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
An obedience which themselves though subjects do deny to the decree of all those preceding Councils wherein the judgment of all the Bishops and Metropolitans of the then western world concurred and amongst the rest those of these two Provinces also yet doth their Synod require it § 61 And their requiring this thought to be rationally thus defended Because Though it is not impossible but that such Synod may err yet it may be certain that in somthing it doth not err ‖ Mr. Stilling-fleet p 542. And so to such point may enjoyn assent becaus the thing determined is so evident in Scripture as that all denying of it must be wilful ‖ Mr. Whitby p. 100. But mean-while you see all these Councils have denied what this Synod of twenty six Bishops is certain of and certain from evidence of Scripture an evidence the perusal of which all those Councils had as well as these Here let a sober Christian judge if assent be held due to this London-Synod upon such a pretended certainty of theirs is it not to those other much rather to those others I say incomparably more numerous accepted by the whole West for many Ages and adhered-to still by the greatest part thereof having before them the Scriptures and the traditive Exposition of them weighing the Arguments that are still on foot meeting so often and concluding still in the same Judgment But if these other Councils are justified by the practice of this English Synod either in their requiring assent or at least silence thus is the Reformation rendred unlawful as likewise their appeal to future Councils which can afford us no more just satisfaction than the forepast As for that refuge usually sought in flying to the contrary judgment or non-acceptance of the Eastern Churches in this point it helps not For 1st besides a considerable presence of Grecian Bishops that there was in some of these Councils as to a tacit-approbation or non-opposition in this point the Greek Churches have never bin found to have made the least anti-declaration And 2ly You may see below Disc 3. § 158. the Testimonies both of their own Writers and also of several Protestants shewing their accord herein with the Western Churches § 62 As for the Appeal that is made by many to our sences that they may be consulted rather than the Church or the Fathers who yet had as perfect an information from their sences as we from ours for the decision of this point and as for the many contradictions that are mustered up by them ‖ See Mr. Tillorsons Rule of faith p. 271. Dr. Tailor Real price p. 207 c. 251. c. Stillingf Rat. account p. 117 567. out of Philosophy and from natural reason against it 1st I think all are here agreed that the contrary testimony of sence or the seeming contradictions of Reason are not to be regarded where Divine Revelation declares any thing to be Truth That which I am now upon saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 567. in the place where he urgeth such contradictions of sence and reason to Transubstantiation is not how far reason I add or sence is to be submitted to divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a divine Revelation for what I am to believe This saith enough But give me leave to add the judgment of two or three Protestants more in this matter here a little to check the forwardnesse of those who so peremptorily admit the arbitrement of sence and natural reason in mysteries of Religion The 1st is that submission of Dr. Tailours in Real Presence p. 240. after he had numbred up many apparent contradictions not only in respect of a natural but as he saith of an absolute possibility of Transubstantiation from p. 207. to 237. Yet saith he Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my Arguments against it and make publick amends All my Arguments i. of apparent contradictions and absolute impossibilities And p. 237. To this objection that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of our Saviours being born of a pure Virgin c. clauso utero and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions notwithstanding seeming impossibilities and therfore why not Transubstantiation He answers That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of the other then this Argument were good and if it were possible for a thousand times more Arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation yet saith he we are to believe the Revelation in despight of them all Now I pray you observe that none can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict or to be not naturally but absolutely impossible which therefore it is strange that Dr. Tailour affirms himself to know concerning Transubstantiation ‖ p 107 236. For these we say are not verifiable by a divine power and therefore here I may say should divine power declare a Truth it would transcend it self Again in Liberty of Prophecy § 20. n. 16. he saith ' Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications which are in the School and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church believe them with as much violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation Yet I suppose himself denies no doctrine about the Trinity that is commonly delivered in the Schools The next is that grave admonition of that learned and moderate Prelate Bishop Forbes Admodum periculosè saith he nimis audacter negant multi Protestantes Deum posse panem substantialiter in Corpus Domini convertere Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum imo Angelorum Id quidem quod implicat contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia ac perinde quid implicet quid non implicet contradictionem magnae profectò temeritatis est propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem Deo limites praescribere praefractè negare omnipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse And p 395. Certè haud pauca saith he credimus omnes quae si ratio humana consulatur non minus impossibilia esse contradictionem manifestam implicare videntur quam ipsa Transubstantiatio instancing there in the doctrine of the Resurrection of the same numerical Body And he goes on p. 388. ' Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtembergicorum in confessione suâ Anno 1552. Consilio Tridentino proposita Vid. Harmonia Confess cap. de Eucharistiâ Credimus inquiunt Omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistiâ substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in Corpus
manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita Videbam ea manere in illâ Ecclesiâ quae Romanae connectitur Lastly we find it a Body generally professing against any Reformation of the Doctrines of the former Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever and claiming no priviledge of Infallibility to it self for the present which it allows not also to the Church in all former times This is the general Character of one Combination of the Churches in present being The other present Combination of Churches in the Western World §. 