ever in Fundamentals or absolute Necessaries to Salvation both by Roman-Catholicks and Protestants is granted for otherwise in some Age there would be no Church Catholick Errour in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church § 2 But when from the Church Catholick it is by Catholicks ascended to the Governours or Guides thereof to whom this Church is committed by our Lord departed hence That they are also by our Lords promise and assistance unerrable in their Decrees They at least in a lawful General Council of them such as the times wherein such Councils are assembled do permit unerrable § 3 at least so far as to Necessaries Here the Protestants make a stop 1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide and seem to differ one from another in 12 their Judgments Mr. Ch llingworth in his Answer to F. Knot and after him Dr. Hammond in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord Falklands Discourse of Infallibility with their followers in this point among whom I number the two late Repliers ‖ See Mr. Stillingf p. 154 251 252 514 517.55 Whitby c.
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
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitâ—y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the church-Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of
notitiam fidei sicut fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest And Biel †In 3. sent 23 d. q. 2. A. 1. Hoc autem ita intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae Fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide Et hoc quia in fide ad fidem Actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est actus intellectus vero assentientis productus ex voluntatis imperio Again p. 86. Faith saith he is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles And if there be any that should deny such a Divine or infused faith wrought in Christians by God's Spirit besides and beyond the evidence which a moral certainty rationally affords let them declare how a Christians faith is necessarily a Grace of the Holy Spirit where there is no effect in it that is ascribed to the Spirit but all that they attribute to it is necessarily consequent to another humane and rational evidence and no other ground of their faith of the Divine truths alledged by them than of the being of a Julius Caesar viz. a credible and morally-certain Tradition § 125 4ly Therefore concerning any certainty or assurance that Christians are necessarily to have of this their faith that it is true and infallible which certitude all true believers have not alike †Mat. 14.31 S. Thom. 22. q. 5 a. 4. Here also I think all are agreed That such a certainty one may have from the inward light and operation of God's Holy Spirit though he should have neither any internal scientifical demonstration thereof which if he hath it is not faith nor extrinsecal infallible motive testimony or proponent thereof whatever but though only he hath that which is in it self truly a Divine Revelation for the object thereof § 126 5ly Since the Church may be considered either * as a Society already manifested by divine Testimony and Revelation whether this written the Scriptures or unwritten Apostolical Tradition to be by the holy Ghost for ever assisted and guided in all necessary truths Or before any such divine Testimony known * as a multitude of men famous in wisdom innocency of life sufferings c. things prudentially moving us to credit all their Traditions Both Churches here agree That humane Testimony or Church-Tradition taken in the later sence in its making known to us what are these Divine Revelations or this Word of God is only introductive to this divine faith which relies on and adheres to the Revelations hemselves as its formal object Scripture is the ground of our faith Tradition the Key that lets us in saith Arch-Bp Lawd †p. 86. Divine Revelation written or unwritten is the formal Object or ultimate divine motive into which we resolve our faith and the Churches Tradition testifying or manifesting to us these matters revealed is a condition and prerequisite or introductive for the application of our faith unto those Divine Revelations on which we exercise it say the Catholicks § 127 6ly Catholicks further affirm That as the Church is considered in the former of the two acceptions formentioned the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the Articles of this divine faith as being grounded on Divine Revelation and that so many as believe the Church's infallibility in this sence may safely resolve their divine Faith of other Articles of their belief into its delivering them as such But then they hold That the Church's infallibility thus believed is not necessarily the ultimate Principle into which this divine Faith of other Articles is resolved but that Word of God written or unwritten by which this Church-infallibility is manifested to them And again That whatever this infallible authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine authority and saving faith be infallibly certain of this infallible Church-authority Or it is not necessary That for attaining a divine faith of the Articles of the Christian belief he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent whether it be of the Church or any other save the prime verity of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible Which thing is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks a few of whose testimonies I have here inserted which the Reader may pass over if in this matter satisfied § 128 Concerning this thus Cardinal Lugo a Spanish Jesuit speaking of divine faith †Tom. de virtute fideidisp 1. §. 12. p. 247. Probatur facilè quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus sancti creditur fid◠divinâ quae docet in Ecclesiâ esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere muchless infallibiliter scire in Ecclesiâ hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim Articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem Articulum authoritatis Ecclesiasticae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesiâ secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universâ fidelium congregatione n. 252. In lege naturae plures credebant ex solâ doctrinâ parentum fine aliâ Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scriptô plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur I add or before they saw their miracles or the fulfilling of their Prophecies § 129 Thus Estius †In. 3. sent 23. d. 13. §. speaking also of this divine and salvifical faith Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei i. e. divinae quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchizedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone yet these having no other formal or ultimate motive of their faith than we have rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis I add and some without and before seeing their miracles and others by a credible relation only not sight of their miracles yet all these mens faith of the same nature and efficiency alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderant cùm nondùm de
that all contained in S. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells me it is so and then believe that the Church telleth me true because God hath revealed in some one part of his Word that the Church in this shall not err here my faith is ultimately resolved again not into the Church's authority but the Divine Revelation concerning the Church But if 3ly I believe S. Matthew's Gospel true because the Church tells me so and again believe the Church's veracity in what it saith only from the forementioned prudential motives †§. 121. inducing me to believe so here I resolve my faith into these credible motives and this is no infused or divine but an humane and acquisite faith and the assent to the thing believed can rationally be no firmer or stronger then it is to these credible proofs thereof Thus then when the authority of the Relator is the same yet the things related are diversly believed by me according to the varying of those Grounds or that authority which the Relator urgeth to make them credible When a very credible person relates to me several things which he hath heard of two other persons of whom I have a very different esteem the one accounted by me very skilful and learned in his Art the other not so here I give an assent or belief to the words of these two persons though both related to me with the same fidelity very different much stronger to the related words of him whom I esteem as it were infallible in his skill much weaker to the others and I give a third assent different from both these to the veracity of the Relator or to the credibility of the person relating these things to me concerning them This being said of a divine faith in the several assertions precedent § 135 That it is produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost and grounded still on divine Revelation But that it is not necessary †§. 