Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	faith_n	point_n	propose_v	2,735	5	10.3332	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B06703	The guide in controversies, or, A rational account of the doctrine of Roman-Catholicks concerning the ecclesiastical guide in controversies of religion reflecting on the later writings of Protestants, particularly of Archbishop Lawd and Dr. Stillingfleet on this subject. / By R.H.	R. H., 1609-1678.	1667 (1667)	Wing W3447A; ESTC R186847	357,072	413

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 v●rit●tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant requiritur ut homines complures coetum aliquem qui in omnium ●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 exta●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 quoqu● qu● 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 ra●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 ●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 c●p●a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata sed quia pervesi homines Scripturas pe●vertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proce●encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores Therefore the Church from time to time defining any thing concerning such points defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture And the chief Tradition the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sence and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures but many times not there written so clearly which traditive sence of the Church you may find made use of against Arianisme in the first Council of Nice ‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1 c. 8. Or

Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corr●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

vanish those fancies ● Of every General Council's receiving a Commission to make its meeting authentick from some formal act or tacit consent of the Church diffusive of the assistance of infallibility if any had to be made over to it by assignment from the Church diffusive of its acting not by any divine right but only humane delegation and of the several parts of the Church being obliged to its decrees by their choice and consent only not upon necessity 3ly Again It is asked how such an Ecclesiastical infallibility as is placed in a General Council Q. 3. can be said to be serviceable or at least necessary to the Church which subsisted § 98 for the first 300. years without any such infallible Guide And it is asked also by what infallible Guide in the long intervals of these Councils Christians are secured § 99 To the first I answer That this infallibility is to be supposed to accompany this Body of the Clergy taken collectively not only when met in a General Council but out of it whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their judgment and agreement in their doctrines whether by several Provincial Councils assembled or some one Provincial Council assembled confirmed by the See Apostolick and allowed by other co-ordinate Churches or by communicatory letters of Churches to one another in the intervals of greater meetings and thus was infallibility resident and preserved in the Guides of the Church for the first 300. years Of this matter thus Mr. Thorndike † Epilog 1 l c. 8 p. 54. speaking of the times before Constantine The daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual setling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned which setlement was had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch but the express consent of Churches obtained upon the place being a more certain foundation of peace c. Thus he And see what is said before Disc 1. § 18. To the second That in the intervals of Councils if any new error dangerous to the faith and condemned by no former General Council doth molest the Church she by some of the forenamed wayes wherein she is unerrable if there be no convenience of assembling a General Council suppresseth it but if an error formerly condemned and crushed by a general Council begin to exalt it self and grow again that there needeth no more to quiet it than that the present Church Governours do put in execution the former unerring decrees of those Councils 4ly Again it is asked Q. 4. How lawful General Councils can be maintained all unerring § 100 which Councils experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another To which I answer That he who saith so either takes some Council to be a lawful General one that is not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick as stated before § 11 12. 2. Disc § 23. c. Or takes some of their definitions to contradict which do not so in the judgment of the present Church Catholick Or urgeth things in some ages commonly received or practised in which there is a great latitude as things then defined But if the judgment of the Church in these ought to be preferred before some private members thereof she denies such contradiction in matters of faith to be in any of the General Councils that she receives 5ly Again it is asked Q. 5. If a General Council should err in the defining of something not necessary and again § 101 if it can be proved that no exact distinction can be made of such from necessaries how any Christian can be secure for any particular point of his faith that both such Council and himself do not err in it I answer 1st That if what is supposed should be granted yet still is such Christian as believes all the Council proposeth secure that his faith is deficient in nothing necessary And that Protestants think the like security sufficient in their own faith For they holding the sence of Scripture clear even to the unlearned in all necessaries and believing all the Scripture saith though they cannot exactly distinguish necessary points therein from others yet affirm their faith to be secure because actually not erring in any point clear and so also not in any point necessary 2ly That as to the Principal points of faith called necessary they are both by Councils sufficiently discerned from non-necessaries and proposed as necessaries and so by Christians believed as such In these particulars therefore they are certain of their not erring and as to other points of their faith that it is sufficient for Christians to know that if necesiary they do not err in them though which in particular are necessary and so certainly not erred in they know not But meanwhile do those who urge thus an uncertainty in the faith of Catholicks in attaching their judgment to Councils which in not necessaries are supyosed liable to error make themselves any better provision for the Protestants faith in remitting them from Councils unto their own judgments which in necessaries also they grant are liable to error at least upon their not using due industry their being swayed by passion interest c. which every humble man surely will suspect himself of sooner than a Council 6ly Again It is much pressed That upon the pretence Q. 6. that a General Council is infallible § 102 no error of such Council can ever be corrected or remedied neither by a particular person or Church or yet by another Council General I answer If the Council be as it is pretended infallible no need of correcting an error where is none If it be fallible yet if so only in non-necessaries no great harm if Christians in such a point be misled but great if private men throwing off the Guide upon such pretence they should so come in some necessary point to miscarry But indeed for General Councils to be fallible in necessaries also this I grant would be a thing most mischeivous to the Church but that they shall never thus err see what is said before § 6. Disc 1. § 7.14 And indeed the objection here i. e. the ruine which such error would bring upon Christianity considering the obedience commanded to these Councils is a sufficient Argument that thus they never err nor consequently need reformation § 103 But meanwhile those who urge this that the error of a General Council in an universal obligation of belief to it can never be rectified or reformed consider not That on the other side in admitting a reformation of any its supposed errors no truth

But here seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives than Catholick writers have formerly maintained and the adversary also allows on which an acquired or humane faith securely resteth these motives carrying such an evidence with them as no other Religion differing from the Christian nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholick Communion can upon any rational account equall 2ly That the infallibility of the Church grounded on divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of the Catholicks faith for any other Articles thereof that are established by the same Churches definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him but I say not the Church doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Church's infallible authority the Protestants faith is destitute 3ly That the faith of all such Articles grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority is by this grounded also on divine Revelation Where note That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility I mean as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word or divine Revelation whether written the Scriptures or unwritten Tradition Apostolical or into Apostolical Tradition or into Scripture is in general all one and the same resolution i. e. into divine Revelation and ultimately is only believing a thing because God saith it saith it in the Scriptures or also out of them by his Apostles or by the Church succeeding the Apostles by it I say as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted truly to relate and expound what the Apostles or Scripture have formerly said where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these and not into any proper authority or infallibility of the deliverer and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church or of the Apostles we mean into Gods infallible Word delivered mediately by the one or immediately by the other And whilst to one that asketh me why I believe the Scriptures I answer because those who wrote them were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations And again to one that asketh me why I believe the Church I answer because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith Here it is clear that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted and communicated to man by God's Spirit so must the other though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit is different as is explained before § 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion then all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles and from them of the Church following them to which Church for ever though without any testimony of Scripture the same promises must be supposed to have been made for the writing of these Scriptures surely was no cause of these promises And next these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical related only by the Church and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church concerning such promises made to it as is now given to the Scriptures testifying it 4ly Yet that this Church-infallibility or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it is not necessarily the first or the ultimate divine Revelation into which every Catholick's faith concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved for the divine faith of several persons concerning particular points may have a various resolution as they come by divers wayes or from divers principles to believe it and one Article of faith may be savingly believed without the present knowledge or belief of another whereon it hath dependance as one may believe with a divine faith either the Scripture's or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition one before the other as they happen to be first proposed to them of which see what is said before § 128.145 and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon attain eternal salvation And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases the Scriptures and the Church For both are Pillars of Truth † 1 Tim. 3.15 and both alwayes bear witness as to it so also to one another And what thou hast thus joyned O Lord let no man be able to separate nor the Gates of Hell ever so far prevail against them as that any should prosper in their indeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruines of the other Amen § Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith The Conclusion and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries maintained in the former Discourses and affirmed also easily discernable from all other Pretenders After all which in the last place the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself whether if indeed there be such a Catholick unfailing Guide as is here pretended and that Church also whose conduct he hath renounced be It whom our Lord hath left amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions to bring men by a sure way to Heaven whether I say notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments that have been here and are elsewhere by Catholicks frequently urged in demonstration thereof yet his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent and invincible that he dares rely on this Plea at the appearance of our Lord for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her And next to consider whether if indeed she be what here she is pretended there can be any secular interest so valuable as any way to recompence the loss he sustains in his present separation from this Church by foregoing all that means of salvation and growth in grace and advantages of an holy life which he might with great spiritual content enjoy in her happy bosom Of which advantages because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought for a conclusion of the whole I beg leave not to stay only in universals but to represent some particulars to the begetting in Him by the aid of the Divine Grace an holy emulation and longing for the re-fruition of them and a greater resentment of his present impediments and defects § 155 Let him then in the name and fear of God consider the great benefit as to the working of his salvation which he might happily enjoy in this Church by these particulars following * By

infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain that any one of them hat not failed § 114. Chap. 10. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation and all Divine Faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation It is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if said from the Testimony of the present Church which is in the former manner i. e. by divine Revelation infallible The question returns whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible without making a Circle in proving this present Church to be so infallible from Gods Word written or unwritten and then again proving infallibly such to have been Gods Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it from the Motives of credibility or from any thing else but only from a divine Revelation i. e. from Gods Word because divine Faith can never resolve it self into any ground that is not divine Revelation § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That divine Faith alwayes ultimatly resolveth it self into divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a processe in infinitum or turning in a Circle § 124. n. 1. 132. 143 144. 3. That divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of Gods Spirit § 124. n. 2. 4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith whatever uncertainty be in the extrinsecal proponent thereof § 125. 5. That Church-Tradition in delivering unto us the divine Revelation is only the Introductive not the object of a divine Faith § 126. 6. That there in no absolute need either of it or any other extrinsecal infallible Introductive or proponent for a Christian 's attaining a divine Faith § 127. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion besides the Christian nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit can pretend to § 135. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith thus far at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. 8. But further that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries wherein the true sence of Scriptures or verity of Tradition Apostolical is questioned and disputed is believed by Catholicks From which infallibility of these Church-Guides clearly revealed to them in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical they retain a firm Faith of all those points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides and only allowing that of Scripture miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points or can have no firm ground of their believing them § 140. Shewed from the Precedents That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused or acquisit and humane Faith § 143. c. Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th § Wherein is shewed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental in the chief points of present Controversie 1. Transubstantiation § 158. n. 2. 177. 2. Adoration of the Eucharist § 159. 177. 3. Sacrifice of the Mass § 160. n. 1. 177. 4. Invocation of Saints § 161. 5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed as betterable thereby in their present Condition § 162. 6. Communion in one kinde or of the Symbol of our Lords Body onely intinct § 163.178 7. A Relative Veneration of Images or Pictures § Ibid. 8. Monastick Vows And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders § 164. and § 179. n. 1. 9. Auricular or Sacramental Confession § 165.179 n. 2. The Replies made hereto by Protestants considered § 182. c. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant-Grounds Divided into Five Conferences The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture § 2. The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13 The third Conf. Nor contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. The fifth Conf. Nor of Schism § 28. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and Considering the Varying Judgments of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE CHAP. I. The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. Of Protestant Divines I. Some granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. R. That-the Divine Promises of Indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belongs to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. § 1 FIrst that the Church Catholick of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals The Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable for ever in Fundamentals or absolute Necessaries to Salvation both by Roman-Catholicks and Protestants is granted for otherwise in some Age there would be no Church Catholick Errour in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church § 2 But when from the Church Catholick it is by Catholicks ascended to the Governours or Guides thereof to whom this Church is committed by our Lord departed hence That they are also by our Lords promise and assistance unerrable in their Decrees They at least in a lawful General Council of them such as the times wherein such Councils are assembled do permit unerrable § 3 at least so far as to Necessaries Here the Protestants make a stop 1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide and seem to differ one from another in 12 their Judgments Mr. Ch llingworth in his Answer to F. Knot and after him Dr. Hammond in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord Falklands Discourse of Infallibility with their followers in this point among whom I number the two late Repliers ‖ See Mr. Stillingf p. 154 251 252 514 517.55 Whitby c.