76. The Face of the present Protestant Church we find to be a Body of much different Constitution and Complection * Much of its Doctrin Publick Service and Discipline confessed varying from the times immediately preceding It consisting of those who acknowledg themselves or their Ancestors once members of the former and that have as they say upon an unjust submission required of them yet this no more than their forefathers paid departed from it * This new Church only one person at the first afterward growing to a number and protected against the Spiritual by a secular power and so we find it subsisting and acting at this day under many several Secular Heads Independent of one another without whose consent and approbation first obtained what if such head should be an Heretick It stands obliged not at any time to make or promulgate and enforce upon its Subjects any definitions or decrees what ever in Spiritual matters ‖ See 25. Hent 8. c. 19. As to its Ecclesiastical Governours we find it taking away the higher subordinations therein that were formerly and affirming an Independent Coordination as to incurring guilt of Schism some of all Primates others of all Bishops very prejudical to the Vnity of Faith We find it standing also disunited from St. Peters Chair yet this a much smaller Body still than that which is joyned thereto and therefore in a General Council supposing all the members thereof to continue in and to deliver there their present judgments touching points in dispute such as must needs be out voted by the other and hence by the Laws of Councills in duty obliged to submit and conform to it Neither seems there any relief to this party to be expected from the accession to their side of any votes from the Churches more remote I mean the Greek or other Eastern Churches if we will suppose these also to persist in their present judgment whose Doctrine in the chief controversies is shewed ‖ §. 158. c. to conspire yet without any late consederacy with that of this greater Body which these reformed Churches have deserted § 77 We find also this new Combination of Churches in stead of pretending to assume to it self Whatsoever de facto it doth of which see more in the following Chap. § 83. c. in its Synods the same authority in stating matters of Faith which the ancient Councills have used 1. zealously contending that Councills are fallible in their determinations for so it supports the priviledg of using its own judgment against superiour Synods 2. and accordingly teaching its Subjects that it self also is fallible in what it proposeth 3 and engaging them that they may not be deceaved by its authority upon triall of its Doctrines and search of the Truth and examining with the judgment of discretion every one for him self and then relying finally on that sentence which their own reason gives 4. allowing also their dissent to what it teacheth till it proves to them its Doctrine out of the Scripture or at least when ever they are perswaded that themselves from thence can evidence the contrary Therefore it is also more sparing or pretends to be so of which see more below § 85. c. in the articles of its faith and Religion especially positive many of its Divines holding an union of Faith requisite only in some necessaries and then contracting necessaries again in a narrower compass than the Creeds and because it allows of no judge sufficient to clear what is to be held in controversies ‖ See 2. Disc §. 38. therefore holding most controversies in Religion not necessary at all to be determined and much recommending an Union of Charity there where cannot be had an Vnion of Belief We find them also restraining Heresy to points fundamental and then leaving fundamentals uncertain and varying as to several persons fewer points fundamental to some more to others and this no way knowable by the Church Again making Schism only such a departure from the Church as is causeless and then this thing when causeless to be judged for any thing that appears by those who depart by such notions leaving Hereticks and Schismaticks undiscernable by the Catholick Church and unseparable from it and therefore many seeming to understand the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in the Creed to signifie nothing else than the totall complex of all Churches whatever professing Christianity unless those persons be shut out who by imposing some restraint of opinion for enjoying their Communion are said to give just cause of a separation Accordingly we find this Body spreading its lap wide to several Sects by which it acquires the more considerable magnitude and receiving or tolerating in its communion many opposite parties of very different Principles and hence as it grows elder so daily branching more and more into diversity of Opinions and multiplying into more and more subdivisions of Sects being destitute of any cure thereof both by its necessary indulgement of that called Christian liberty and allowance of private judgment and also by the absolute Independency one on another of so many several supream Governours both the Secular and the Ecclesiastical who model and order diversly the several parts thereof As the other Church in her growing elder grows more and more particular in her Faith and with new definitions and Canons fenceth it round about according as new errors would break in upon it Further we find several amongst its Leaders much offended §. 78. n. 1. that Church-Tradition should be brought in together with Scripture as an authentick witness or Arbitrator in trying Controversies See the Protestants Conditions proposed to the Council of Trent ‖ Soave p. 642-344 366 that the Holy Scripture might be Judge in the Council and all humane authority excluded or admitted with a condition Fundantes se in S. Scripturis taking great pains to * discover the errors of the Fathers and their contradicting of one another See Daille's vray usage de Peres and * to shew several of the works imputed to them and admitted by R. Catholicks supposititious and forged See Cooks and Perkins and Rivets Censures Taking no less pains to shew the non necessity of Councils in General to number the many difficulties how to be assured which of them are legal and obliging what their Decrees and what the sence of them to discover the flaws deficiencies in
Epiphan Haer. 69 Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. numbers on his side Hilarius †De Synodis relates no less than eighty Bishops before that Council to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Council also seventeen some of note at first to have dissented from the rest § 14 Prot. Not yielding what you say for truth but for the present supposing it yet the judgment of so small a party may by no means be adhered to by you it being inconsiderable in respect of the whole Body of the Catholick Church declaring against you Soc. If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the whole then the reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much more numerous body of Christianity that opposed their opinions and sence of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation and do still oppose them But not to stand upon this I would willingly conform to the unanimous or most general judgement of the Church Catholick if I were secure that she could not be mistaken in it But †Stillingf p. 59. The sence of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the rule of faith †Stillingf p. 133. Nor may she usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned Prot. You may be secure that she never erreth in any point necessary Soc. But you tell me that though she never err in necessaries yet it follows not that she is an unerring Guid or witness therein †Stillingf p. 154 252. Chilling p. 150. Dr. Hammond Defence of the L. Falkl. p. 23. §. 15. or that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what not and I must first learn whether this point of Consubstantiality is to be numbred among necessaries before I can be assured that the sence of the Church Catholick errs not therein Prot. But †Stillingf p 58. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of Scripture if it appear contrary to the sence of the Church Catholick from the beginning and therefore such doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of faith which have been so unanimously condemued by the Church Catholick Soc. Why so Prot. †Stillingf ib. Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith can be held by the Catholick Church for it s very Being depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation Soc. This last is most true but then if you mean to make your discourse cohere you must say it is a sufficient prescription c. if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church viz. in a point necessary for the reason you give carries and secures you no further and then that which you say is no great matter For here we are still to seek whether the point we discourse of is in the affirmative such a necessary § 16 Prot. But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath put in her Creeds Soc. From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed and though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in the Creeds yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary †Stillingf p. 70. 71. Necessary so as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof which conviction I yet want § 17 Prot. But yet though first the Catholick Church may err in non-necessaries and 2ly in what points are necessary what not her judgment be not infallible yet you have still great reason to submit your judgment to hers because if it happen to be a point necessary she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in it not so you And 2ly If not necessary and so both she and you therein liable to error yet you much the more and she also in these things is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide Soc. Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides consider their reasons do not rashly depart from their judgement but yet †Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 19. The due submission of my assent and belief to them is only to be conditional with reservation of evidence in God's Word For in matter of faith as Dr. Ferne saith I cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for faith all that they shall define for such resignation stands excluded by the condition of the authority which is not infallible and by the condition of the matter faith of high concernment to our own souls and to be accounted for by our selves who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word upon which we may finally and securely stay our belief And †The Case between the Churches p. 40. The Church determining matter of faith saith he ought to manifest it out of God's Word and we may expect such proof before we yield absolute assent of belief And so Mr. Stillingfleet saith †p. 133. All men ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the Scripture for Consubstantiality but rather for the contrary which several of our Writers have made appear to the world And therefore unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined or at least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from the rest it seems no way justifiable that she puts this her definition into the Creed she as I conceive thus requiring from all an absolute consent thereto and not only as some †Still p. 70. would perswade me a conditional for some of them viz. whenever I shall be clearly convinced that such point is of divine Revelation CONFERENCE III. 3. Or contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof being observed § 18 3. PRot. But do you not consider by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed Namely by the first General and the most venerable assembly of the Fathers of the Church that hath been convened since the Apostles times celebrated under the first Christian Emperor by a perfect representative of the Catholick Church and by such persons as came very much purified out of the newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath suffered that under Dioclesian will not you then at last submit your judgment to the Decree of this great and holy Council one and the first of those four which S. Gregory said he received with the same reverence as the four Gospels Soc. No And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons
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.
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
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
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
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
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
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-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
again he using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction cannot but come to know its Councils and their definitions its doctrines and Laws which we find as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs so those of the Church Catholick are studious to divulge and publish so far as they are by him considering his condition necessary to be known and the profession or practice thereof required of him For Example In the Church of England who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation that first cannot easily discern this Church from the several other later and unheaded sects that are in this Kingdom and this Church known who may not easily attain therein to a knowledg also of its Articles of Religion and Canons its Synods or Convocations delivered by the common Tradition and by the Church-Guides and publick Writings daily inculcated so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those who have once found among the many Societies of Christians that Church which is their right Guide § 49 And litle reason have the reformed to affirm a necessity that all Necessaries should be made most evident even to the unlearned in the Scriptures if asserted on this account because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church And with litle reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church * that it is no easier a thing to know what the Church defines than what Scripture determines and That the same Arts that can evade the texts of Scripture will equally elude the Definitions of Councils Tillots Rule of saith p. 21. as if all writings were equally plain or equally obscure or if none free from therefore all equally liable to cavils Again * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgments to Scripture will hold as well or better for their unity as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgments to the sence and determination of the Church will hold for their unity And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of as to those matters wherein the sence of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians for in such only it is that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church As if they undertook to defend this That a living Judge set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law to the sentence of which Judg all are agreed to assent yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws and for uniting parties than the Laws themselves are without such Judge Mr. Stillingfleets words are ‖ p 101. Your great Argument for the unity of your party because whatever the private opinions of men are they are ready to submit their judgments to the censure and determination of the Church if it be good will hold as well or better for our unity as yours because all men are willing to submit their judgments to Scripture which is agreed on all sides to be infallible If you say that it cannot be known what Scripture determines but it may be easily what the Church defines It is easily answered that the event shews it to be far otherwise for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith c concluding thus so that upon the whole it appears setting aside force and fraud which are excellent principles of Christian unity we are upon as fair termes of union as you are among your