127 c. that such faith alwayes should have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes Yet 7ly It is also affirmed That there are morally-certain or infallible grounds or motives producible both for the Christian Religion and faith in General and for all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which grounds or any equal to them no other Religion besides Christianity nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit out of the Catholick Church can possibly plead or pretend to So that though many seducing spirits as it were in emulation of the Holy One do use to pretend and set up themselves for assurers of a divine Faith and many times do effect so firm an adherence to most false Revelations as that from this persuasion many have exposed themselves even to suffer death in defence of their errors yet this ever remains a constant way of distinguishing to the world and to all mens reason a true divine faith wrought by God's holy Spirit from these counterfeit ones wrought by the evil Spirit that Catholicks for this divine faith which the Holy Ghost only works in them as to such a supernatural powerful and vivifical efficacy thereof yet alwayes have besides this many extrinsecal motives and assurances to render it I say not Divine which such motives cannot do but in reason credible and acceptable to themselves and others which no false Religion no false faith can produce or lay claim to I mean still the former Motives which whenas the internal plerophory of this faith wrought by the Spirit is not publickly conspicuous or manifestive abroad are a standing rational evidence of the verity of Christianity against all other Sects of Religion and against all Hereticks c. Only of these motives it is affirmed That without the operation of God's Spirit they are never able to found a divine faith And. That by the holy Spirit many times a divine faith is produced without the concurrence of them Concerning this see the former quotations § 133. And here first a rational certainty or morally infallible ground of a Christians faith for this point § 136 that the Scriptures I mean as to the main body of them those few books set aside which the Protestants call Apocryphal are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein and all the Articles of the Christian faith that are grounded thereon infallible is affirmed by Protestants as well as Catholicks And 1st This certainty Protestants do affirm to arise from that plenary Church-Tradition which is found to have delivered these to be God's Word and Divine Revelation throughout all ages from the Apostles times which Apostles confirmed them with miracles Of which thus the Arch-Bp †p. 124. If you speak saith he to A. C. of assurance only in general and not of that by divine faith I must then make bold to tell you and it is the greatest advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And if consent of humane story can assure me this why should not consent of Church story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God And again Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habit of faith out non subest falsum i. e. speaking of an usual and constant moral certainty and non-falsity of things but he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine faith cui subesse non potest falsum i.e. speaking of an absolute possibility of falsity or mistake of things especially by the divine power interposing in which sence nothing is free from deception save Divine Revelation but by a divine testimony § 137 And Mr. Stillingfleet saith of the same tradition †p. 205 211 That the moral certainty that is therein ‖ p. 207. yields us a sufficient assurance that the matter delivered to us to be believed is infallibly true and considering the nature of moral things is a certainty as great and begetting as firm an assent as any certainty Mathematical or Physical the greatest Physical certainty saith he being as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oftentimes greater Though his discourse there †p. 207. That where God obligeth us to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true because God cannot oblige men to believe a lye from whence he would prove that we have a sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true only from a moral certainty thereof If he
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-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-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
former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide for the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n. 1. Not any certain living Guide 1. Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2. Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Decrees better than the Scriptures 3. From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schism made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guid held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replyed then 1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 41. 2. That the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 42. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrins of these Guides § 43. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversie the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governours whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a par◠unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE THIRD DISCOURSE Examining What measure of obedience is due to these Guides and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies The CONTENTS Chap. 1. ROman Catholicks and Protestants do agree 1. That the Scriptures speaking of those books by the Protestants stiled Canonical are the Word of God § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church Catholick of no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church Catholick is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks go on and affirm 5. That the Church Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Shall never err in necessaries not taken for those that are absolutely required but for all that are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Shall never err in them not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former revelations and Traditions wherein they affirm that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General and obliging a Christian may safely rely on the General judgment of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular persons or Churches parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgment and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole § 14. Chap. 3 11. That whatever particular person or Church holds the contrary to any known definition passed in a matter of Faith of any lawful General Council is Heretical § 16. 12. That any particular person or Church which for any cause whatever doth actually relinquish and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholick is Schismatical § 20. 13. But yet That several persons or Churches coordinate may without Schism differ in any thing opinion or practise wherein they are not obliged to accord by their Common Superiors or by the whole § 23. Chap. 4. But Protestants after the four first propositions conceded in some sence do thus indeavour to qualify and restrain them 5. In granting the Catholick Church in all ages unerrable in necessaries they understand only such few Necessaries without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained § 24. 6. Therefore also they affirm that though the Church Catholick cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation yet it or all particular Churches in som one age or ages may in others the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief points from which Protestants dissent were General Tenents and practices
at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How lawful General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things How Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that these Councils do not err § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
many matters occurred not in condemning the Lutheran opinions where all did agree with an exquisite Unity And see him p. 324 326. Concerning the Fathers unanimous Votes of the 2. and 6. Canons of the 13. Sess touching Transubstantiation and Adoration See p. 799. 803 their General Agreement and Consent touching Purgatory Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images p. 544 554 738. ' Touching the Masse its being a propitiatory sacrifice c. p. 324 325 519. touching the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating only in one kind p. 348. Touching the necessity of Sacramental Confession for mortal sin p. 783 747 678 679. ' touching the lawfulness of the Vow of Continency an universal capacity of the Gift of Chastity and injunction of Priests Celibacy It were easie to add more The 3d that without such a testimony if any consider that the things defined §. 36. n. 10. of which here is question were most of them common practices then used by all these Prelates before they were assembled in Trent in their several Dioceses and so for many hundred years formerly and that the question in the Council to be decided was whether such practices lawful As for instance whether Communion only in one kind sufficient and lawful whether Adoration of Christs Body in the Eucharist as corporally present lawful whether offering the sacrifice of the Masse the Body and Blood of Christ corporally present for the living and the dead lawful whether a Relative-Veneration of Images Prayer to Saints Prayer for the dead as betterable thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgment be lawful I omit the speculative controversies concerning Justification Faith Works Merit Worke of supererogation Grace and Free-will Certainty of salvation Now by the Moderate as it were compounded and laid aside the Catholick-doctrine being of late better understood by the reformed Whether the three Monastick Vows as also the injunction of Celibacy to the Priest lawful whether Sacramental confession to the Priest by those falling into mortal sin after their regeneration not only lawful but necessary I say seeing that the question in the Council in opposition to the new Lutheran doctrines was whether these things lawful which were then and in many former Generations daily practised Protestants not denying it what need of force of new mandates from Rome of hiring Suffrages creating more titular Bishops Oaths of obedience to the Pope which is only of Canonical obedience ‖ See Bell. de Concil 1. l. 21. and this Oath administred at their Consecration without any relation to the Council to procure a prevalent Vote or that the Prelats should in the Council establish those things several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries as the Sacrifice of the Masse Adoration of Christs Corporal Presence in the Eucharist Invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead in the sence above-named But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner by compulsion how came the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches and of France with the rest so freely and voluntarily to accept them But if it be said that though such things were generally believed and practised before yet now the Fathers by Art and violence were brought to advance them into matters of Faith I ask concerning many of these points what faith required save that they are lawful beneficial c which lawfulness all those that practised them before who were the most if not all must also believe before or else practised them against Conscience and which Lawfulness Protestants denying had by this fallen under the condemnation of this Council had it voted nothing more or besides it Lastly What former Council had there been in the Church though never so free that for the matters called in question and decided in it had not in like manner required Assent from the Church's Subjects to their Definitions The 4th That though the Protestant Bishops trespassing in some points of their Reformation §. 