14.16 26. 16.15 Compared with Acts 15.28 Joh. 5.20 27. 1 Cor. 12.7 8. his promising them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an Assista that should abide with them for ever to teach them all things and to bring all things to their remembrance For ever i. e. Not with the Apostles only For then what would become of the Nations that after their times were still to be instructed especially when any Controversies should arise concerning the understanding of the Apostles Writings which Writings are miss-understandable in things necessary and which S. Peter saith in his time the unlearned wrested to their own destruction ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 but with their Successors also * See Mat. 18.20 compared with 17 18. his promising that when they were gathered together in his name to hear the Causes brought to the Church brought to her still daily notwithstanding the Scriptures he himself would be in the midst of them and would ratifie in heaven what they should upon earth which implieth also that he would assist them on earth at least when this is a supreme and unappealable Church-authority to do as to the main both what was meet to be submitted to by those whom he sent to their Tribunal and what was meet to be ratified by the heavenly Tribunal But if after the Rule of Scripture the necessity of such Tribunals ceased why are these afterward continued and in Controversies of Faith appealed repaired to * See Mat. 16.18 19. his promising that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against those to whom he gave the Keys i. e. against the Clergy nor against the Church built by and upon them And * see Luk. 23.31 the not failing of S. Peter's Faith prayed for by our Lord in order to establishing his Brethren * See 1 Tim. 3.15 the Church unlimited to the Apostles days said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth surely this from its Teachers being so For so the Apostle elsewhere using the same Metaphor frequently calls these Teachers Gal. 2.9 Pillars Eph. 2.20 Foundations and Grounds amongst which Teachers Timothy being admitted is warned here to be very circumspect and careful of his behaviour And * see 2 Tim. 2.19 compared with 16 17 20. the Foundation of God the Church standing sure notwithstanding that Hymeneus and some others as Vessels in this great house of God not of Gold and Honour but of Earth add Dishonour had erred from the Truth of God * See Eph. 4.11 13. his giving these Teachers that the world should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine In whose Doctrine therefore in order to this end this Doner hath fixed some stability neither can it be applied only to the Apostles or their times seeing that the experience of so many various winds of Doctrines even since all their VVritings and concerning the sence of their VVritings see 2 Pet. 3.16 Blowing in the Church and carrying the unstable to and fro argues the same necessity of such Doctors still And * see Rev. 1.13 16. Where our Saviour to denote his perpetual presence to these succeeding Teachers and Governors of his Church after all the times of all the Apostles save St. John is described though in Glory yet walking in the midst of the seven Mother-Churches of Asia and holding their Bishops in his hands And therefore he hath commanded an Obedience to these Governors proportionable to his assistance that those who will not hear them should be reckoned as Heathens or Publicans he being in the midst of their Assemblies and ratifying in heaven what their Sentence binds or looseth on Earth * See Mat. 18.17 18 20. And hath said concerning them ‖ Luke 10.16 that he that heareth them heareth him From which may be gathered that that Clergy who have still the same mission from him may require the same audience in his stead CHAP. II. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles § 8. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides but conditional § 12. R. That our Lord's Promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries was not made to the Apostles only but to their Successors § 9. And to their Successors not conditional but absolute § 14. And that this Indeficiency in Necessaries is most rationally placed by the Church § 8 in her General Councils or such accord and consent of the Clergy as is equivalent to such Councils § 15. IN Answer to these Texts some of the Reformed ‖ Chillingw p. 92. 115. 19. Stillingf p. 256 2 8 259 519. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles would restrain these absolute Promises only to the Apostles or first Promulgators of the Gospel for this reason because no need that they should be extended to any more For by these first for all succeeding times was a written Rule left clear and plain even to the unlearned and to all that use common reason in all necessary points of Faith and therefore that all Controversies which these plain and clear Scriptures intelligible to every one decide not are not Controversies in any point necessary and need not to be decided nor do Christians now having an infallible and plain Rule for Necessaries need afterwards besides this another living unerrable Guide in them But such an Answer 1st Seems neither any way sufficient to satisfie the Texts as hath been partly shewed already in the Explication of them § 9 which do promise to the world's end not a Rule only but Persons Reply 1. sent to preserve us from every wind of Doctrine and which command Obedience not to a Rule only but to Persons expounding it under pain of being ejected as Heathens and Publicans and under pain of being bound in Heaven when they bind us upon Earth an authority exercised not only by the Apostles but upon the strength of these and the like Texts extended beyond the former Limitation by their Successors also Only this Order is required to be observed in our Obedience that we perform it in the first place to the supreme Church-authority and then also to particular persons or Churches only as they are conformable to and united with the whole who otherwise as experience shews may err even in Fundamentals and so our obedience to them ruine us Nor 2ly seems such answer sufficient to satisfie the Necessities of the times following the Apostles wherein § 10 whether there have not risen controversies notwithstanding the clearness of the rule left us some of which have bin in matters necessary and wherein the people greatly needed the directions of their spiritual Guides I leave to your Judgment if you please to reflect on either the old Arrian Nestorian Pelagian or the new Socinian Solifidian Church-Anarchical both anti-episcopal and also anti-presbyteral errors all maintain'd by such who have presumed as much as any that they have common reason to understand plain Scriptures Nay who account these so clear

is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in the

greater necessity * that these Church-Governors should be enabled exactly to distinguish these Prop. 7. as to all particulars Or * that Catholicks should learn such distinction from their Governours than that Protestants should learn it from the Scriptures And the Answer which Protestant give for a non-necessity of this latter viz. Because who believes all the Scripture believes all Necessaries revealed in it they may take for a non-necessity of the other because who believeth all that the Church defineth believeth all Necessaries defined by it neither again can the Protestants justly require any certainty explicitness or distinction of faith concerning the Proposals of the Church which distinction c. themselves do not maintain or think necessary concerning the Proposals and sence of Scripture So if the Protestant Divines grant a sufficient certainty as they do ‖ See Mr. Chillingw p. 160. in a Christian's faith who believes all Fundamentals from the Authority of Scriptures * tho mean-while he knows not from the same Scriptures which or how many they are nor either the Protestant-Guides or their followers out of these Scriptures can make any certain catalogue of them and * though they also may in the sense of many Texts of Scripture err and mistake so that they only build a sufficiency of their faith upon this hypothetical certainty that if the point be necessary they using a due industry cannot err in the sense of such Scriptures because all necessaries God hath in these Scriptures clearly revealed Then they cannot deny the same sufficient certaînty of a Catholicks faith that believes all fundamentals from the Proposal of his Ecclesiastical Guides if these Guides be granted in these infallible tho' neither he nor these Guides should certainly know for all points which or how many these fundamentals be § 13 Very vain therefore seems that discourse of Mr. Chillingworth c. 3. § 57. so far as it is made use of to this purpose to shew upon the non-distinction of fundamentals or the supposed liability of Church-Guides to err in non-fundamentals the uncertainty or unsufficiency of a Catholicks faith As also ridiculous that arguing of his where when Catholicks say they are certain concerning every particular point proposed by the Church that if it be a fundamental she errs not in it i.e. errs not in what she determines concerning it or errs not in determining any thing against it He faith They say that they are certain that if it be a fundamental truth the Church doth not err in it i. e. in holding it which faith he is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary § 14 2ly Neither doth it follow from these Church-Guide's supposed inability exactly to distinguish Necessaries from non Necessaries that therefore they are or can be no infallible Guide in all Necessaries that is in teaching and prescribing them though they should not be so in distinguishing them and in their teaching nothing besides togesher with them Nor is that consequence of Mr. Chillingworth's ‖ p. 105 150 true That if there be a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals they must be so also in declaring what is Fundamental or necessary what not unlesse upon this supposition that the declaring thereof is also a thing Necessary as I suppose he meant it For I may be certainly by the divine goodness preserved from error in many truths which yet I do not certainly know that they are truths And again further may certainly know somthing to be a truth and teach it to others and yet not further know it to be a truth so absolutely necessary as perhaps it is To use Mr. Chillingworths simile ‖ p. 159. A Physicians in his using of a medicine consisting of twenty Ingredients of which medicine he is certain that the whole receit hath in it all things necessary to the cure of such a disease yet may not exactly know whether all the Ingredients thereof are absolutely necessary or only some of them necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse or some only necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtful As also the Protestants grant that the Church in delivering the Scriptures delivers all necessary truths therein yet without punctually knowing what or how many they are § 15 3ly It seems most reasonable that a Guide of whose not erring in Necessaries 3. I am secure But neither I nor it can exactly distinguish such from non-Necessaries should be believed by me in all it proposeth though in some Proposals it should be liable to error I must add one exception indeed If that in no particular which it proposeth I am infallibly certain of the contrary for then in such I am sure that the Tenent of this Guide can be no fundamental Truth because not truth But first this Exception is unserviceable to all those which are the most as can plead no such infallible certainty for so many stand obliged still to the former belief 2ly such exception can rationally be made use of by none in the matters we speak of for who can presume himself thus certain in a matter of faith or in his own sense of Scripture though the literal expression be never so clear where so many learned and his Superiors comparing other texts c. understand it otherwise and are of a contrary judgment For it is the same as if in a matter of sense a dim-sighted person should professe himself certain that an object is white when a multitude of others the most clear-sighted that can be found having all the same means with him of a right sensation pronounce it black or of another colour § 16 Now this case only excepted I say such Guide ought to be believed by me in all it proposeth And this upon a triple account 1st because otherwise I expose my self to error in something necessary to which error in not following this Guide I am very liable for though I have besides this Guide a Rule infallible yet my sence thereof is not so in points that are controverted 2ly because this is such a Guide as learned Protestants grant that Gods Command doth oblige me to obey its judgment where I have no certain evidence of the contrary of its decrees ‖ See below §. 20. And also common reason obligeth me to follow a better judgment than my own especially when I do it as with due humility so with sufficient safety because thus it must be only a non-Necessary that I can err in and as I am certain if a fundamental that it is true what it delivers so not certain if it be no fundamental that then it is not true 3ly because though somthing superfluous may possibly be determined by this Guide yet considering the former notion of Necessaries ‖ §. 9. to which there seems good cause that the infallibility of this Guide be extended who will undertake to exclude any particular Church-definition