selves Where doth he not say this in effect that the true Church being known and its authority granted infallible as that of the Roman Church is by its subjects Yet we can no more know what this Church defines suppose what the Church of Rome or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation St-Invocation Sacrifice of the Mass c. than what Scripture determines concerning these points and that Canons Catechisms c. authorized by a Church can no further clear any point to us than Scripture did formerly and that only the Church is so unfortunate in her publick interpretations of Scriptures that her Expositions are no plainer than the Texts and that only force or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions And if so what fault hath the Council of Trent made in its new definitions if after these it seems ‖ Stillingf p. 102. there is as much division and then liberty also of opinions as was before them Why do they accuse its decrees as plain enough but erroneous and not invalidate them rather as dubious and uncertain Why dispute they not whether these we have now extant be its genuine Acts Would it not be advantageous to the reformed to shew that this Council makes nothing against them In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority engaged his followers As if though Catholicks allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered some proceedings in some things unjust the legality of some Councils disputed c yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils and their Canons both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholick Church in all such as is thought necessary faith whose obligation is not to believe all things defined but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so and * to overthrow the past Reformation THE THIRD DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Roman-Catholicks and Protestants agreed 1. That the Scriptures are God's Word § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church in no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. § 1 1st BOth Roman Catholicks and Protestants are agreed That there is sufficient certainty in the General Tradition of the Catholick Church descending to the present Age that the Bible or Holy Scriptures are the Word of God 2ly They are agreed That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures that the Catholick Church § 2 in no age shall err in Credends or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation From which Christians seem to be secured That in their approving § 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever they shall incur no Error or Practice destructive of Salvation Whereas a hazard herein may be in their departing from the Doctrine or Practice of the Church-Catholick or of all the particular Churches of any age all or some of which must be the Catholick § 4 3ly
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
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
at last converted whether it I say now after a 150 years continuance hath made any progress sutable to such an effect as is the reducing of all Nations to its Profession or rather whether after it had made a sudden increase at 1 st as new things take most and infancy grows fastest it doth not seem already long ago to be past its full growth and now rather declining and withering and loosing ground in many places where it was formerly well rooted whilst that Antichrist which it promiseth to destroy acquires more strength and daily enlargeth his Dominions to which I may add * whether since protestancy is divided into so many Sects severed under so many differing secular Heads the Nations at length converted by them if they should be brought by some to the purity yet would not still in general want the Vnity of the Christian Faith But to return All this authority we find one present Body using now as the Catholick Church did anciently and among other things this Body also entitling it self the present Catholick Church So that if there be a Catholick Church still which stands invested with that authority that our Lord bestowed on it and which the former Church practised then seeing that all other Christian societies do renounce and not pretend at all to such an authority I mean the requiring from their Subjects an assent and submission of judgment to their decrees as infallible in all necessary faith declaring Hereticks those that oppose their Doctrines and Schismaticks that relinquish their Communion and question this other Church also for using it it follows that either this must be the sole Church-Catholick that thus bears witness to it self that it is so or that what ever Church besides pretends it self Catholick doth not exercise or own that just power and those priviledges with which our Lord hath endowed it We find further this present Church very vigilant and zealous in vindicating the honour and authority the customs the decrees of former Church and pretending what ever in truth it doth most strictly to follow its footsteps extolling the Fathers numbring allowing and challenging the Councils as if it thought them most advantagious on its side and carrying its self to this old Mother with such expressions of affection as if it only were her true daughter Therefore conjoyning the tradition of former Church interpreting Scripture together with the Text thereof for the steady guide of its proceedings in establishing truth and convincing Heresies And professing to handle things controverted ‖ Concil Trident Sess 18. Salv. Conduct Secundum sacram Scripturam Apostolorum traditiones probata Concilia Ecclesiae Catholicae consensum sanctorum Patrum authoritates We find it with the same Zeal celebrating an honourable Memory of the Fathers ancient Martyrs Confessors and Doctors in its publick Liturgies inserting therein both their Traditionary Comments on the Text of Scripture and an abridgement of their holy Lives there praising God for their pious Examples and provoking her present children to an emulation of their vertues whilst another Party in its pretending a Reformation to the Doctrine and Manners of the Primitive Church yet in its new Service expunged both the Lections taken out of these Fathers and the Narrative of their Lives We find it * retaining the same publick service of the Mass with the Catholick Church of former ages as its adversaries confess ‖ D◠Field p. 188. Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. de Canone Missae for this 1000. years i.e. from the times of S. Gregory if not without some small additions of something new yet without change of what was the former And * much resembling the visage of the ancient Church especially that after Constantine when by the more copious Writings of those flourishing times we come better to discern that Churches complexion in its Altars and a quotidian Sacrifice in its frequency of publick Assemblies and Devotions Solemn observance of Feasts Vigils and Fasts Gravity and Magnificence of its Ceremonies In its pretention of Miracles and extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit in several of its Members in its high Veneration of the Celestial Favourites who stand in the presence of God and daily Communication by Commemorating the Saints departed with the Church triumphant and in the honour done to their Holy Relicks in its charitable Offices performed for those other more imperfect faithful Souls whose condition in the next world it conceives betterable by its prayers and oblations In its distinction of sins and use of its keys toward greater offenders In retirements from the world for a nearer converse with God and the freer exercise of Meditation and Devotion In its variety of Religious Orders