36. n. 11. against former free Occidental Councils of which see below § 50. n. 2. therefore either upon the account of Heresie or of Schism forfeiting their Right needed not to be admitted into this Council yet had they been received and that not only to plead their cause but also to a decisive Vote in the Council yet the small number of them some Protestant Churches also having no Bishops had been inconsiderable in respect of the rest and so the determination of things would still have gone the same way And indeed they were admitted to plead their Cause both by a safe Conduct granted and when they came no violence offered But I cannot say on the other side that no violence was offered to the Council and that within three weeks after their coming by the very Princes that sent them who on a sudden appeared in Arms against the Emperor and by their near approach dispersed this Assembly at Trent after they had secretly withdrawn from thence their Divines But had their coming been serious and their stay longer what could they have said here that they had not formerly written and that the Council in these Writings had not perused Or by what Arts could they have disswaded as they desired ‖ Soave p. 642. this Venerable Assembly from taking for their Rule and Guides in the Exposition of Scriptures the Apostolical Traditions former Councils and Fathers by which they were cast Further Suppose all things had been regulated in this Council not by Personal Consent but by the Equal Votes of the Western Nations though this is contrary to the usual manner and never practised save only in two late Councils after Anno Dom. 1400. Constance and Basil and liable to many Inconveniences of which see Considerations on the Council of Trent § 72. yet if these Votes were truly adjusted and proportioned according to the several Magnitude of the Countries and the Multitude of the Bishops in them the Protestants also would by this way have been as much over-numbred and over-born which they well saw and therefore never motioned it ‖ But motioned this That after their party first allowed with the rest a decisive Vote Soave p. 642. yet the Decisions in the Council should not be made by plurality of voices but that the more sound Opinions should be preferred i. e. those Opinions that were regulated by the Word of God they are Soave's words ‖ Ibid. not mine And motioned yet a second thing ‖ Soave Ibid That if a Concord in Religion could not be concluded in the Council then the Conditions of Passau and Ausburge might remain inviolable Now these were a Toleration of all Sects that every one might follow what Religion pleased him best See Soave 378 393. And after this motioned a third ‖ See Soave p. 369. That the body of the whole Western Clergy being now divided into Plaintiffes the Protestant Clergy and Defendants the Catholick Clergy and it not
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
Protestants defence and reformation is this 1st That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith common to them with the rest of the Church Catholick the Holy Scriptures and besides these a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed and explicated by the first three Ages i. e. the writings we have thereof and the first four-General Councils And that in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule they rest secure of believing all that is necessary for salvation and likewise of their retaining a firm-Communion as to the essentials of Faith with the whole Catholick Church and even with that of Rome 2ly That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholick but not the whole Catholick Church one part only of the Catholick Church as also the Church of England is another 3ly That this Roman or any other part of the Church Catholick may err whilst it still remains a part of the Catholick in non-fundamentals or non-essentials and necessaries 4 ly That this part did err in such non-fundamentals and that grievously and that the Protestants or Church of England discovered these to be such grievous errors by the light of Scripture and testimony of Antiquity 5 ly That this Roman Church added this also to her erring that she exercised an unlawful dominion or jurisdiction over the Church of England and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors upon pain of losing her Communion 6 ly That the Church of England refused such assent to what by clear Scripture she had discovered to be Errors as in conscience she was bound though these had bin never so small ones nay though some of them were no Errors yet if she were perswaded they were so how much more when so great 7 ly Proceeded after mature consideration to reform these Errors but in her self only not imposing them upon or condemning by reason of them any other Church for non-Catholick 8 ly Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Romane Church that she left a part only and not the whole Catholick Church yet that were it supposed to have bin the whole or their departure to have bin from the whole also as well as from it that the whole though granted in Fundamentals infallible yet may err in non-fundamentals or non-essentially necessaries and that grievously and consequently if it should require assent from its members to such points in which it is fallible that they ought not to assent thereto nor to conceal if of consequence when they any way discover such Error nay further also that if the General Church neglect it they may and ought for themselves to reform such Error But this Plea seems easily overthrown §. 55. n. 2. in many of its particulars by this following Remonstrance made by the other side And of the Catholicks Remonstrance 1 To the first It is replied 1 That there is a faith of Agends or Practicals concerning what is lawful and unlawful and what is our duty to do or forbear as well as of speculative credends which faith is necessary and fundamental for attaining salvation and in which practical points also may be and have bin Heresies and Schisms I say the faith of them necessary because the practice of them is so which must be grounded on this faith that they are lawful or ought to be practised 2 That these points are of a much larger extent then the speculatives and that of these we have no Collection or Summary drawn up by the Apostles as we have of the other 3 That as these Protestants say they do not for the speculative Credends rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed or any private sence of Scriptures but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils and do place the security of their Faith in them not on their own judgment but on their conformity to the judgment of these Councils so it is all reason that for the practicalls also they should rely on the Scriptures only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils 4 That for both these speculatives or practicals as they do or ought to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils so * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone but do owe it also to any Councils of the Church following in any age whatsoever provided that these be of equal authority To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith either in speculatives or practicals as new Heresies did after three ot four hundred years time to the Explications made by those first Councils and * that for the speculative Articles of the Apostles Creed particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils after the four first and these too Western Councils only when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them and that as the Greeks say upon not a verbal but real diversity in their faith concerning this procession yet it seems the Protestants here preferr'd and thought fit to adhere rather to the authority of the Western Churches From all which it follows that if the Protestants dissent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age in either of these speculative or practical Articles of their faith that are necessary of which necessity it is fit also the Council not they should judge they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith so as no way to have fallen from it into Heresie or Schism no more then they will acknowledge Arrians and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils And thus is the Protestants security of their faith if any way built or dependent on the first Councils so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils of what Ages soever in all their Definitions Again 6 since Schismaticks I mean those that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiours by whom in a line of subordination they are joyned to the Head as well as Hereticks are no members of the Catholick Church and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion but may arise upon smaller matters and occasions ‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond Schism 3 c. 3. and §. 9. §. 55. n. 3. any wherein obedience is due and the lesser the occasion of it the more criminal many times the Schism therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence that becaus they agree with the whole Catholick Church in the Essentials of faith hence they do still remain in its Communion This said to the first 2 ly To what follows it
accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3◠c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art