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-c●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

time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he † §. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the ●our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their sup●emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no

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

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 ●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 les● 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

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

decrees yet it is not affirmed by Catholicks that either a non-possibly or a non-morally fallible certainty of these Councils or of their Decrees or Definitions is necessary to all persons for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith Of which see below § 125.127 Provided that every one be rightly disposed to believe both concerning Councils and their Decrees what is or shall be by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them without and before which proposal he may be not only not infallibly certain but without peril to salvation ignorant supposing the common Creeds professed by him to contain all articles that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicit●y believed both what Councils are lawfully General and what such General Councils have decreed CHAP. X. 15. Q. Lastly Catholicks pretending a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation it is asked upon what ground a Christian by a Divine Faith believes all those Articles of his Faith that are defined by particular Councils Where if it be said from the testimony of the present Church which is declared by the divine Revelation infallible the question proceeds whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible unless it be from God's Word written or unwritten But then such writings for effecting a Divine Faith cannot be proved to be God's Word but from some other Divine Revelation for a Divine Faith can never ground it self save on a Divine Revelation where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible without making a Circle § 120. To which is answered 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is alwayes in it self infallible § 123. 2. That Divine Faith alwayes resolveth it self into Divine Revelation and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth without a process in infinitum or wheeling about in a Circile § 129. n. 1 § 132 143 144. 3 4. That such Divine Faith is alwayes wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit § 164. n. 2. 5 6. But attainable without any extrinsecal infallible Introductive or Proponent Neither that it is necessary that all men for the enjoying a Divine and saving Faith be first infallibly certain that the external proponent thereof is infallible § 127. c. 7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith and all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which no other Religion befides Christianity nor no other Sect or seducing private spirit in Christianity can pretend to § 135. 8. That a rational certainty or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith for this at least that the Scriptures are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein infallible is affirmed by all § 136. But further That an infallibility of the Church-Guides in necessaries as clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical is believed by Catholickes From which infallibility of the Church thus cleared to them they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is In many of which points those-others who believe only infallibility of Scripture are liable to miscarry § 140. Shewed from the precedents that no Circle is made in the Roman-Catholicks resolution either of a Divine or acquisite Faith § 143. c. The Conclusion Wherein of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants in persisting out of the Communion and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides of the Roman-Catholick Church IN this Query which follows concerning the Resolution of Faith wherein several Catholicks do variously express themselves according to their liberty of opinion unrestrained by any former Church definition and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification as it is hard to speak so distinctly as not in something to be misunderstood I have purposely quoted several Catholick Authors of good note in confirmation of what is delivered to remove from you all jealousie that any thing is said here new Heterodox or formerly censured by the Roman Church § 120 15ly In the last place it is further pressed Q. 15. That a moral certainty or if you will a moral infallibility could it perhaps be shewed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith which Catholicks do require as necessary For that they say that a Christian cannot with a right and a divine faith believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed unless he have an infallible or not possibly fallible assurance thereof nor can he have such infallible assurance unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations be so infallible Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible unless he be infallibly certain that it is a lawful General Council for all other inferior Councils Catholicks grant may err in their Definitions nor can he be infallibly certain of this unless he be so of all those things too without which Catholicks grant it is no General Council And if an infallible certainty also of all these things so far as it is necessary should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General because this Church-Tradition is held infallible It is asked again whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so where if it be said from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation It is still urged whence can any know infallibly either in particular that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise have such a sence as is-pretended or in General that the Scriptures containing such Texts are the infallible Word of God and here again if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sence of these particular Scriptures or in general of the Scriptures being divine from the tradition and testimony of the Church then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible and the former question returns as unsatisfied by the former answer viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures or from the former Texts will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle § 121 But if I proceed and say That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility much dilated on by Catholick Writers As From the multitude of those who have affirmed their receiving of

that all contained in S. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells me it is so and then believe that the Church telleth me true because God hath revealed in some one part of his Word that the Church in this shall not err here my faith is ultimately resolved again not into the Church's authority but the Divine Revelation concerning the Church But if 3ly I believe S. Matthew's Gospel true because the Church tells me so and again believe the Church's veracity in what it saith only from the forementioned prudential motives † §. 121. inducing me to believe so here I resolve my faith into these credible motives and this is no infused or divine but an humane and acquisite faith and the assent to the thing believed can rationally be no firmer or stronger then it is to these credible proofs thereof Thus then when the authority of the Relator is the same yet the things related are diversly believed by me according to the varying of those Grounds or that authority which the Relator urgeth to make them credible When a very credible person relates to me several things which he hath heard of two other persons of whom I have a very different esteem the one accounted by me very skilful and learned in his Art the other not so here I give an assent or belief to the words of these two persons though both related to me with the same fidelity very different much stronger to the related words of him whom I esteem as it were infallible in his skill much weaker to the others and I give a third assent different from both these to the veracity of the Relator or to the credibility of the person relating these things to me concerning them This being said of a divine faith in the several assertions precedent § 135 That it is produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost and grounded still on divine Revelation But that it is not necessary † §. 127 c. that such faith alwayes should have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes Yet 7ly It is also affirmed That there are morally-certain or infallible grounds or motives producible both for the Christian Religion and faith in General and for all the Articles thereof as they are believed in the Catholick Church which grounds or any equal to them no other Religion besides Christianity nor in Christianity no other Sect or seducing private Spirit out of the Catholick Church can possibly plead or pretend to So that though many seducing spirits as it were in emulation of the Holy One do use to pretend and set up themselves for assurers of a divine Faith and many times do effect so firm an adherence to most false Revelations as that from this persuasion many have exposed themselves even to suffer death in defence of their errors yet this ever remains a constant way of distinguishing to the world and to all mens reason a true divine faith wrought by God's holy Spirit from these counterfeit ones wrought by the evil Spirit that Catholicks for this divine faith which the Holy Ghost only works in them as to such a supernatural powerful and vivifical efficacy thereof yet alwayes have besides this many extrinsecal motives and assurances to render it I say not Divine which such motives cannot do but in reason credible and acceptable to themselves and others which no false Religion no false faith can produce or lay claim to I mean still the former Motives which whenas the internal plerophory of this faith wrought by the Spirit is not publickly conspicuous or manifestive abroad are a standing rational evidence of the verity of Christianity against all other Sects of Religion and against all Hereticks c. Only of these motives it is affirmed That without the operation of God's Spirit they are never able to found a divine faith And. That by the holy Spirit many times a divine faith is produced without the concurrence of them Concerning this see the former quotations § 133. And here first a rational certainty or morally infallible ground of a Christians faith for this point § 136 that the Scriptures I mean as to the main body of them those few books set aside which the Protestants call Apocryphal are the Word of God and consequently whatever is contained therein and all the Articles of the Christian faith that are grounded thereon infallible is affirmed by Protestants as well as Catholicks And 1st This certainty Protestants do affirm to arise from that plenary Church-Tradition which is found to have delivered these to be God's Word and Divine Revelation throughout all ages from the Apostles times which Apostles confirmed them with miracles Of which thus the Arch-Bp † p. 124. If you speak saith he to A. C. of assurance only in general and not of that by divine faith I must then make bold to tell you and it is the greatest advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe that such a City there is by Historical and acquired faith And if consent of humane story can assure me this why should not consent of Church story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God And again Certain it is saith he that by humane authority consent and proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habit of faith out non subest falsum i. e. speaking of an usual and constant moral certainty and non-falsity of things but he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine faith cui subesse non potest falsum i.e. speaking of an absolute possibility of falsity or mistake of things especially by the divine power interposing in which sence nothing is free from deception save Divine Revelation but by a divine testimony § 137 And Mr. Stillingfleet saith of the same tradition † p. 205 211 That the moral certainty that is therein ‖ p. 207. yields us a sufficient assurance that the matter delivered to us to be believed is infallibly true and considering the nature of moral things is a certainty as great and begetting as firm an assent as any certainty Mathematical or Physical the greatest Physical certainty saith he being as liable to question as moral there being as great a possibility of deception in that as a suspicion of doubt in this and oftentimes greater Though his discourse there † p. 207. That where God obligeth us to believe we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true because God cannot oblige men to believe a lye from whence he would prove that we have a sufficient assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true only from a moral certainty thereof If he