Votaries and Fraternities In its advancing the observance of the Evangelical Councils its high esteem * of voluntary poverty i. e. relinquishing all particular propriety and enjoying only necessaries in Common * of virginity and continency and * of yeilding an undisputing obedience in licitis to all the Laws and commands of a Superiour In the single lives and sequestration from worldly incombrances of its Clergy obliged to a daily task of long Devotions and purity of conscience and corporal abstinence suitable to their attendance on the Altar and there daily or very frequently offering the Commemorative Sacrifice of our Lords all satisfactory Passion and comunicating his most precious Body and Blood In the like relations with those of all past ages concerning the eminent vertue shining in and divine favours bestowed on those holy persons who have lived in its Communion their great austerities and mortifications Exstafies Visions Predictions Miracles c. Which stories if they be all supposed lies and fictions and hypocrisies all I say or most of them for that some counterfeits will mingle themselves among truth there is no question yet such lyes are also found in all ages even from the Apostolical Times nor is the present age more guilty of them than the precedent as may be seen by comparing the Stories related by S. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 22. c. 8. the Saints lives written by S. Jerome Gregory Nyssen Theodoret Severus Paulinus Palladius Gregory the Great Gregory of Tours Bede Bonaventure Bernard and other ancient Authors with the modern whilst all other Religions meanwhile have such a disparity to antiquity that in them no such things are at least fained But indeed did not many of these Stories contain a certain truth it cannot be imagined that so many persons reputed of great Sanctity and Devotion and several of them contemporary to those whose lives they recorded should have written them with so full a testimony to many things not as heard of others but seen by themselves Of the Roman Church and its adherents So persevering in the steps of Antiquity thus Grotius in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace giving account there of his studies in reading the Fathers Collegi saith he quae essent illa quae veterum testimonio
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
or teacheth none of these Articles so he do not teach or profess the contrary but spend his discourses on other subjects See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before § 84. n. 3. concerning the Arch-bishop Obs 2 2 ly Concerning those other Articles of which it is said that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith but only negations §. 85. n. 2. and refurations of new Roman assertions and additions You may note concerning them 1 st In General that Negatives may be Scripture-truths revealed therein matter of our Faith and as necessary to be believed as Bishop Bramhall granteth ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. when known to be revealed as any affirmative and possitive Articles are and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively as affirmatively proposed and seeing that the one necessarily implies and inferrs the other as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation so is the other So the negative Articles in the Nicen or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus a nullo genitus non tres â—atres Filius non factus Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem aut confusione Substantiarum are Articles of as necessary belief as the positives and indeed the same with them the same with Pater unus Pater eternus Filius genitus Filius ex duabus naturis consistens And they as much Hereticks that affirm any of these negatives as that deny the affirmative 2 ly Concerning the Negatives in the 39. Articles of the Church of England if they be well considered you may find that they are both in the Articles pretended to be Scripture and revealed truths and that all or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives and as new and positive on the one side as the Roman Articles which they contradict are pretended on the other and the Protestants Confession of Faith supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives as large and as particular on the one side as the Roman or Tridentine is on the other as to the maine Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches and these not only privatively but positively opposite For no difference can be made in the thing but only in the expression between a negative and positive Article where the negative implies and is equivalent to the affirmative of its contrary as it is where the contraries are immediate and the one of them is necessarily put wherever the other denied As God being granted a substance He that denies him to be a corporeal substance in this he affirmes him to be a Spiritual and so those that deny here something which others affirme in this must needs affirme somthing which the others deny and the negative may be as we please changed into another positive and he who had before the positive shall have now the negative side He that denies any Soules after this life to go into any temporal purgatory affirms them to go into Bliss or Pain Eternal and he that affirms Purgatory denies this So he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist affirmes the Substance of the Symboles to remain there and so e contra Hence he that hath 39. Articles of his Faith whereof 30. are in the expression negative 9. positive hath in matters wherein the one contrary being excluded the other is admitted as it is in most of these Articles of Religion that are in debate no fewer positive Articles of his Faith than he who hath 39. expresly positive and again he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39. Negative also and e contra only a negative confession argues a former contest And as Faith so Heresie is conversant in either And here also note that it is one thing for a Church meerly to exclude from or omit in her Articles or confessions of Faith those points which another Church defineth i. e not to tye her Subjects to believe them and another thing to tye her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them or not to believe them Which is indeed a defining one way as much as the other Church doth the other way For Example 'T is one thing not to tye her subjects to believe or hold the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Images Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. and another thing to tye her subjects to believe or hold that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory c. are vainly invented or grounded on no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned in her not leaving points in Universals only and their former indifferency but new-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation c. than the Reformed for their new-stating the contrary to these Which to make more perspicuous §. 