the priviledges of an undisturbed Ecclesiastical Government and which seems by reason of its numerous Clergy and populacy and extent of the arms of this body propagation of its faith into all the other quarters of the world to be the greatest part of Christianity that which hath bin alwais the most dignified by reason of S. Peters Chair From which for any of the Western Body to make an appeal out of these bounds to the present Eastern Churches now hindred by the great oppressor of Christianity there disturbed in the Exercise of any such Judicature and also much divided among themselves and who have not met in any Council for this eight hundred years save by sending at several times their delegates into the West For any I say to make an appeal from a Church flourishing in Government and discipline in learning and records of Antiquity the City still on a Hill and Candle on a Candlestick to seek for Votes among the Jacobites Maronites Caphtites Armenians Abyssines or Greek Churches c. several of them being suspected of ancient Heresies and if Hereticks no members of the Catholick Church appears nothing else but the refusal of a trial and avoiding the sentence of any such Guide and judge as Gods Providence hath afforded us and besides this is an Appeal where could those Churches now freely deliver their sentence and were now set on the Bench as this present Judge the Appealants can have no hopes of any success to their cause For that these Churches or at least the greatest Body of them as is shewed elsewhere ‖ Disc 3. §. 158. appear to keep as great a distance from the reformed as the major part of the Western Body doth § 37 3ly If the Councils that are extant and reputed for General since the first six or seven hundred years to the times of Luther's reformation shall be by any acknowledged either for General 3. or for the most universal that could well be convened or at least that are found actually to have bin convened a thing which I think though the testimony the present Church gives to them be made no use of the common veracity of History will clear to us besides that none hath any other Councils of an equal authority in these times to nominate and set up against them and those who demolish them do it without erecting or discovering to us any better or any besides I say if any think meet to relie on the judgment of these past Councils in the present matter these also will sufficiently evidence to us that the first of these Bodies fore-named is our present rightful Guide and Judge For since the Acts and Laws of such Councils are not only of force and obligatory to those present times wherein they sit but to all future Ages with the execution of which Acts and Decrees the succeeding Pastors and chief Governors of the Church in their several stations and residences in all following times stand charged till these are by an equal authority reversed It seems clear that in any division hapning afterward of these Pastors those are to be acknowledged our right Guides who own adhere to and propagate the Definitions and Laws of these former Councils Now this we see the first of these two Bodies doth as the latter renounceth them yet renounceth them without the producing of the patronage of any Councils at all in their stead pulling down as it were all the Church's Castles and Forts if I may call her Councils so against the incursions of errours and heresies that have bin built in several Ages for near a thousand years and yet shewing none other at all for Christians in the many points that have been disputed to repair to but leaving the sad Spectators of these their demolitions quite disheartned as diffiding in the Churches judgment so much decried for error and having yet more reason to distrust their own and so not knowing in this case whither to betake themselves for the setling of their Religion and conscience For surely this unerringness which the late Reformers have denied to those great Bodies of the Church they cannot in reason assume to those lesser Conventions of their own CHAP. V. The Pretended security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or personal Guide infallible in Necessaries Affirming That all necessary matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in Scripture and the Controversies in non Necessaries needless to be decided § 38. Necessaries clear in Scripture Because God hath left no other certain means or Guides for the knowledge of them § 39. n. 1. 1 No Guide which is infallible 2 Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from false or know and understand their decrees better than the Scriptures 3 Or which the Scriptures direct them to for learning Necessaries § 39. n. 2. The Reply 2. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dâ—ssenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks But only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned and another Guide held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replied then 1. * Concerning the clearnesse of Scripture 1 That some of the Controversies in Religion since the Scriptures written have bin concerning Points necessary § 41. 2 That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture the more security Christians have in the Churches judgement § 42. 3 That there is no necessity that all Necessaries be revealed in Scripture clearly to all 1 Because it is sufficient If the Scriptures for the things doubtful therein direct to these Guides § 43. 2 Sufficient if such things be cleared to these Guides by other Apostolical Tradition § 44. 3 Or if the true sence of the Scriptures touching these matters be cleared to them by Tradition § ib. 4 Or if such sence be clear in the Scriptures themselves well examined and compared to them though not to all § 45. 2 y Concerning the Guide 1 That Scripture in what it is ambiguous cannot be a Guide § 49. n. 1. 2 That it is not necessary that Christians be in or by the Scriptures directed to another Guide ib. n. 2. 3 Yet that thâ—y are in the Scriptures so directed § 47. n. 3. 4 And may in many points more easily understand the sence of their decisions than of the Scriptures § 48. § 38 THe usual security that some of them give their followers α. is this α That all Controversies that arise in matters of Faith or in matters very profitable ‖ Chillingw p. 54. are so clearly decided or determined in Scripture that none learned or unlearned using that industry which humane prudence and ordinary discretion his condition considered adviseth him to can err in them ‖ See Chiling p 115.92 19.58 59. Pref. §. 30. c.
Archbishop Lawd p. 196. n. 3. Sillingst p. 149. Whitby p. 441. Tillois Rule of Faith p. 20.86 where the unlearned seem also to be put in lest these at least for their ignorance should be referred from the Scripture to a Guide for the ending of their doubts and using ordinary industry added lest private men jealous of not using their utmost industry to understand aright the Scriptures should upon this account be perswaded that it is safest for them to repair and adhere to a Guide Next That for all other Controversies that arise in non-Necessaries neither is it necessary that they should be ended So that as one briefly states the case ‖ Chillingw p. 59. Those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein error were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter or rather cannot but have every one an infallible Interpreter upon supposition of a due diligence used be-because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous Or as another ‖ Tillots p. 86. Of the true sence of plain texts every one may be certain and for the obscure ones it is not necessary every one should And thus having no living Judg to decide controversies they make those controversies so much the fewer that need deciding And if we here further question §. 39. n. 1. why all controversies in necessaries are affirmed to be clearly decided in Scripture or yet more why so clearly decided there as that even the unlearned cannot mistake in them Mr. Chillingworth answers they are so because the Scripture must be to all sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in all things necessary And my reason hereof saith he is convincing p. 92. and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Which is granted him But he must add plainly revealed in Scripture and plainly there to the unlearned also otherwise it will not serve his purpose This Proposition therefore they also maintain that all points necessary to salvation must be plainly revealed in Scripture to learned and unlearned and ground it on this reason because God who requires from all Christians even the unlearned belief of such necessaries yet hath left them no other certain means of the knowledg thereof save only the Scriptures ‖ See Chillingw p. 71. Whitby p. 441. And if it be replied here That God hath appointed and referred them to a perpetual living Guide the Church for the expounding and declaring to them the true sense of ambiguous Scriptures Many things they object against it §. 39. n. 2. 1st they earnestly dispute that this Guide the Church that they are referred to is not infallible but that their's the Scripture is so γ. γ â—ly they ask many questions about such Guide as they conceive unanswerable How in a division of these living Guides ξ See Mr. Stillingft p. 101.508 c Chillingw p. 93. Whitby p. 430. c. the unlearned may com to know which are the right and which is the true Church Or this found how to know what are her definitions and decrees what the sence of these decrees c see many of them collected in 3 Disc § 86. contending that the unlearned in any such division of Guides have no certain means to know the true from the false nor the sence of their definitions more easily than the sence of the Scriptures δ. 3. δ Lastly they say ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p 61 104 171. That if God had left Christians in all Ages to learn Necessaries from their other Guides he would at least in the Scriptures have directed Christians to repair to these Guides for learning of them ε. ε And again for the divisions hapning among these Guides well fore-seen by him he would have told them in the Scriptures what party in such a case they ought to follow and adhere to as that they should always adhere to the Church of Rome or to the Vicar of Christ or to the most General Councils and in dissenting votes here to the major part thereof c. And indeed this assertion that God hath left no other certain or sufficient means to any sort of Christians since the Apostles times whereby to attain the knowledge of necessaries to salvation save only the Scriptures seems to be the main pillar on which Mr. Chillingworth and his followers sustain the Protestant Religion and the Reformation ‖ See Chillingw pref Before I return an answer to these ‖ 30. c. comp c. 2. §. 