means infallibly true to us and applies infallibly not to the object but act of faith seems faulty Because God may oblige us to believe either a thing to be infallibly true i. e. as to us so as that there can be no possibility of our error in it or only most credibly so according to the proof or ground we have of such belief Therefore though it is true which he saith That God never obligeth us to believe i.e. to be absolutely true what is really a lye or false and true also that if we know that God obligeth us to believe a thing to be infallibly true we have the greatest assurance that such thing is infallibly true Yet so 1. Is this true that God obligeth us to believe nor for infallibly but only for most credibly true what is from those principles which right reason can attain of it only most credibly so And 2. So is this also true that God hath not obliged us to believe Christianity as infallibly true from the moral certainty we have thereof supposing that this moral certainty is not absolutely infallible I mean as to a possibility of the contrary Upon this supposition therefore that our moral certainty or assurance on which we ground the verity of Christian Religion involves a possibility of falshood God doth not oblige us to believe Christian Religion with an acquisite or rational faith from this evidence as freed from all possibility of falshood or as absolutely infallible but to believe in the same degree the one to be credible as we do the other in the same degree Christian Religion true as we do the ground thereof and no further And here Mr. Stillingfleet seems to incur the fault he imputes to others † Ibid. of making the conclusion surer than the premises if he would make Christian Religion by this way any whit more infallible than moral certainty is So also in the next page † p. 208. if he pretends to prove from that text of Scripture Joh. 16.13 any infallible assurance and not only a moral certainty to us of the Apostle's infallibility in the conveyance of Scripture himself must incur the Circle he objects to Catholicks For since we have this Text of Scripture only from their conveyance I cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of it till first so assured of their infallibility in conveying it 3ly It is true also That when reason is not rightly used by us and when that seems to us from false reasoning most credible which in right reason is not yet that here also God obligeth us to believe this the most credible but then he obligeth us to believe this most credible hypothetically only and upon supposition that our reasons and reasonings are good and therefore we are obliged by him herein only to believe a truth namely this thing to be most credible hypothetically c. though the thing which we believe thus hypothetically most credible is absolutely not true As also God obligeth us to follow an erroneous conscience Neither do we sin in this following it to which God obligeth us and which we do only upon supposition that it is not erroneous for if we knew it erroneous we might not follow it but we sin in not better informing it where God also obligeth us to the contrary But to let these things pass I grant what Protestants affirm That the moral evidence we have from Tradition is sufficient to produce such an assurance of Christian Religion as God requires us to have of it by an acquisite and rational faith and that both this evidence of the truth of Christian Religion and our faith built on it are morally infallible This of the sufficient certainty of Church-Tradition concerning Scripture and so concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith that are built thereon affirmed by Protestants Upon which ground also they freely grant † See Chillingw p. 114. Stillingf p. 216. That if any other point wherein they dissent from Catholicks can be proved by as universal a Tradition as that of the Scriptures they will subscribe to it § 138 2. Again the same sufficient certainty Catholicks also affirm to be in Church Tradition for what it delivers but withall they urge many motives of credibility concurring in it † See before §. 121. which are not so much insisted on by Protestants some of which motives may add to a Tradition of a less latitude a moral certainty as great or greater from the dignity of the persons as a more universal Tradition may have from the multitude of Testators amongst which motives also are the miracles done in several ages by such persons And by these motives also Catholicks affirm * that the true Religion may be rationally evident and discerned from all false ones whether they be within or without the pale of Christianity none of which Sects can produce like evidence for their faith and * that by these our faith is demonstrated a rational service Rom. 12.1 1 Pet. 3.15 These motives likewise are acknowledged by them to be the ultimate resolution of an humane faith which is begotten by them and that in respect of such a faith they are the formal principle of believing nor that such faith doth exceed the certitude of this principle and that the assent we yeild to the Articles which we believe only on this account is no stronger or certainer than these motives be on which it is grounded All which things as Protestants earnestly contend for † See Stillingf p. 137. 140. Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 61. so there seems no reason why they should be denied them Of this matter thus the fore-quoted Author Layman out of Scotus and others ‖ Theol. moral p. 183. Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solumodò humanâ credit And Authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti which we learn from Divine Revelation the Scripture's being the Word of God first supposed sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi fide humanâ And Accedit quòd assensus cognoscitivus non potest excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur § 139 This is said concerning a sufficiently certain evidence in Church-Tradition c. agreed on both by Catholicks and Protestants That the Scriptures at least the books of it called by Protestants Canonical are the Word of God But then 2ly The Protestant's declining the admission of Church-Traditions that are less universal than that of Scripture is thought unreasonable 1. Because of two Traditions whereof one appears more universal than the other yet the lesser also may have a sufficient certainty in it whereon to build a rational belief and hence Protestants may have reason enough to admit several other Traditions though not all equally universal or any so universal as that of the Scriptures For the wars of Caesar and Pompey descend by a more universal

Tradition namely that both of Christians and Mahometans than this that the Bible is God's Word and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence and Protestants themselves † See Disc 2. §. 40. n. 2. do both allow and practise several Traditions as Apostolical which yet have not the same fulness of Tradition as the Scriptures nor indeed more than several of those points have whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition 2. Again the Tradition of a smaller number of persons if eminent in sanctity and miracles and other forenamed † §. 121. motives of credit may be as or more credible than that of a greater number not so qualified Of several other Traditions then what or how many in particular carry a sufficient fulness and evidence in them though all do not the same to beget a rational belief this after the Church's authority once established by Scripture and Tradition private men may safely learn from the same Church § 140 But 8ly This certainty of Tradition allowed by Protestants for Scripture's being God's Word and whatever is contained in it infallible seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof because wherever the sence of these Scriptures is ambiguous it will still be uncertain whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sence which only is God's Word or on the mistaken sence which is not so Next therefore Catholicks proceed farther yet And both from the same Scriptures thus established and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles for which see the proofs given before Disc 1. § 7. Disc 2. § 17. Disc 3. § 7. 87. c. do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church or its Governours for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith from which they do most firmly believe and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them as it is in this other of the Churches infallibility And from this infallibility of the Church believed all the definitions of the same Church that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversie and that are delivered by her as infallible and Divine Revelations are straight believed as such and among others these points also when the Church defines them in any doubtful case what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures or what are Traditions Apostolical § 141 Thus if I first receive and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition afterward from this Church-infallibility defining it I may become straight assured of the Canon of Scripture Or 2ly If I receive and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility afterward from this infallibility defining it I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned Again when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures afterward I may become from its definitions setled in the belief of all those Articles of faith wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures though believed by me before the Churches infallibility yet being ambiguous in their sence which sence properly and not the words is the Divine Revelation can beget no certain and firm faith in me until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating from God's Spirit assisting it the traditive sence of them to me So that though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church yet in so many points wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me I receive the firmness of my faith in them not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word but of the Church expounding them If then the Scripture or Tradition-Apostolick be clearer for this of Church-infallibility than for some other points of faith that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points who believes the Church infallible than another who believes only Scripture so and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points when the other not only may err in his Faith but become heretical in his error by opposing the definition of the Church So had the Arrians and Nestorians believed the Church infallible this Article of their faith firm and stedfast had preserved them from Heresie in some others § 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholicks Faith by reason of this Church-infallibility for many points wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates and varies For whilst the Protestant only extends and makes use of the certitude of the Church Tradition as to one of these points the delivery of the Scriptures and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition written in the Scriptures or unwritten for the other point the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted in the exposition of the same Scriptures and in the discerning of true Traditions And again while the sence of these Scriptures in many weighty points as experience shews hath been and is controverted the Protestant here for so many of these points as are upon such misinterpretation of Scripture defined by the Church in the definition of which Church assisted as he believes by the holy Ghost the Catholick remains secure hath no rational Anchor nor ground of confidence in his faith but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgment concerning the sence of God's Word and truth of Tradition and that judgment of his too for several points of his faith going against the judgment and exposition of the major part of the present Church and against his Superiors Where the last refuge Protestants betake themselves to ordinarily is this that they say In all things necessary the sence of Scripture is not ambiguous but clear enough to the unlearned and that in points not necessary there is no necessity of a right faith or of any decision of controversies and so no need of an infallible Church or any unerring Guide save Scripture which defence hath been examined in Disc 2. § 38. c. § 143 The sum of what hath been said here is this 1st I take it as a principle agreed on That a divine is such a faith as quatenus divine ultimately resolves it self into Divine Revelation § 144 2ly There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian which may be not to all the same but to some one to some another beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further and for proving or confirming which Revelation he can produce no other divine Revelation but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running

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 pract●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 b● Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and

my faith § 2 Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule which in this point you do not Soc. However I believe in this point truly or falsly I am secure that my faith is entire as to all necessary points of faith Prot. How so Soc Because as Mr. Chillingworth saith † p. 23. p. 159 367. He that believes all that is in the Bible all that is in the Scriptures as I do believes all that is necessary there Prot. This must needs be true but meanwhile if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you or the true sence of some part of that you know for the Scripture as that Author notes † Chill p. 87. is not so much the words as the sence be mistaken by you how can you say you believe all the Scriptures For when you say you believe all the Scripture you mean only this that you believe that whatsoever is the true sence thereof that is God's Word and most certainly true which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing or also your believing the contrary to the true sence thereof and then you not believing the true sence of some part of it at least may also not believe the true sence of something necessary there which is quite contrary to your conclusion here § 3 Soc. † Chill p. 18. I believe that that sence of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is is certainly true And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths against which I err Next † Chill Ib. I do my best indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence thereof By my best indeavour I mean † Chill p. 19. such a measure of industry as humane prudence and ordinary discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Of using which endeavour also I conceive I may be sufficiently certain for otherwise I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures this due indeavour being the condition which Protestants require that I shall not be as to all necessaries deceived in the sence of Scripture Now being conscious to my self of such a right endeavour used † Chillingw p. 102. For me to believe further this or that to be the true sence of some Scriptures or to believe the true sence of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my faith or salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed † Chill p. 18.92 For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a tyrant § 4 Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 ● But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles † Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine † Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpretor no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sence of Scripture also which I embrace a sence you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the preface to his book de uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum liter●ram testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firm●ssimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostritenuitatem sublevat c Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilia adeo quidem ut eorum vim de●linare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut à verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression other texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socinians maintain Joh. 14.28 17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their cause but to shew their confidence § 7 Prot. O strange presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sence of these Scriptures because you strongly perswade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is