85. n. 3. It is to be noted that of those who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm lesâ— and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith than some others do there are two sorts 1. Either such as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals which the other affirm 2. Or such as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals neither affirming nor denying them for truths only denying that the others as yet do prove or evidence them to be so Now though it may be said of these later that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith or new definitions as the other do and so also that they seem much more safe and modest in the paucity of their Credends because they who neither affirm nor deny a Tenent cannot err in it yet the former who deny as far and as peremptorily every new point as the other affirm it these can free themselves from no curiosity tyranny liableness to errour c. wherein they pretend the other to transgress nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine viz. in their not erring because not determining but do ingage every whit as far in such points as their adversaries do one in holding and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth the other in holding and endeavouring to prove it an error And this is the case of the Church of England which suspends not her judgment in those new points which the Roman defines nor denies them onely to be proved or clear in the Scripture but denies them as Errors and things contrary to Scripture So Purgatory Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints Indulgences are declared repugnant to Gods Word Art 22. Works of Supereorgation Art 14. Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People Art 24. Denying of the Cup to the People Art 30. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation for Example to be contrary to Scripture makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture and so to be also a point of his Faith if Scripture be so and hence the
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
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-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
to some dissenting parties Thus they argue as if they should say If the Law cannot be understood much less the Judge that is appointed to explain it for also we have many Comments on the Law none on his Sentence or as if the sence of those many Canons of Councils that are urged against Protestants were not granted by them both sufficiently clear and accused by them as evidently erroneous Lastly * whether their decrees have been confirmed by the Pope And then for this it must be known also whether the Pope confirming them was a lawful Pope * whether not Simonically elected which but once hapning there follows from it the illegality of all his Successors because these chosen by some Cardinals that were created by him who are no legitimate Electors and upon this account saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 125. there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the Fifth And here again return all these questions concerning the Pope's Baptism Ordination c. with a right intention of the Priest in doing them which were asked formerly concerning the Bishops These and many more such like Queries are made by persons studying acuteness in throwing down the Pillars of a former setled faith to make way for introducing a more free and unconfined i. e. a more sceptical and arbitrary or latitudinarian Religion And since from any of these Queries a quarrel may be made against a Council as not lawful there will never want for any past Council some pretence or other of disallowing it when stating Doctrines or giving Laws contrary to our inclination or interest and how easie were it for a Socinian from several of these to quarrel with that of Nice See below Disc 4. § 18. c. To all which I return this answer 1st That a rational not-possibly-fallible § 115 certainty or assurance of the lawfulness of any Council or of the forementioned particulars whereby this lawfulness may be known is by no side affirmed necessary 2ly That as for a non-morally fallible certainty in respect of several of the particulars such as these whether all the Bishops that sate in the Council of Nice were truly and lawfully baptized ordained c. none simoniacally elected none come to the Council with prejudice none corrupted or over-awed in giving his vote c. this is sufficient that where any of these do fail the cognizance of Tradition yet any Christian in general may be rationally assured I mean as to the much major part of such Council for more needs not that that divine providence and assistance which is supposed to preserve the Church's lawful General Councils from not erring in necessaries doth consequently either preserve such Councils as are taken by this Church for lawfully general from all such defects as do render them not capable of his promise of not erring Or if any forepassed Councils reputed lawfulâ—y General have had such defects doth continue the same priviledge of not erring also to these Councils because such their defects are undiscernable to the Church Otherwise the Church's error in not discerning lawful Councils would render the divine favour in assisting lawful Councils useless and unbeneficial unto her § 116 And this answer is no more than is thought reasonable and given by Protestants in other cases So Mr. Chillingworth †p. 78. up a doubt proposed whether a Penitent doing his own best indeavours when absolved of his sins by one that goes for but really is no Priest or by a Priest but without an intention of absolving him receives any benefit thereby thinks this a good answer That God's goodness will supply all such defects as to humane indeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave absolution without intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only not his Penitent And Protestants upon supposition that God hath by no other way clearly revealed the points necessary to salvation do from the same goodness of God prove their fundamental Doctrine that all necessaries to salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture where as I conceive the supposition to fail so the arguing good upon the common Principle that Deus non deficit in necessariis § 117 3. So far as the former questions are moved concerning a sufficient certainty I suppose Protestants will affirm that they have a sufficient certainty concerning some Councils that they were lawfully General as concerning the four first whose Definitions also they retain in their Creed what ground therefore of their certainty of these Councils that they were lawfully General they will return to a Socinian asking the former questions of them whether this ground be a General Church-Tradition or any thing else the same may be returned to the same questions concerning the rest that have been held lawfully General by the common Tradition of later times since the sitting of such Councils Add to this that notwithstanding in general they allow some obedience due to lawful General Councils yet if they deny a sufficient certainty of knowing any such this is in effect to release all Christian obedience to any Council in particular § 118 4ly I answer That for solution of the former questions such as are more material as touching the sufficiency of the representative the lawfulness of their proceedings their Confirmation by the See Apostolick acceptation by the Church diffusive such as â—s necessary c. private Christians have sufficient certainty from the testimony that after the sitting of such Councils the continued Tradition of the Church Catholick or of its Governors taken in the sence explained before § 8.12 Disc 2 § 23. or also met in later Councils delivers thereof in which tradition he may securely rest and supersede that quest for satisfaction of the former doubts with which others must needs be much perplexed who have not the humility to acquiesce in the resolutions of their forefathers § 119 5ly Since the Church Catholick or its Governors as stated before †§. 2.6 of all ages and therefore that of the present age is an infallible Guide in necessaries therefore whatever former Councils and their definitions the present Church or its Governors do accept and own Christians may be assured from this that such Councils have not erred in necessaries and either were lawfully general and obliging or at least by this acceptation of the present Church are rendred equivalent thereto the act of this Church her allowing their decrees being of the same strength and vigor as is her new decreeing them And thus for such Councils the former inquiries become frustrated Note that I understand the acceptation of the present Church Catholick or its Governors in the sence explained before § 11. c. Disc 1. § 38. 6. But lastly though a sufficient certainty by these wayes a Christian may have concerning what or how many have been lawful General Councils or equivalent thereto and so concerning their