155.156 I have two things to note to you 1st That the devolving the decision of Controversies not upon the sufficiency only but upon the clearnesse §. 40. n. 1. of the rule of Scripture 1. and declining any constant adhesion to the Churches judgment in the Exposition of it seems not a little prejudicial to the Protestants cause in that this is observed of old by Tertullian Austin Vincentius Lirinensis and other Fathers ‖ Tertull. De pâ—aescriptione adversns Haeretic S. Aust Ep. â—22 contr a Maximinum l. 1. Vincent Lir. c. 35. to have bin the way that all former heresies have taken declining the Church and its Tradition and pretending the Scriptures as the support of their Doctrines Of the old Hereticks thus Vincentius Lirinensis Sive apud suos sive alienos c. nihil unquam penè de suis proferunt quod non etiam Scripturae verbis adumbrare conentâ—r Lege Pauli Samozateni opuscula Priscilliani Eunomâ—i Joviniani reliquarumque pestium cernas infinitam Exemplorum congeriom prope nullam omitti pag nam quae non novi aut veteris testamenti sententâ—i fucata colorata sit Then enquiring in this case ‖ Contra Haereses c. 35. quonian modo in Scripturis sanctis â—atholici homines veritatem â falsitate discernent He answers ‖ c. 38. Hoc scilicet facere magnopere curabunt ut divinum Canonem secundum universalis Ecclesiae Traditiones juxta Catholici dogmatis regulas interpretentur And the same thing is also observable in that new-revived most dangerous Heresie of Socinianism which draws up for it self against Church-authority much-what the same Plea as is here above made by these Protestants some of which that you may compare them I have transcribed you here out of Volkelius De vera Religione l. 5. c 7. a little contracted There then he saith Quae de fido in Christum statuenda sunt ex sacris literis patere Chaâ—itatem quo que in sacris literis ita descriptam esse ut quicunque eam ex animo colere mentemque advertere velit ignorare non possit quid sibi sit in omnibus vitae partibus sequendum praesertim si sapientiam a Deo petat quam ille nemini denegat Again Deum qui religionem Christianam usque admundi finem vigere voluit curasse etiam tale aliquid perpetuo
these doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then-appointed Ecclesiastical Guides from whom both the present people and the future successors of these Guides both were and might rationally know they were to learn them and so had there bin no Scriptures might by meer Tradition have learned them sufficiently to this day for their Salvation This is a second way then of sufficient Revelation besides or without that in Scripture viz. All necessary Truth since the penning of the Scriptures only so manifested clearly to and so delivered clearly by the Church-Guides as they were manifested to them before Scripture 3ly Because as all the Christian Doctrines might before so the true meaning of some part of the same Scripture might after the writing allo of the new-testament-New-Testament-Scriptures have bin clearly enough delivered by Tradition and by the first Scripture-Expositors to the Christian people that were then and so to Posterity though mean-while the Letter of such Scripture doth not so necessarily enforce this traditive sence as not to be possibly or somtimes probably capable of another This is a third way of sufficient Revelation viz. by the clear descending Tradition of the sence of those Scriptures which are in their Letter ambiguous § 45 But 4 ly Supposing it needful that all such Necessaries must be clearly revealed in the Letter of Scripture yet is this sufficient to save God's proceedings from tyranny if that they be with sufficient clearness revealed therein to the Church Guides alone and to the Learned that diligently read and compare the Scriptures together and use the helps of the comparings and comments of others and if that the illiterate people be remitted by God in all ages to learn these Necessaries from their Guides This is a fourth way of sufficient Revelation of Necessaries i. e. a revelation of them in Scripture such as must be clear to the Church-Guides in stead of that other revelation there of Mr. Chillingworth's such as must be clear to all To I answer §. 46. n. 1. that where the sence of the Scripture is ambiguous R. to β. and in Controversie which sence and not the Letter only is God's Word here their Guide to know this true sence of Scripture cannot be this by all allowed infallible Scripture which Protestants pretend but must be either the Church's judgment which they say is fallible or their own which all reasonable men I should think will say is more fallible To γ. See many of their Questions solved R. to γ. Disc 3. § 86. and concerning our understanding the sence of the Church's Definition better than the sence of Scriptures See below § 48. c. To δ. 1st It is not necessary §. 46. n. 2. R. to δ. that God should direct Christians in this matter by the Scriptures since they were sufficiently directed herein also before the Scriptures I mean before the writing of those of the New-Testament and since they might be sufficiently assured from those who were sent by our Lord to teach them Christianity in this point also that they were sent to teach them But 2ly It is maintained that God in the Scriptures hath done this §. 46. n. 3. and * hath told us ‖ Eph. 4.11 c. That he hath set these Guides in the Church for the edifying and perfecting thereof and for this in particular that the Church should not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine with which Winds of contrary Doctrines the Subjects of the Church as Experience shews from age to age would have bin grievously shaken and dissipated but that these Governors from time to time by stating her Doctrines have preserved her Children from it And * hath told us again ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 That the unlearned wrest some of the Scriptures that are plain it seems to the Learned in that these wresters are the unlearned to their own damnation therefore these are such Scriptures also as speak concerning Necessaries And * hath therefore given us a charge to obey these guides to whom is committed the Care of our Souls and to follow their faith ‖ Heb. 13.7 17. * And declared that he that heareth them heareth him ‖ Luke 10. add that he will be with them to the end of the world especicially when gaehered together ‖ Mat. 18.17 20. and would have the refractory to them excommunicated ‖ Mat. 18.17 And accordingly to this Warrant in Scripture and out of it in primitive Tradition the Church-Guides from age to age have met together setled the Churchches Doctrines exacted Conformity excommunicated Dissenters c Next to ε. Where they say That God foreseeing §. 47. n. 1. that Divisions would happen among these Guides R. to ε. would have told us in the Scriptures which in such case among the several Parties of them we ought always to follow and adhere to As that we should adhere to the Church of Rome to the Vicar of Christ to the most General Councils and in dissenting Votes to the Major part thereof c. To which purpose are those words of Mr. Chillingworth ‖ p. 61. If our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome I add or a General Counci to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by 13 or 14. more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him And p. 104. He saith It would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in terms The Bishops of Rome with their Adherents shall always be the Guides of Faith c. And p. 171. he argues thus Seeing God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us so plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none See the same thing urged by Mr. Stillingfleet Rat. Account p. 465. And see all this as it were translated only out of the Socinian Books before § 40. n. 1. To this 1st I answer §. 47. n. 2. That negative argning from Scripture 1. such as this a thing of so great concernment to all Christians if it were true would have bin clearly expressed in the Scripture but this is not found clearly expressed rherein therefore it is not true as
to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council only But it sufficeth that we be ready expresly to believe it if it shall be made to appear unto us See Dr. Hammond of Heresie p. 96. ' It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid to the first four General Councils Because 1st They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture 2ly Because they were so near the Apostles times when the sence of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches to whom they had committed it Thus he though besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years distance the reason of obedience to Church Governors given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere ‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903. viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal office infers that the Churches authority in all ages is equally valid and so voids this reason He goes on 3dly Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions yet he saith see Disc 1. § 6. that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals and ‖ Of Heresy p. 115. that it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found See Mr. Chillingw p. 118. Dr. Potter §. 41. n. 2. together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal Tradition and infallibility whilst they proceed according to this Rule And p. 200. The Fathers of the Church saith he in after-times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sence of some General Article of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake See Mr. Whitby p. 92. We do appeal to the four first General Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary Guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it but because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should finde that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you and p. 451. I answer with Dr Taylor that either these Councils are tyed to the Rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no further than they adhere to this vnerring rule examined He means by those persons whom yet these Councils are to teach the sence of Scripture and p. 15. We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent This the firm ground i. e. his own judgement what Conciliary Decrees agree or disagree with Scripture that this young man builds on for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book See Mr. Stillingfleet p. 58. 