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 pla●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 contain●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 th● s●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-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 des●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 w●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

p. 506. 537. No authority on earth can oblige to internal assent in matters of faith or to any farther obedience than that of silence Prot. Yes you stand obliged to yield a conditional assent at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts i. e. unless you can bring evident Scriptures or Demonstration against them Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this I find indeed the Arch-Bp † §. 32 n. 5. §. 33. Consid 5. n. 1. requiring evidence and demonstration for inferiors contradicting or publishing their dissent from the Councils decrees but not requiring thus much for their denial of assent and I am told ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48. 49. Division of Churches p. 45. That in matters proposed by my Superiors as God's Word and of faith I am not tyed to believe it such till they manifest it to me to be so and not that I am to believe it such unless I can manifest it to be contrary because my faith can rest on no humane authority but only on God's Word and divine Revelation And Dr. Field saith † p. 666. It is not necessary expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council Till I am convinced then of my error the obedience of silence is the most that can be required of me § 20 But 6ly I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither considering my present perswasion that this Council manifestly erred and that in an error of such high consequence concerning the unity of the most high God as is no way to be tolerated and I want not evident Scriptures and many other unanswerable Demonstrations to shew it did so and therefore being admitted into the honourable function of the Ministery I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an higher authority to publish this great truth of God and to contradict the Councils decree § 21 Prot. But you may easily mistake that for evident Scripture and those for Demonstrations that are not Concerning which you know what the Arch-Bp and Mr. Hooker say † Ap. Lawd 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them † Id. p. 227. You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors or to the Church desiring a redress of such error by her calling another Council And if these Superiors acquainted therewith dislike your demonstrations which the definition saith if they be right ones they must be by all and therefore by them assented to methinks though this is not said by the Arch-Bp in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations and remain in silence at least and no further trouble the Church Soc. May therefore no particular person or Church proeed to a Reformation of a forme doctrin if these Superiors first complained to declare the grounds of such persons or Churches for it not sufficient Prot. I must not say so But if they neglect as they may to consider their just reasons so diligently as they ought and to call a Council for the correcting of such error according to the weight of these reasons then here is place for inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such error without them Soc. And who then shall judge whether the reasons pretended are defective or rather the present Church negligent in considering them Prot. Here I confess to make the Superiors Judges of this is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his grievance these Superiors whose faith appears to adhere to the former Council being only Judges in their own cause and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing † Still p 479.292 Soc. The inferiors then that complain I suppose are to judge of this To proceed then To these Superiors in many diligent writings we have proposed as we think many unanswerable Scriptures and reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our party to the former Nicen Council and therefore from which evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary sentence and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this point we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church Pastor or Bishop for to reform for themselves and the souls committed to them in an error appearing to them manifest and intolerable as for the Protestants or for Dr. Luther to have done the same for Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass and other points that have been concluded against the truth by several former Councils Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils as that of Nice was Soc. Whatever these Councils were this much matters not as to a reformation from them for had they been lawfully General yet Protestants hold † See before Disc 3. §. 34. c. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in non-fundamentals errors manifest and intolerable and so may be appealed from to future and those not called their error presently rectified by such parts of Christianity as discern it and also S. Austine † De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c. is frequently quoted by them saying That past General Councils erring may be corrected by other Councils following § 22 Prot. But I pray you consider if that famous Council of Nice hath so erred another Council called may it also not err notwithstanding your evidences proposed to it For though perhaps some new Demonstrative proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained yet you will not deny this sufficient evidence to have been extant for that most learned Council to have seen the truth having then the same entire rule of faith as you now the Scriptures in which you say your clearest evidences lye for their direction When a future Council then is assembled and hath heard your plea will you assent to it and acquiesce in the judgment thereof Soc. Yes interposing the Protestant-conditions of assent if its decree be according to God's Word and we convinced thereof Prot. Why such a submission of judgement and assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing whereof you are convinced by me may this future Council then challenge no further duty from you why then should the Church be troubled to call it Soc. † Stillingf p. 542. Though this future Council also should err yet it may afford remedy against inconveniences and one great inconvenience being breaking the Church's peace this is remedied by its authority if I only yield the obedience of silence thereto Prot. But if your obedience oblige not to silence converning Councils past because of your new evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err

and either these evidences remain still unsatisfied Or these satisfied yet some other new ones appear to call for a new consideration Soc. † Stillingf ib. Because it may also err it follows not it must err and it is probable that it shall not err when the former error is thus discovered and if the Council proceed lawfully be not over-awed c. † Idem p. 526 But however if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence yet I not convinced of the truth of its decree this silence is the uttermost that any future Council after its rejecting my reasons can justly exact of me and not belief or assent at all it may not oblige me that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all but that not divulge it whereas now by the Acts of former Councils I would gladly know upon what rational ground an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresie meerly for retaining this opinion which retaining it is called obstinacy and contumacy in me after the Councils contrary Definition CONFERENCE IV. 4. His Plea for not being guilty of Heresie § 23 4 PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath alwayes been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many wayes of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it † p. 271. being not an erring but an obstinate defence of an error not of any error but of one against a necessary or fundamental Article of the Christian faith 1st Though this which I hold should be an error and that against a Fundamental yet my silence practiced therein can never be called an obstinate defence thereof and therefore not my tenent an Heresie 2ly Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons and as Mr. Chillingworth saith † No Catalogue thereof p. 134. that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him † p. 98 99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assigne what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations § 24 to those that were without Law or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say † Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean onely this That all Fundamentals i. e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For † I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all fundamentals I cannot incur Heresie which is opposit to some fundamental † Chilling p. 367. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked * Id. p. 101 and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamentall or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sence you can have no security in your Fundamentall or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most general Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamentall Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter † p. 97 The Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the divine authority of Gods written word And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yeilds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the

former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide for the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n. 1. Not any certain living Guide 1. Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2. Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Decrees better than the Scriptures 3. From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schism made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guid held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replyed then 1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 41. 2. That the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 42. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrins of these Guides § 43. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversie the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governours whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a par● unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE THIRD DISCOURSE Examining What measure of obedience is due to these Guides and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies The CONTENTS Chap. 1. ROman Catholicks and Protestants do agree 1. That the Scriptures speaking of those books by the Protestants stiled Canonical are the Word of God § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church Catholick of no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church Catholick is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks go on and affirm 5. That the Church Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Shall never err in necessaries not taken for those that are absolutely required but for all that are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Shall never err in them not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former revelations and Traditions wherein they affirm that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General and obliging a Christian may safely rely on the General judgment of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular persons or Churches parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgment and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole § 14. Chap. 3 11. That whatever particular person or Church holds the contrary to any known definition passed in a matter of Faith of any lawful General Council is Heretical § 16. 12. That any particular person or Church which for any cause whatever doth actually relinquish and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholick is Schismatical § 20. 13. But yet That several persons or Churches coordinate may without Schism differ in any thing opinion or practise wherein they are not obliged to accord by their Common Superiors or by the whole § 23. Chap. 4. But Protestants after the four first propositions conceded in some sence do thus indeavour to qualify and restrain them 5. In granting the Catholick Church in all ages unerrable in necessaries they understand only such few Necessaries without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained § 24. 6. Therefore also they affirm that though the Church Catholick cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation yet it or all particular Churches in som one age or ages may in others the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief points from which Protestants dissent were General Tenents and practices

another and so a just fear of less integrity Lastly if these against the whole can have any authority the proceedings of General Councils in condemning and exercising Ecclesiastical Censures against them as subjects to those Courts have bin unjust which yet those General Councils universally allowed have used not only against Bishops but Patriarchs and the Clergy joined with them And the Churches Decrees thus will be necessarily obligatory never but when the Governours thereof to a man or to every particular Church or Society of Church-men are all of a mind Neither can the people when the Ecclesiastical Court which consists of many Judges is any way divided tell which to obey if our Saviours Promise be only to some certain Guides we know not in how small a number because they know not whether our Saviours promise of Indefectibility even in necessaries belongs not to the more inconsiderable part thereof He that appoints us to follow a Guide in what it shall enjoin us and then leaves us no way when our Guide consists not of one but many persons and particular Churches and when two parties of them contradict one another and guide us contrary wayes to know which of them is to be our Guide it is all one as if he left us no Guide and he that ties us besides our own judgment in doubtful matters to obey and follow only some Ecclesiastical person or other not obliging us to the most or major part to the Superiour rather than an inferior person or Court revolves our obedience in any division of our Governours only to our own Judgment i. e. to chuse that side which we judge is most conformable to Scripture as we follow the Counsel of that friend who we think speaks most reason But can this be called any obebedience to his authority and then left to this choice what opinion can our selves take up that is so absurd in which we cannot finde some Clergy or other for our Leaders This concerning these Protestant-Divines allowing an absolute Promise of Indefectibility as to Necessaries made to and always verified in some Persons or also some Body and Society or other of the Clergy i.e. of the Church-Guides but not to these always in such a capacity as that they are in the Churches constitutions and traditions to be our Guides these Orthodox-Guides as they suppose being perhaps in some Ages a very small number nor those of the highest rank in comparison of the rest CHAP. V. III. Other Expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Prelacie as defining her Doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in Necessaries § 32 when accepted by the Church Vniversal § 32. The Expressions of * Dr. Potter § 33. * Of Bishop Bramhall § 34. Where III. 3. Other expressions of Protestant-Divines granting the Churches Clergy as defining her doctrines Or the General Councils of them to be unerrable in necessaries But then only when universally accepted no considerable persons or at least Churches dissenting concerning what Judgment of the Church sufficiently obligeth her subjects in respect 1st of the Church-Catholick diffusive § 36. n. 1. 2ly of Councils General § 36. n. 3. 3ly of Councils Occidental § 36. n. 8. Where particularly of the Freedom of the Council of Trent § 36. n. 9. * Of Bishop Lawd § 37. Where concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church-diffusive is only necessary § 38. * Of Dr. Field § 40. III. BUt thirdly several other Expressions may be found in some of them wherein they would seem to go further yet and to allow That the Church-Catholick taken in general or in her greatest Body of Clergy as she is a Canonical Guide and as she teacheth and defineth doctrines can never err in Necessaries or Fundamentals But whether all their expressions cohere one with another or whether their opinion when strongly assaulted will not retreat and resolve it self into the first or second already explained I conclude nothing § 33 For this see first that of Dr. Potter § 2. p. 28. Where he saith Expressions Of Dr. Potter The Church Catholick is confessed in some sence i. e. in Fundamentals as he explaineth it afterward § 5. p. 148 c. to be unerring and he is litle better than a Pagan that despiseth her judgment For she follows her Guides the Prophets and Apostles and is not very free and forward in her Definitions Here we hear of Definitions and Iudgment of the Church Catholick that are to be followed Therefore I infer that such judgment may be known So § 4. p. 97. The Catholick Church saith he is careful to ground all her Declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine authority of Gods written Word and therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick Then he addeth not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him Where I do not see but that whoso believeth this in general as all ought that the Church Catholick alwaies groundeth her Declarations in matters of Faith on Divine Authority though every particular Declaration of hers is not cleared to him that it is so well grounded yet must needs wilfully and self-convicted oppose her judgment and so incur Heresie But however he is or is not an Heretick who dissents from such Decrees yet by the Doctor all those it seems are secured as for necessary Truth that do obey and adhere to them And § 5. p. 169. If in any thing saith he General Councils erre and mistake the Vniversal Church hath means of remedy either by antiquating those Errors with a general and tacit consent General Consent therefore such Decree of a General Council to tender it non-obligatory must be at least tacitly reversed by a major part of the Church Catholick else if any single Church's reversion serves the turn to annull the Obligation thereof no Churches are obliged to such Decrees further than they please Or by representing her self again in another General Council which may view and correct the Defects of the former Here are two ways of the Church Catholick's correcting the Errors of her Representative the Council 1. Either by generally not observing or practising their Decrees 2. Or by condemning them by another Representative therefore I gather where the Church Catholick neither by another general Council contradicts such assembly nor in her most general practice or Doctrines varies from its Decrees the definitions and judgment of such a General Council are admitted as the definitions and judgment of the Church Catholick Or else there is no way of knowing what or which are so Ib. After that p. 141. he hath spoken of the present Church-Catholick her being as a Candlestick to present and hold out the light to us and p. 143. of her being a witness and an Instrument for working Faith in us he p. 148 149 156. accords as he saith with some moderate Roman Writers That the