Grecian opinions are since but what they were when first the Reformation was made Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation and Cyril's above 50. years after his 2ly Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions the words of Knowles ibid are considerable who there saith That he was a reverent and learned man and that he desired to reform many errors and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church as these others were in the Western which also appears from the complaints and persecution against him more than against his Predecessors by the Agents of the Roman Church upon this pretence Knowles ibid. And he is said †Spondan A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei p. 528. at last for certain crimes objected to him and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks to have been imprisoned and shortly after executed and another Cyril ab Iberia formerly rejected to have been repossessed of his Chair But 3ly How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias yet the same testimonies above-named †§. 158. n 2. 165 162. that shew Jeremias's to be the doctrines of the Greek Church shew Cyril's whoever had new reformed him not to be so But 4ly Indeed his declaration though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions is very short and sparing general and unclear extending to few points and waving the rest and forbearing there to mention any one point save that of the procession of the holy Gho t wherein the Greeks differ from the reformed as surely in some they do and again those points therein in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict both Jeremias's and the Roman tenents namely the denying of Purgatory and of Transubstantiation if therein he intend to deny all sorts of Purgatory though not by five and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist are unquestionably singular and not owned by the Greeks as is shewed before and as is witnessed also by some reformed †§. 167 169. c. out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions and practâ—ces 5ly If Cyril or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reformed and new opinions diverse from his predecessors whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church These are to be stiled not its doctrines but his own and it is not denied that Patriarchs as well as others may be heretical for in several ages some have been so But 6ly If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation then will this only follow that it is true of the Greek Church as of the Protestant that they also have reformed from the whole Catholick Church 1. from the former as well Greek Church as Latine and so this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice if a departure from the Church Catholick bâ— Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and
with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of
true that I may mistake in the sence of some Scripture but it follows not from hence that I can be certain of the sence of no Scriptures To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth †Chilling p. 111. Though I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture particularly such plaâ—es as are obscure and ambiguous yet this methinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sence of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters and in such this my faith is containâ—d If you ask me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I ask you again can you be sure you understand what I or any man else saith They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach can they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do If not to what end did they hear them If they could why may not I be as well assured that I understand sufficiently what I conceive plain in their writings Again I pray tell me whether do you certainly know the sence of these Scriptures for the evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther requiring conformity to the contrary doctrines as a condition of her Communion If you do then give us leave to have the same means and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all Scripture be obscure how can you know thâ— sâ—nce of these places If some places of it be plain why should I stay here †Id. p. 112. If you ask seeing I may possibly err how can I be assured I do not I ask you again seeing your eye sight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sun when you do see it †Ib. p. 117. A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged rightly A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in his way to London †Id. p. 112 This I am certain of that God will not requ re of me a certainly unerring belief unless he hath given me a certain means to avoid error and if I use those which I have will never require of me that I use that which I have not †See also Chilling p. 140. 366. 307. This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid plea against the Papist's grand objection for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture § 8 Prot. But the Scriptures which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God with God the Father carry not the same evidence and clearness as those Scriptures do whereon Protestants build the certainty of their faith against the Papists or against the common church-Church-doctrines that were before Luther Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures which you of mine I pray what can be said more plain or in what point in your opinion more fundamental wherein we contend Scripture is most clear even to the unlearned than this in Joh. 17.3 Vt cognoscant te Pater solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum And 1 Cor. 8.6 Vnus Deus Pater unus Dominus Jesus And Eph. 4. ver 5. Vnus est Dominus i. e. Jesus and then ver 6. Vnus est Deus Pater omnium And Joh. 14.1 Creditis in Deum in me credite And ver 28. Pater meus major me est I say what more clear for proving the Father his being the true most high God and excluding the other persons the Son or the holy Ghost from being the very same God Prot. And 1 what more clear on the other side than these Texts Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever And Tit. 2.13 The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And †1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life spoken by S. John the great vindicator against Ebion Cerinthus Cerpocrates and others in his time opposers of our Lord's Divinity †S. Hieron de viris illust And Apoc. 1.8 compared with 1.17 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty I say what more clear than these Texts for shewing the true Deity of Christ 2 And then how many other clear Texts are there asserting the Eternity of our Lord that he is nothing made or created but pre-existent before the constitution of the world equal with God that heaven and earth and all things were made by him that were made and that he descended from heaven from his Father when he took our nature upon him See Joh. 1.1 c. 3.13 Heb. 1.2 3 10. c. Joh. 17.5 24. Phil. 2.6 Joh. 6.38 16.28 1 Tim. 3.16 