59 133 154 252. and 375.517 compared There he saith on one side p. 375. That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils And We profess saith he to be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. he saith That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sence of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages and to the four first General Councils as their Guide for what is the sence of Scripture which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils only when or as far as they agree in their Decrees with the sence of Scripture which last implies that I learn the sence of Scripture not from them but another and assent to them where they conform to that judgement of which I learn it Ibid He hath these two Propositions 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning And this 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time Where he allows not Christians to try and so assent to or dissent from the Decrees of Councils by what appears to them the sence of Scripture but refers them to learn the sence of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils But yet on the other side he contends how consistently I leave to the Readers judgement That the sence of the Catholick Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed he saith It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things therein which are not Fundamental it being Directly contrary to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must acccording to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation And p. 133. He describes the Catholick Church a society of such persons who all
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
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
judge and from verse 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name i. e. by my authority for Judicature as appears by the context vers 18. their binding and loosing from which the Council of Chalced. †In their Epistle to Leo c. See Celestins Epist ad Concil Ephesin gathers a minori ad majus the authority of more general assemblies and from 1 Cor. 5.14 15. When ye are gathered together i. e. the Clergy chiefly Excommunication being an Act only of the Clergy of Corinth And also * from the Example in the Acts where upon the first great controversie a Council was called to consider it in which though there was much disputing †Act 15 6 7. as useth to be in other Councils yet the conclusion made therein was injoyned to the whole Church not only by or in the name of the Apostles but of the whole Council and was injoyned by these as assisted by that infallible holy Ghost vers 28. by which holy Ghost also they are said to be constitued Governors of the Church Act. 20.28 And S. Paul afterward every where in his perambulations delivered the decrees of this Council to be observed Act. 16.4 And lastly * from the pattern established by God Deut. 17. of the former Church under the Old Testament which pattern that of the Gospel generally followeth whose chiefest Court for deciding Controversies was a Consisttory or Council which also we find in the four Gospels and in the Acts to be called upon all greater occasions § 95 4ly That in this meeting though all these Governors I mean the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in the chief ruling of the Church have right and also are obliged in duty to their Superiors summoning them greater inconveniencies not hindering to be present yet the Churches of God having perpetual need of the residency of several of them Hence it is that as some of these successors of the Apostles personally sit in the Council and act there upon no other delegated authority save their own held from Christ so others are only there represented by their fellows who are many times deputed also by them in their necessary absence to declare their sentiments and vote in matters of present debate in their stead In respect of these absent Prelats then it is as to any power of deciding truths or making Laws that this Body is called a representative and not in respect of the multitude that is subject to their Orders and obliged to receive their commands And called a Representative of these absent Church-Colleagues not so as if this Body residing in the Council had no authority but held from them the authority of both being equal or as if they needed for their own Session there any Commission or warrant from the rest when as indeed the absents need rather a Dispensation from them where all being lawfully summoned by their spiritual Superiors out of the duty they owe to them ought to be present and for absence are liable to their mulcts but only as is said for that several of them are deputed by these absents to present their vote and judgement in the things consulted on which necessary occasions hinder them from delivering there themselves § 96 5ly That seeing this Collection of Prelats especially in later times if we take the greatest that hath or morally can be amounteth but to a small number in comparison of the whole Body of Prelats of the whole Vniverse therefore the resolutions of the absent concerning matters to be defined are declared either in Provincial or other lesser meetings before such Council or the things defined which gives less trouble are afterward by them ratified and accepted at least so far as to a tacit consent or non-contradiction of the Acts of such Council of them conven'd whereby those Acts become most firm and universally obliging Where it is also to be noted * That the prudence of the Bishops residing in such Councils though they have not antecedently the formal consent of their Brethren remaining in the Provinces for every thing they define yet doth usually take care to regulate their definitions according to the common clear known Tradition of the Church Doctors both of former and present times present and former Tradition as well for the sence of Scriptures as for other things not mentioned in Scripture being the great director of their proceedings according the ancient Rule of Pope Steven nihil innovetur Tradition I say either of the Conclusion it self that is decided or of the Principles whence it is clearly deduced and * that they do abstain from determining any thing wherein they know Catholick Divines are much divided where any doubt is of a concurrence therein of either all or most of their absent Colleagues This division of judgments hinting to them both that there is more obscurity and uncertainty of the Truth of such Point and less necessity of its being known and they generally apprehend themselves only to be Guardians of the current Tradition not discoverers of any new Science And such a proceeding Mr. Stillingfleet observes in the Fathers of the Council of Trent where he transforming their Christian wisdom into humane subtilty and guilty fear saith †p. 512. That by this Council much care was taken in many of its decrees to pass them in such general terms that each party might find their sence in them and that they were fearful of declaring themselves for fear of disobliging a particular party Thus he Which drawn in fairer colours is only to say That this Council without descending to a compliance with particular opinions in its decrees established only those doctrines which were generally delivered and agreed on by the learned of those Churches which they there represented § 97 6ly Yet that this ratification of absent Ecclesiastical Governors is not held necessary as to all particular persons or Churches for neither had all these absents been present in the Council is the vote of every one there necessary for passing an Act or further than a moderately major part of them To which major part joyned with the See Apostolick as in the Council so by the same reason out of the Council the rest of Prelats and Churches are obliged to conform in their judgment and in the Idem sapientes idipsum sentientes in eâdem permanentes regulâ non prudentes apud semetipsos which is so often inculcated by the Apostle †Philip. 2.3.3.16 Râ—m 12 16. that there may be no Schism but eternal unity and peace in this Catholick Body as for the remainder of the Church diffusive the Laity or also some degrees of inferior clergy as they have no authority to sit here as members so neither have they to confirm or refuse the acts of this supreme Court but are tyed with an obedite subjacere praepositis Heb. 13.17 to submit to their decrees and obey their injunctions to such a degree as they are required And thus do