Extent of the Infallibility of this Church i. e. in defining p. 156. reacheth to all matters Essential and fundamental simply necessary for the Church to know and believe But not so to all her Doctrines and Definitions And p. 155. The Vniversal Church saith he hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in unnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is fundamental and necessary Where Defining Adding Taking away c. argue that he speaks here of the present Church Catholick which he affirms to be infallible in Fundamentals in relation to the main Body of her Governour 's being so § 34 Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 9. speaks much what on the same manner If saith he of two particular Churches Of Bishop Bramhall the one retain a communion with the Vniversal Church and be ready to submit to the Determinations thereof the other renounce the communion of the Vniversal Church and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and Decrees thereof the former continues Catholick and the latter becomes Schismatical Or as he expresseth it in Schism-guarded p. 2. That Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce after a Legal Determination and cease to disturb the Christian Vnity though her Judgment may be sound yet her practice is schismatical And afterward We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the Judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council Here the Bishops submitting and standing to the judgment and determinations of the Church Vniversal or a free General Council were it now called argues him to hold the present Church Catholick in such Councils as a Guide and Lawgiver infallible in Fundamentals or at least whose judgment in all points is finally to be stood to so far as not to contradict it and his pronouncing Schismaticks to be no Catholicks argues that this Church Universal may be also narrower than Christianity is Add to this what he saith below p. 26. That by disbelieving any Fundamental Article or necessary part of saving Faith in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the Vniversal Church a man renders himself guilty of Heresie Here he declares one an Heretick not only in his disbelieving a necessary point of Faith but in disbelieving in in that sense wherein the Church Catholick hath alwaies believed it which sense in the former quotation he holds is to be received and learned from her Councils Again In his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon speaking of the Catholick Church in present Being he saith ‖ p. 279. I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the world doth believe and practise And afterward Though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgment I do farther profess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church in present bein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me and Ibid. in the Preface I submit saith he my self and my poor endeavours first to the judgment of the Catholick Oecumenical Essential Church And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorance which for my part I have no reason to suspect yet it is not impossible c. therefore Catholick doth not necessarily include all Sects professing Christianity I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit my self to the true Catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the pillar of Truth And after this he professeth That his adherence is firmer to the infallible Rule of Faith the holy Scriptures interpreted by this Catholick Church i. e. firmer to its interpretation than to his own private judgment So in his Reply to S. W. p. 43. We acknowledge saith he the Representative Church that is a General Council and the Essential Church that is the multitude or multitudes of Believers either of all ages which make the Symbolical Church or of this age which makes the present Catholick Church And Ib. We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present Age doth universally believe and practise ‖ See Schism guarded p. 398. Surely from these Protestations it followes * that he supposeth that such a Church there is in this present age that may deliver her judgment Else his promise to believe and to submit to it is utterly unsignificant and * that he holds this Church not errable in Fundamentals else her judgment in them could not by him be safely followed And if you would know also §. 35. n. 1. what present Body he understandeth by this present Catholick Church to which he will yield his submission and beliefe he tells the Bishop of Chalcedon ‖ p. 279. That it is not the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents but the Church of the whole world Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssine Russian Protestant which Churches i. e. Grecian c. are three times greater than the Roman is But if you think the present Church Catholick in this vast amplitude a Judge not likely to resolve his doubts He in the Preface to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon very conscientiously adds also I submit my self to the Representative Church a free General Council or so general as can be procured And in pursuance of the same Notion of General Schisme Guarded p. 350. he saith That the presence of the five Proto-Patriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their Suffrages or in case of necessity the greater part of them do make a General Council And That we may well hope that God who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his Name there will he be in the midst of them will vouchsafe to give his assistance and his blessing to such a Council which is as general as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly general as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe That he shall ever be ready to acquiesce in the Determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had so it may be equal c. Naming several conditions thereof Equal Votes of Christian Nations Absents sending their Suffrages The place free wither all parties may have secure access and liberty to propose freely and define freely yet consenting ‖ p. 352. That none declared Hereticks by former true General Councils be admitted to any vote in them and ‖ p. 401. that all those be held for excluded from the communion of the Catholick Church whom undoubted General Councils have excluded He addes yet further reflecting on Dr. Hammond's words ‖ Answ to Catho Gentl. 3 c. §. 1. That Oecumenical or General Councils are now morally impossible to be had The Christian world being under so many Empires and

being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those

a manifold Idolatry in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread the Relicks and Images of Saints and making Prayers to them were they not the same in the Church before Luther and the same their effect Or if the same Errors then light are now become grievous Upon what account Is it upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now than heretofore that such are Errors But what ground can we have to say that they now culpably and convincibly err in these who no more than those before Luther can be accused for holding any Errors save such as are the Publick Faith of the Church now authorized as much as that before Luther and who to preserve themselves from erring make use of the securest way that Reason can imagine or that Christians are prescribed whilst for the sence of the Scriptures controverted in such Points they chuse not to rely on their own judgment but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church and Judges of divine Truth that are afforded them here on earth and so if they err yet take the wisest course to miss erring that Religion or Reason can dictate To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgment to be due and to be commanded which is a very plausible one if an Error From whence also it follows that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point of Submission not to be due they are not capable of being convinced in any other where it is required Nay yet further to the Obedience of which Guides at least for silence and non-contradiction they are obliged even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 3. § 44. where-ever they cannot demonstrate the contrary which demonstration is a degree of Conviction surely very few can pretend to § 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants ‖ Stillingf P. 330. Archbishop Lawd § 21. n. 5. That all Particular Churches or the whole Catholick Church in some age or ages may universally hold some Tenent that is an Error but then granted by them That any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence or Being of the Church Catholick or render it non Catholick because thus in such age the Church Catholick would fail Now from this I collect my security ni holding any Tenents though they should happen to be Errors which were universally held in the Church before Luther that as they destroy not the Church it's being still Catholick so neither do they expell me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholick And hence for example I am secured that I am no Idolater if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines because the Church whilst Catholick as she is affirmed to be is not such But in joining with a Church that pretending to reform holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenents I am not here secure but that some of these Tenents may be such Errors as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholick and me if adhering to it from being a Member thereof as the maintaining by the Arrians and others of some Tenents contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church hath separated them from the Church Catholick I say for any Tenent I can shew to have been spread over the whole Catholick Church at Luther's appearance I am secured by Protestants that in holding this I am free from Heresie or being rendred thereby extra-Catholick But then I am not so in my entring into a new Society that contradicts this Church and such Tenents except in such Points of the truth of which I am infallibly certain 2. Again it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made without Schism § 52 from the external communion of all particular Churches some of which or all which I say See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw c. 5. §. 52 55 56 59. must be the Catholick of some age for some Points if held and imposed by them viz. Those Points wherein the Essence and Union of the Church Catholick consisteth not because in such the Church Catholick may err but cannot without Schism for other Points viz. such as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholick wherein she erreth not for so she would cease to be Catholick Now from hence also I gather that I continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches can never be non-Catholick or guilty in concurring in any Schism for my holding and conforming to any of the Church's universal Tenents because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholick still ‖ But in my separation from all these Churches imposing such Tenents I am not secure because some of these Tenents as Protestants grant may possibly be such as are some part of the necessary Catholick Faith and so my separation if made on such account is Schism § 54 This security then they seem to enjoy who live and die in the Communion of the unreformed And danger to those deserting it Western or Roman Church before or since Luthers times they being acquitted thereby from Heresie and Schism or any other error damnative to them who therein follow their spiritual Guides not against Conscience But the like I see not how any may promise to himself in living and dying in a new-raised Communion and in deserting the former especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines and practises thereof which if not enjoin'd he here left to his free liberty hath no reason for these to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole but if enjoyned ought in these to submit to the judgment of the whole especially so many as cannot demonstrate against it ‖ See 2 Disc §. 20. to submit at least so far as if not to assent yet not to contradict All which are transgressed in following the Reformation where such a person for the sence of the Scriptures controverted and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith either relies on his own judgment or in submitting to a Guide follows inferior against Superior Governors or Synods or a Minor against a much major part Lastly follows those who have refused conformity to the external Communion even to the Liturgies and publick service of the whole former Catholick Church whether Eastern or Western and have set up a new one against them of their own which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole I say I see no security any can have in such a new Communion excepting that which invincible ignorance affords which in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils God knows how few especially of the Learned that peruse the Writings of former times it may shelter The most moderate §. 55. n. 1. and plausible defence which Protestants or to speak more particularly which the Church of England makes for her discession Where A brief Relation of the