Heb. 2.14 And 3 then his Deity and Eternity thus cleared his Deity can be no other than in the total essence thereof numerically the same with that of God the Father For those of your own Sect together with the whole Christian world do acknowledge 1 That there is but one numerical most high God an inseparable attribute of whom is the Creation of the world and his preexistence before it And again 2 That the substance or essence of this most high God is not any way divisible partible or multipliable so that Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit tota ei Patris substantia eadem numero communicata suit See Volkel de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned your predecessors were constrained to desert Arrianism or semi-Arrianism and to take in other respects a more desâ—erate way of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation To return then to our business All Scripture being equally true you know no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sence which others as clear contradict The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned is the mother of all errors The Texts therefore that you produce here to manifest on your side that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation Messias-and Mediator-ship in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our Lord by a special Redemption wâ—th his blood in another manner than he together with his Father in the same essence is the one true God Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered and answered by our party
not neglecting some means which he knows will certainly keep him from error § 11 2. But notwithstanding these This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side and is so by learned Protestants That in what kind of knowledge soever it be whether of our sence or reason in whatever Art or Science one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge that he is certain of any thing for a truth which all or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties in all the same external means or grounds of the knowledge thereof do pronounce an error Not as if truth were not so though all the world oppose it nor had certain grounds to be proved so though all the world should deny them but because the true knowledge of it and them cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect and omnibus paribus not to others Now for any disparity as to defect whether in the instrument or in the means of knowledge there where all or most differ from me it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self rather than them especially * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them and * whenas for my own mistakes I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions I say be this in what knowledge we please in that of sence seeing hearing numbring or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned § 7. So I can never rationally assure my self of what I see when men as well or better sighted and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same see no such matter And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Phanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit See Arch-Bp Lawd 〈◊〉 33. Consid 5. n. 1. and Hooker Preface § 6. their defining of a clear evidence or demonstrative argument viz. Such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it and therefore surely proposed to many men the mind of the most cannot dissent from it § 12 Consequently in the Scripture abstracting from the inward operations of God's holy Spirit and any external infallible Guide which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men differing in the sence thereof I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons for so many Texts or places thereof concerning the sence of which the most or the most learned or their Superiors to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented do differ from them From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words such certainty cannot arise unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished or taken in a diverse or unliteral sence but if it cannot be so taken then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sence For example For the literal and Grammatical sence what Text plainer than Hoc est corpus meum and yet Protestants understand it otherwise Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingwoith's to Fr. Knot †Chill p. 307 urging That the first Reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say answers he that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of their opinions whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such matter Besides as these is no term almost in any sentence but that is capable of several acceptions so since no falshood no discord is in the Scriptures there is no senrence in it however sounding for the expression but must be reconciled in its sence to all the rest and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary to attain the true meaning of many places that seem at the first sight most clear in what they say but that there are also other places as clear that seem to say the contrary And some such places it was and that in very necessary points too of which S. Peter saith That some wrested them to their own damnation wrested them because they wanted not industry but learning which the unlearned saith he wrest And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe †2 Pet. 3.16 because they know fewest reasons against it whilst by much study and comparing several Revelations one with another those come at last to doubt or deny that sence of some of them which at the first they took for most certainly and evidently true Pardon this long Parenthesis CONFERENCE II. 2. The Socinians Protestant-Plea For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 Now to resume the Conference The Protestant better thinking on it will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sence of Scripture but thus proceeds Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every one †Stillingf p. 58 59. as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes even in the great Articles of the Christian faith Therefore why do not you submit your judgment and assent to the sence of Scripture in this point unanimously delivered by the consent of the Catholick Church which also is believed alwayes unerrable in any necessary point of faith as this is Soc. First If you can shew me an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point and that as held necessary I will willingly submit to it But this you can * never do according to such a proof thereof as is required viz †Stillingf p. 57. That all Catholick Writers agree in the belief of it and none of them oppose it and agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians * That no later Writers and Fathers in opposition of Hereticks or heats of contention judged then the Article so epposed to be more necessary than it was judged before the contention * That all Writers that give an account of the faith of Christians deliver it And deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is of divine Revelation but with a necessiity of its being explicitely believed by all See before Disc 3. § 52. Now no such unanimous consent can be pretended for Consubstantiality For not to speak of the times next following the Council of Nice nor yet of several expressions in the ancients Justin Martyr Iraeneus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen that seem to favour our opinion †See Petavius in Epiphan Haer. 69 Nor of those Bastern Bishops which Arrius in his letter to Eusebius Nicomed ‖ Apud
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