can be established and that before one error will so be amended many truths whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy will be perverted and that it is much the better of the two that some error in non-necessaries remain unremedied than that no truth in necessaries stand fixed and confirmed Again since all persons for the truth of such things wherein the sence of Scripture is controverted if they will not profess themselves Scepticks ought to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge or other though liable to error let those then who reject a General Council name what other ultimate Judge they will chuse rather I suppose here they will blush to name themselves for that Judge neither can they have shew of reason to name either any other single person or yet inferior Council to be that Judge against a General Lastly The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith †See Disc 2. § 38. viz. That the sence of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it in all necessaries For now supposing that indeed the sence of Scripture should not be clear and so such Protestant solely guided by it using his industry yet should err in some such point such error of his is no way to be rectified so long as he maintains this ground A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike Just Weights c. 21. p. 137. 7ly Again it is asked whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with Q. 7. or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome § 104 To which waving here what testimony may be produced from Scripture and the Exposition of Antiquity concerning St. Peters supremacy and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it 1st I answer in the words of the Apostle †1 Cor. 11.16 standing upon the Church's custom in another matter That the Churches of God alwayes have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without or against the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of the prime Apostolick See and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition See the ancient Canon concerning this Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2. against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority * urged by Innocentius apud August Ep. 91. * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13 by Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. And it is remarkable that in the times that those acknowledged by all capital errors suppressed in the Athanasian Creed troubled the Church though all the other chief Patriarchs were tainted with one or other of them yet the Bishop of Rome alwayes stood firm and the Church in her vote alwayes joyned with his Chair though divided from some of the other If the Act of Liberius be here objected see what is answered to it Disc 2. § 26. n. 4. And seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick presides in General Councils †See before §. 33. as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial therefore as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils Vt nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant c. sic enim unanimitas erit †Apostol can 35. Concil Antioch can 9. so there seems the same equity that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop their President and Head But 2ly So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants as lawfully general or infallible save only such which this Prime Patriarch hath alwayes consented to and confirmed this question whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good or their authority be infallible without his consent may be superseded 8. Again it is asked Q. 8. How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council since his Confirmation follows its final decision For now if it hath erred it is erroneous though he approves it if not it is Orthodox and so may be safely accepted though he rejects it †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 17. Stillingf p. 509. I answer his Confirmation secures us that the Council errs not or the Council never errs when he confirms it because supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error the Grace of God or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick President of these Councils so as that it effectually hinders him after what manner or by what means it pleaseth that he doth never confirm it least so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary Or again when he perhaps would left to himself confirm an error the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so by what wayes of the divine wisdom it matters not that they do not define it And thus the Council never erreth being confirmed by him either because its decree is Orthodox or his consent with-held Hence then if the decrees be erroneous he never approves if Orthodox he safely approves them 9. Again it is asked Q. 9. if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation § 106 nor again the Pope without the assistance of a Council in which of the two the infallibility or not erring resides For in which soever we shall place it it renders the other needless I answer where is supposed the consent of both in a truth the actual non-erring lies in both But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other as also erring may be in either separated as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated or guided so as in the last question is explained CHAP. IX 10. Q. If General Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which infers Enthusiasm or new Revelation Or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due to all their Arguments § 107. 11 Q. Why being infallible at least in their conclusions they do not end all controversie but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles And the infallibility of their Decrees from that of Scripture 109. 13. Q. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils Because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain of any Council that it hath not failed § 114. 10. A Gain it is asked If a lawful General Council be not liable to error whether it is so in its Definitions and Conclusions only or in the Premises also and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them I answer That it is not necessary that it
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
argumentations alwayes made by them concerning such particular Conclusion so neither do they collect it from any such inspiration which they sensibly pâ—rreive nor from any express testimony that the Spirit gives to such its operation as the Apostles did but only in general from the Divine Promise that in all such Conclusions they shall not miscarry § 111 3ly The Church's infallibility differs from the Apostolical in that it is an inspiration or revelation if you will not of any new Doctrine but of such as was in its principles at least formerly revealed and delivered by Christ or his Apostles and therefore the knowledge thereof if at any time it was not might be attained by deduction from those Principles without any new inspiration and is actually had in the Church still either from such true Principle or by Tradition of the Conclusion it self And to end this question let them who ask it consider in what manner the Church Catholick diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in necessaries a thing they affirm without its equalling infallibility Apostolical And I answer her General Councils are so too To the other part of the Query I answer In what sort their infallibility equals not the Apostles so neither that of their decrees that of Scripture § 112 13. Again Q. 13. it is asked †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 9. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible any more than many Planets one Sun or many acts of finite knowledge one truly infinite I answer 1st with another question How the whole diffusive Body of the Church consisting of many members all fallible or failable in necessaries yet is affirmed by Protestants that it shall be for ever infallible or unfailable in necessaries 2ly Infallible being understood as it is meant i. e. for the Church actually never erring at such time in such a meeting and treating on such matters the question is no more than this How several persons erring in one thing may be non-erring in any or in another thing Or how the same persons when met together and divinely assisted in the matters they consult about do not or shall not err when the same persons in the same things at some other time when not consulting together and having no certain divine assistance promised to them may and ordinarily do err And it is answered that this is effected by the good pleasure of God divinely assisting and preserving them in such meeting in such matters from error It is also urged †Dr. Pierce Ib. p. 11. That Councils indeed may actually not err as single persons also may not yet that hence none can rightly stile Councils infallible or unerrable and that there is a great difference between the Participle suppose non fallens or non falsus and the Adjective in bilis non fallibilis I answer whatever difference there be between Participles and Adjectives no more is here meant by the second that by the first only with a semper added to it viz. Ecclesia infallibilis i. e. semper non falsa if I may use this word in errabilis i e. semper non errans or de facto nunquam errans Now though particular members of the Church are also unerring in several things yet not alwayes and though this that God may preserve single persons unerring alwayes is true yet that he doth so is denied of them but affirmed of the Church or lawful General Council as to all necessaries Is it not strange that grave Divines rather than be found without a reply should raise mâ—sts and make great difficulties and fall on vindicating the divine Attributes in such a matter as this intelligible to children who one day must give account hereof § 113 After all these objections and difficulties made concerning the infallibility or not erring of lawful General Councils Next supposing that all such are as to all necessary faith an infallible Guide and all the former difficulties concerning this point clearly removed yet a new roll of objections and interrogations is brought in against our discerning or knowing certainly what or how many of past Councils have been lawfully General 14. Next then it is urged That Q. 14. lawful General Councils only being pretended infallible Any § 114 to be certain of any particular Councâ—l it s not erring and so to yeild his assent to its decrees as such must know first whether it is a lawful General Council And for this again must know who are justly the constitutive members of such a body * whether Bishops only or also Presbyters or also the Laity as Act. 15.22 23. the Brethren also are admitted * whether the votes therein ought to be numbred according to the persons or rather to the several Churches and Nations the greater Churches having many times in the Synod the fewer representatives and so the fewer personal votes * whether the Bishops sitting therein were lawful Bishops and in order to this whether 1st truly Priests and truly baptized and whether that some of these Sacraments had no miscarriage for want of the Priests due intention in administring them * whether a sufficient number of Bishops residing in it and those equally from all parts so to make it a full and entire representative of the Church Catholick and * whether the Pope's summons be sufficient thereto though this question seems needlesly asked for all those Councils in the convening of which both the Pope Christian Princes have concurred * 1. whether the Bishops appearing in Council were sufficiently commissioned from those Churches they pretend to represent and 2. * whether sufficiently instructed as to the points to be decided concerning the fence therein of the absent Bishops first declared in their Provincial or other Synods or meetings and 3. * whether those in the Council did truly speak and render this their fence * whether being lawfully assembled they have also lawfully proceeded * whether they came to the Council without prejudice and sought nothing but the truth otherwise they are not gathered together in Christ's name and then neither is he in the midst of them whether a faction or some few more powerful have not out-witted or over-awed the rest and * whether some not corrupted or bribed to give their vote against conscience * whether being lawfully assembled and lawfully proceeding they made indeed such decrees as are pretended theirs * what of these decrees are de fide what not * whether these decrees have that meaning really which the peruser of them apprehends for Scriptures in deciding of Controversies being doubtful and liable to wrong interpretations why may not the decrees of Councils be so too †Stillingf p. 512. Nay much more for we have many other places to compare the help of original tongues and the help of the primitive Church to understand Scripture by when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general termes and with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction
their more moderate Doctors In which tenents if the Greek Churches may be saâ—d to agree with the Protestant so also may these Doctors in the Roman Concerning some of which I will set you down the late candid concession of Mr. Baxter no great friend of the Church of Rome in his Key for Catholicks part 1. c. 5. I am satified saith he that in many dâ—ctrinal points the difference between us and the Papists is not so great as commonly it is taken to be by many if not by most on both sides as in the points of certainty of salvation of pardon of justification of works of faith and in almost all the Cont oversies about Predestination and Redemption Free will the work of Grace c. The Dominicans in sense agree wiâ—h the Calvinists as they call them and the Jesuits with the Lutherans and Arminians and so in divers other points How near doth Dr. Holden come to us in the fundamental points of the Resolution of our faith How near come the Scotists to us in sense about thâ— point of merit And Waâ—densis and others yet nearer How near comes Contarenus to us in the point of Justification How near comes Gâ—rson in the point of venial and mortal sinâ— perhaps 〈◊〉 near â—us we are to our selves How near come the Dominicans and Jâ—nseâ— us 〈◊〉 us in the points of Predestination Grace and Freewill For my own part I scarce know a Protestant that my thoughts in these do more concur with than they do with Jansenius Thus Baxter concerning some of the Roman Doctors yet who own the Council of Trent agreeing with Protestants in those points wherein Sandys and Field suppose the main difference to be between the Reformed and the Roman Churches § 169 To this of Sandys may be added the latter collection made by Alexander Ross †View of Relig p. 476 480. out of Boterus Chytraeus Brerewood Possevine Thomas a Jesu Hieremias Patriarch Chapl. Resp ad German Concil Florent The Greeks saith he place much of their devotion in the worship of the blessed Virgin Mary and of painted but not carved Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the Saints which they invocate in their temples The Scarifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead and they use to buy Masses They do not hold a Purgatory fire yet they believe there is a third place between that of the Blessed and the damned where they remain who have deferred repentance till the end of their life But if this place be not Purgatory I know not what it is saith he nor what the souls do there Priests among them may marry once but not oftner but p. 496. he faith that Protestants herein differ from the Greek Church that the Protestants permit Priests after Ordination to marry But the Greeks permit not this but only that a married man may be admitted into Holy Orders so he abstain from his wife when he officiates They use leavened bread in the Sacrament and administer in both kinds § 170 But note that what he saith of the Moscovian p. 485. is also true of the Greek Church that they give to the people at once both the Body and Blood of our Lord mingled in the Chalice with a spoon and so to the sick only the Symbol of the bread consecrated on Maunday Thursday for all the year following and then on that day besprinkled with the other Symbol of the wine and softned again for the sick with common wine when they administer it as hath been already said § 163. See Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 153. which receiving both species together in a spoon as it is testified by many Travellors who have been spectators thereof so it may be collected out of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy as it is now used by the modern Greeks where before communicating the people it is said Tunc accipiens Diaconus sanctum Discum super sanctum calicem sanctâ spongiâ diligenter abstergit so putting the particle of the Symbol of the bread into the Chalice adorans semel where also observe adoration sumit sanctum Calicem cum veneratione procedit ad ostium attollens sanctum Calicem ostendit illum populo dicens cum timore Dei fide accedite and so with a little spoon called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you may see described in Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rituale Graecurum p. 152. takes out a very small particle thereof and puts it into the mouth of the Communicant § 171 He goes on They have four Lents in the year They will not have neither the blessed souls in heaven to enjoy Gods presence or the wicked in hell to be tormented till the day of Judgement They esteem equal with the Scriptures the acts of the seven Greek Synods and the writings of Basil Chrysostom Damascen and their Traditions They believe that the souls of the dead are bettered by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches authority and for Traditions than the Roman Catholicks be When the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the people by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth They have their Monks who are all of S. Basil's Order these have their Archimandrites or abbots The Patriarch Metropolitans Bishops are of this Order and abstain from flesh but in Lent and other fasting dayes they forbear fish milk and eggs The Greeks celebrate their Liturgies in the old Greek tongue which they scarce understand On the Festival dayes they use the Liturgy of Basil on other dayes that of S. Chrysostom They have no other translation of the Bible than that of the 70. Lastly For auricular or Sacramental Confession to the Priest though he omits it in the Greek yet he †p. 485. mentions it as used in the Russian Churches which follows herein the practice of the Greek Meanwhile their chief differences from the Church of Rome he makes to be these Their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son their denying the Pope's Supremacy their not using either Confirmation or extreme Unction But in the first of these they differ not more from the Roman than from the Protestant Churches In the second not so much from the Roman as do the Protestant Churches of which see below § 181 186. As for the two last Alexander Ross might have found in one of the chief Authors Jeremiah the C. P. Patriarch †Resp 1. c. 7 both these Sacraments to be acknowledged by and used in the Greek as well as Latine Church Confirmation being conferred by them alwayes immediately after Baptism Ad quod illud dicimus saith he in eâ ipsâ orthodoxâ Catholicâ Ecclesiâ septem divina Sacramenta esse 1 Baptismum sci 2 Sacri unguenti Vnctionem or as he stiles it afterward sacrum Chrysma sive Confirmationem 3 Sacram Communionem 4 Ordinem 5 Matrimonium 6
of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles †Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a dâ—ssent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Mr. Stillingfleet concerning Heresie †p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so to remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yeilding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points †See Mr. Stillingf p. 99. Then I become so either by the Churches definition of this point or without it By reason of the Churches definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Churche's defining it †Still p. 74 and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisy you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your selfe in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be Gods Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicen Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what it defined It s true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non sufficient proposal without § 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicen Council or the Church hath declared in this point †Stillingf p. 73. Whether the Churches judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgement the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Churches definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Stilling p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledg when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I finde my conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2ly The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your selfe from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can finde one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for not being guilty of Schism 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publike judgment § 28 and definition of the Catholick Church
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
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