Protestants defence and reformation is this 1st That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith common to them with the rest of the Church Catholick the Holy Scriptures and besides these a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed and explicated by the first three Ages i. e. the writings we have thereof and the first four-General Councils And that in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule they rest secure of believing all that is necessary for salvation and likewise of their retaining a firm-Communion as to the essentials of Faith with the whole Catholick Church and even with that of Rome 2ly That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholick but not the whole Catholick Church one part only of the Catholick Church as also the Church of England is another 3ly That this Roman or any other part of the Church Catholick may err whilst it still remains a part of the Catholick in non-fundamentals or non-essentials and necessaries 4 ly That this part did err in such non-fundamentals and that grievously and that the Protestants or Church of England discovered these to be such grievous errors by the light of Scripture and testimony of Antiquity 5 ly That this Roman Church added this also to her erring that she exercised an unlawful dominion or jurisdiction over the Church of England and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors upon pain of losing her Communion 6 ly That the Church of England refused such assent to what by clear Scripture she had discovered to be Errors as in conscience she was bound though these had bin never so small ones nay though some of them were no Errors yet if she were perswaded they were so how much more when so great 7 ly Proceeded after mature consideration to reform these Errors but in her self only not imposing them upon or condemning by reason of them any other Church for non-Catholick 8 ly Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Romane Church that she left a part only and not the whole Catholick Church yet that were it supposed to have bin the whole or their departure to have bin from the whole also as well as from it that the whole though granted in Fundamentals infallible yet may err in non-fundamentals or non-essentially necessaries and that grievously and consequently if it should require assent from its members to such points in which it is fallible that they ought not to assent thereto nor to conceal if of consequence when they any way discover such Error nay further also that if the General Church neglect it they may and ought for themselves to reform such Error But this Plea seems easily overthrown §. 55. n. 2. in many of its particulars by this following Remonstrance made by the other side And of the Catholicks Remonstrance 1 To the first It is replied 1 That there is a faith of Agends or Practicals concerning what is lawful and unlawful and what is our duty to do or forbear as well as of speculative credends which faith is necessary and fundamental for attaining salvation and in which practical points also may be and have bin Heresies and Schisms I say the faith of them necessary because the practice of them is so which must be grounded on this faith that they are lawful or ought to be practised 2 That these points are of a much larger extent then the speculatives and that of these we have no Collection or Summary drawn up by the Apostles as we have of the other 3 That as these Protestants say they do not for the speculative Credends rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed or any private sence of Scriptures but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils and do place the security of their Faith in them not on their own judgment but on their conformity to the judgment of these Councils so it is all reason that for the practicalls also they should rely on the Scriptures only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils 4 That for both these speculatives or practicals as they do or ought to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils so * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone but do owe it also to any Councils of the Church following in any age whatsoever provided that these be of equal authority To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith either in speculatives or practicals as new Heresies did after three ot four hundred years time to the Explications made by those first Councils and * that for the speculative Articles of the Apostles Creed particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils after the four first and these too Western Councils only when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them and that as the Greeks say upon not a verbal but real diversity in their faith concerning this procession yet it seems the Protestants here preferr'd and thought fit to adhere rather to the authority of the Western Churches From all which it follows that if the Protestants dissent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age in either of these speculative or practical Articles of their faith that are necessary of which necessity it is fit also the Council not they should judge they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith so as no way to have fallen from it into Heresie or Schism no more then they will acknowledge Arrians and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils And thus is the Protestants security of their faith if any way built or dependent on the first Councils so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils of what Ages soever in all their Definitions Again 6 since Schismaticks I mean those that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiours by whom in a line of subordination they are joyned to the Head as well as Hereticks are no members of the Catholick Church and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion but may arise upon smaller matters and occasions ‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond Schism 3 c. 3. and §. 9. §. 55. n. 3. any wherein obedience is due and the lesser the occasion of it the more criminal many times the Schism therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence that becaus they agree with the whole Catholick Church in the Essentials of faith hence they do still remain in its Communion This said to the first 2 ly To what follows it

from one another all concurring in the same judgment for a corporal Presence and a substantial mutation Or can there be any new Light in this Point since there are no new Revelations attainable in these present times which those were not capable of Or if there could is not much the major part of the present Clergy and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity still swayed on the same side against any present evidence pretended If we consider saith Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 13. n. 2 3. Gods great and wise and constant Providence and Care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful Servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit Scandals and False Teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly Servants If I say we consider these and some other such like General Promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the Errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should err in matter of faith I add to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without idolatry practise and therein find approbation and reception among all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostle's Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the General approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong Argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his Servants to fall into that Temptation Thus Dr. Hammond whose words I desire may be seriously considered with application to this great Controversie of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass We do not believe saith the same Doctor ‖ Ibid §. 14. n. 6. that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith ‖ See before §. 56. n. 2. We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free General Council ‖ Vind. c 2. p. 9. Or in defect of that a free Occidental Council ‖ Schism Guarded p. 136 saith Bishop Bramhal It seems very fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom that a general Council supposed thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or demonstration make the Errors to appear as that another Council of equal authority reverse it Saith Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ p. 227. Again An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the Mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think on to say it is demonstrative the light of a demonstrative Argument is the evidence which it hath in its self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a quarrel be made as was by Berengarius four or five times Who shall decide it No question but a General Council For if it be evident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly its probable it s no Demonstration and the Producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church ‖ Pag. 245 246. Thus Arch-bishop Lawd How then I say in the present point can the reformed reviving the former Arguments of Bertram Scotus Erigena Berengarius c. still trouble the Church again with urging of them after the judgment of so many Councils already passed upon them If the reformed tie us to obedience as of assent when the Council brings evident Scripture or Demonstration so of Silence when we cannot bring it against the Council and after our bringing what we think Demonstrative tie us to stand to the judgment of the Council whether it be so or no From hence it follows that as we may not gain-say a second Council after our Demonstrations proposed and disallowed by it so we may not gain-say the former or the very first Council if we produce no new demonstrations but such as were considered by such Council and rejected Now if Councils are thus to judg of Demonstrations brought against their former Decrees and the Contradictour to acquiesce in their judgment Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils in any matter for silencing future disputes if not for uniting variety of opinions than there have already bin of this And is there any reason that Protestants should refer themselves in this point as they do to the judgment of a new Council If all these Councils successively erred in this point so manifestly as that they could not lawfully oblige their subjects especially bringing no new Arguments to silence the next and the next to that of such Councils as ever we can hope for may err so too and the same obedience of silence be denied to them whilst one pretended Evidence or Demonstration quelled another new one starts up and demands satisfaction § 60 But if these Councils be invalid for establishing the belief or at least the non-opposition of a substantial Conversion Let us see the proceedings of the Reformation here to repeal their Acts and establish the contrary to them After all these Councils forenamed and that of Trent added to them A. D. 1562. a Synod is called at London of two Provinces only of the West consisting of about twenty four Bishops and two Metropolitans And by these against all the former Councils abovesaid it is decreed ‖ Article 28. That the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament If then the rest of Christendom have no more then Protestants here say they have for many ages they have had no Sacrament of the Lords Supper amongst them Next in obedience to this their decree they tie their subjects not to silence or a non-contradiction of it but to subscribe ‖ Synod 1603 Can. 63 that they acknowledge it i. e. confess believe it to be agreeable to the Word of God i.e. to be true

accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3● c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art

from being in some of the fore-named respects necessary especially when he must do this against better Judgments whilst these Guides consulted about any particular decrees of theirs will never professe or grant to him to have passed it but as thought in respect of some times places or persons Christian-faith or manners edification of particulars or Government of the Church necessary This concerning the reasonablenesse of believing in all points those who are infallible in all Necessaries § 17 4ly Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled by the divine assistance so far as to distinguish exactly Necessaries 4. from non-Necessaries in all points so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions or proposals Yet it seems rationally concluded That they are always so far divinely assisted not only in their decisions not to err in Necessaries but also in their judgment to discern and distinguish them from others not necessary to be so much pressed and in their diligence to propose them as that they shall never fail in the discerning or proposing in their Creeds Catechisms and other publike teaching all more absolute necessaries or all points requisite to be explicitly believed for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known or to all taught never fail in proposing these I say so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church even the unlearned as that none can be ignorant thereof without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal which is in all times made by the Church § 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries is Because it seems most just and is on all sides accorded that all Necessaries wherein an explicite faith is required of all Christians should be to them by some means or other sufficiently proposed And then the dispute concerning this sufficient Proponent lying between the Scriptures and the Church for what other external Proponent can be devised of these two as to several of these Points the latter must be it 1st Because experience shews the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides ‖ Stillingf p. 58 59. So that tho' it be true which Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 18. 160 ●6 That he who believes all that is Scripture believes all Necessaries yet so it is that in many places of Scripture and that about points thought necessary when variously interpreted many unlearned especially know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places and thus fail in the explicit belief * of some part of Scrirture and so perhaps * of some Necessaries in it 2ly Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people belonged to the Church-Guides to Timothy Titus and others Nor seems their authority by the writing of the Christian faith diminished by which Writings also they are still more enabled compleatly to perform their former duty 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us in controversies and in learning our faith to the direction of these Guides See § 3. 4ly Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith cannot have this from Writings but must receive it from their Guides and Pastors as also they did in all those times before Christ when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned or also before any of them were penned § 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgments to these present guides in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith Prop. 8. according to the fifth Proposition preceding ‖ See §. 6. it seems reasonable that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters that are pretended any way ambiguous and so cannot end the Controversie made about their sense whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures or Fathers or former Councils of the Church And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal and Obligatory So that the ultimate determination of doubts * concerning all former Determinations and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith as well as * concerning new questions when Controversie is raised in them ought to be referred to these present Judges and their determinations hereupon so far as we can have them to be peaceably acquiesced in For if we ought to receive all that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith we ought also and may as securely credit them when declaring what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors § 20 9ly Protestants also agree that though these Guides may erre in some Points not necessary yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence and by no means to contradict them Prop. 9. or as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further ought to submit their Judgments also and yield their Assent to them even in those Definitions wherein these Guides are liable to Error whenever not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions so much is thought unreasonably exacted but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary In this matter thus Dr. Jackson in stating the Question whether the Injunction of publick Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion or action ‖ On the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. It is most evident saith he ‖ Ibid. c. 6. from the former places alledged ‖ Eph 4.11 Heb. 13.17 Luk. 10.16 Ioh. 20.23 Ib. concerning the Commission of Priests and Ministers that the lawful Pastor or Spiritual Overseer hath as absolute authority to demand Belief or Obedience in Christ's as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience in the State or Prince's Name And Our Disobedience i. e. Dissent or non-submission of Judgme is unwarrantable unlesse we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express Law of the most High Every Doubt or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's Law is not sufficient to deny Obedience Again We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what Obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever shews the express undoubted Command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them And so the donation of spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer Titles This he this others ‖

the priviledges of an undisturbed Ecclesiastical Government and which seems by reason of its numerous Clergy and populacy and extent of the arms of this body propagation of its faith into all the other quarters of the world to be the greatest part of Christianity that which hath bin alwais the most dignified by reason of S. Peters Chair From which for any of the Western Body to make an appeal out of these bounds to the present Eastern Churches now hindred by the great oppressor of Christianity there disturbed in the Exercise of any such Judicature and also much divided among themselves and who have not met in any Council for this eight hundred years save by sending at several times their delegates into the West For any I say to make an appeal from a Church flourishing in Government and discipline in learning and records of Antiquity the City still on a Hill and Candle on a Candlestick to seek for Votes among the Jacobites Maronites Caphtites Armenians Abyssines or Greek Churches c. several of them being suspected of ancient Heresies and if Hereticks no members of the Catholick Church appears nothing else but the refusal of a trial and avoiding the sentence of any such Guide and judge as Gods Providence hath afforded us and besides this is an Appeal where could those Churches now freely deliver their sentence and were now set on the Bench as this present Judge the Appealants can have no hopes of any success to their cause For that these Churches or at least the greatest Body of them as is shewed elsewhere ‖ Disc 3. §. 158. appear to keep as great a distance from the reformed as the major part of the Western Body doth § 37 3ly If the Councils that are extant and reputed for General since the first six or seven hundred years to the times of Luther's reformation shall be by any acknowledged either for General 3. or for the most universal that could well be convened or at least that are found actually to have bin convened a thing which I think though the testimony the present Church gives to them be made no use of the common veracity of History will clear to us besides that none hath any other Councils of an equal authority in these times to nominate and set up against them and those who demolish them do it without erecting or discovering to us any better or any besides I say if any think meet to relie on the judgment of these past Councils in the present matter these also will sufficiently evidence to us that the first of these Bodies fore-named is our present rightful Guide and Judge For since the Acts and Laws of such Councils are not only of force and obligatory to those present times wherein they sit but to all future Ages with the execution of which Acts and Decrees the succeeding Pastors and chief Governors of the Church in their several stations and residences in all following times stand charged till these are by an equal authority reversed It seems clear that in any division hapning afterward of these Pastors those are to be acknowledged our right Guides who own adhere to and propagate the Definitions and Laws of these former Councils Now this we see the first of these two Bodies doth as the latter renounceth them yet renounceth them without the producing of the patronage of any Councils at all in their stead pulling down as it were all the Church's Castles and Forts if I may call her Councils so against the incursions of errours and heresies that have bin built in several Ages for near a thousand years and yet shewing none other at all for Christians in the many points that have been disputed to repair to but leaving the sad Spectators of these their demolitions quite disheartned as diffiding in the Churches judgment so much decried for error and having yet more reason to distrust their own and so not knowing in this case whither to betake themselves for the setling of their Religion and conscience For surely this unerringness which the late Reformers have denied to those great Bodies of the Church they cannot in reason assume to those lesser Conventions of their own CHAP. V. The Pretended security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or personal Guide infallible in Necessaries Affirming That all necessary matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in Scripture and the Controversies in non Necessaries needless to be decided § 38. Necessaries clear in Scripture Because God hath left no other certain means or Guides for the knowledge of them § 39. n. 1. 1 No Guide which is infallible 2 Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from false or know and understand their decrees better than the Scriptures 3 Or which the Scriptures direct them to for learning Necessaries § 39. n. 2. The Reply 2. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their d●ssenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks But only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned and another Guide held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replied then 1. * Concerning the clearnesse of Scripture 1 That some of the Controversies in Religion since the Scriptures written have bin concerning Points necessary § 41. 2 That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture the more security Christians have in the Churches judgement § 42. 3 That there is no necessity that all Necessaries be revealed in Scripture clearly to all 1 Because it is sufficient If the Scriptures for the things doubtful therein direct to these Guides § 43. 2 Sufficient if such things be cleared to these Guides by other Apostolical Tradition § 44. 3 Or if the true sence of the Scriptures touching these matters be cleared to them by Tradition § ib. 4 Or if such sence be clear in the Scriptures themselves well examined and compared to them though not to all § 45. 2 y Concerning the Guide 1 That Scripture in what it is ambiguous cannot be a Guide § 49. n. 1. 2 That it is not necessary that Christians be in or by the Scriptures directed to another Guide ib. n. 2. 3 Yet that th●y are in the Scriptures so directed § 47. n. 3. 4 And may in many points more easily understand the sence of their decisions than of the Scriptures § 48. § 38 THe usual security that some of them give their followers α. is this α That all Controversies that arise in matters of Faith or in matters very profitable ‖ Chillingw p. 54. are so clearly decided or determined in Scripture that none learned or unlearned using that industry which humane prudence and ordinary discretion his condition considered adviseth him to can err in them ‖ See Chiling p 115.92 19.58 59. Pref. §. 30. c.

Archbishop Lawd p. 196. n. 3. Sillingst p. 149. Whitby p. 441. Tillois Rule of Faith p. 20.86 where the unlearned seem also to be put in lest these at least for their ignorance should be referred from the Scripture to a Guide for the ending of their doubts and using ordinary industry added lest private men jealous of not using their utmost industry to understand aright the Scriptures should upon this account be perswaded that it is safest for them to repair and adhere to a Guide Next That for all other Controversies that arise in non-Necessaries neither is it necessary that they should be ended So that as one briefly states the case ‖ Chillingw p. 59. Those places of Scripture which contain things necessary and wherein error were dangerous need no infallible Judge or Interpreter or rather cannot but have every one an infallible Interpreter upon supposition of a due diligence used be-because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous Or as another ‖ Tillots p. 86. Of the true sence of plain texts every one may be certain and for the obscure ones it is not necessary every one should And thus having no living Judg to decide controversies they make those controversies so much the fewer that need deciding And if we here further question §. 39. n. 1. why all controversies in necessaries are affirmed to be clearly decided in Scripture or yet more why so clearly decided there as that even the unlearned cannot mistake in them Mr. Chillingworth answers they are so because the Scripture must be to all sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in all things necessary And my reason hereof saith he is convincing p. 92. and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Which is granted him But he must add plainly revealed in Scripture and plainly there to the unlearned also otherwise it will not serve his purpose This Proposition therefore they also maintain that all points necessary to salvation must be plainly revealed in Scripture to learned and unlearned and ground it on this reason because God who requires from all Christians even the unlearned belief of such necessaries yet hath left them no other certain means of the knowledg thereof save only the Scriptures ‖ See Chillingw p. 71. Whitby p. 441. And if it be replied here That God hath appointed and referred them to a perpetual living Guide the Church for the expounding and declaring to them the true sense of ambiguous Scriptures Many things they object against it §. 39. n. 2. 1st they earnestly dispute that this Guide the Church that they are referred to is not infallible but that their's the Scripture is so γ. γ ●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 p●aescriptione adversns Haeretic S. Aust Ep. ●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 conent●r Lege Pauli Samozateni opuscula Priscilliani Eunom●i Joviniani reliquarumque pestium cernas infinitam Exemplorum congeriom prope nullam omitti pag nam quae non novi aut veteris testamenti sentent●i fucata colorata sit Then enquiring in this case ‖ Contra Haereses c. 35. quonian modo in Scripturis sanctis ●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 Cha●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

it is very plausible and much used especially against Church-authority so is it very fallacious by which the more Orthodox party of Protestants also have suffered much from several Sects Whenas it cannot be denied that there are many things granted most true and of most high concernment which are for those excellent ends of Gods infinite wisdom which we cannot fully discern nor so clearly expressed there for preventing disputes as they might have bin Our Saviours Sermon made partly at least concerning the Eucharist amply set down in the 6th of S. John and therefore perhaps mention of the Eucharist omitted afterward by that Evangelist in the Story of his passion was delivered by him in some expressions so obscure as that as St. Austin observes not only his enemies the blinded Jewes but his own disciples misunderstood it and some of them deserted him upon it calling it durus Sermo and yet saith that Father ‖ In Iohan. Tract 27. Sic oportebat ut diceretur quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur And what contentions and also persecutions think we might a declaration of the abrogation of Circumcision and the Mosaical Ceremonies have saved in the Apostles times if it had been any where delivered expresly by our Lord who well foresaw those troubles in the Gospel he preached Or what contentions would the Athanasian Creed have prevented in the times that followed had it been written verbatim in one of S. Pauls Epistles or had the points of modern Controversie bin set down there in as expresse termes as they are in a Protestant Catechism in the 39. Articles or in the Council of Trent 1 Cor. 1.23 25. If we will give humane wisdom in respect of which God's Wisdom is often thought foolishnesse liberty to devise what is best or fittest had it not bin much more to purpose for Conversion of the Iews to Christianity that our Lord upon his Resurrection should have openly manifested himself to all the Nation at that great Festival on the top of the Temple with a Trophee of victory in his hands And for the salvation of mankind God-willing that all should be saved ‖ p. 103. had it not bin better to have made the divel at first close prisoner 1 Tim. 2.4 and prevented the temptation of Eve and fall of Adam Hear Mr. Chillingworth himself where it concerned him reprove the folly of such arguing In humane reason saith he it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies that the Apostles Successors should do miracles will you now conclude they have the Gift of doing miracles It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have bin preserved free from variety of reading which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the Word of God and which is the error and presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us Who can conceive but that an Apostolick Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have bin strangely beneficial to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sence of them as is by you pretended c. And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter Thus Mr. Chillingworth Supposing then that a General Council or the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See were constituted by God the Supreme and Final Judge of Controversies in Religion and of all Appeals from inferior Ecclesiastical Courts yet Gods wisdom might think meet not to register this in these or the like short and clear expressions in Scripture for many excellent reasons tending to the manifestation of his greater glory who makes darknesse as well as light to bring light out of darknesse and leaves many arguments of contradiction to humane reason See Disc ● § 16. the more to shew the power of the operation of his grace who discloseth the things belonging to our salvation somtimes with more somtimes with lesse evidence yet this always sufficient for the necessary preserving of truth on the one side and for the exercise and greater merit of faith on the other But 2ly to come closer to the matter in hand God hath in the Scriptures not only left a General Command of following their Guides § 47. n. 3. but also sufficiently directed Christians to know in any division of these Ecclesiastical Guides 2. ‖ See before which are those they ought to follow in that he ‖ 46. n. 3. being in all things the Author not of confusion but of order and peace ‖ 1 Cor. 14 33 hath not left these Guides in the Church without a due subordination from the very first and Apostolical times and also hath authorized the Church-Governors to make afterwards such wholesom laws for the Regency peace and unity thereof as do justly and unappealably oblige all inferiors and subjects Hence there is not wanting both Precept and Example sufficient both in the Holy Scriptures and primitive Church-constitutions and practice whereby the inferior Clergy are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole Body i.e. one or a few parts to the many parts or to all the rest of the Body and by this also is our obedience directed whenever an inferior and a Superior a part and the whole differ Nor can any justly raise a dispute in this divided Body whom they should obey when both the Number and Primacy are unequal See for these things what is said before Prop. 12. § 23. And 1. Disc § 15. Therefore In a division between any single Guide and that Corporation of them whereof he is a member this body justly claims both the Laicks and that Guide's obedience As the decree of the whole in the Acts Act. 5. was to be obeyed by the Antiochians before the orders of one or a few members of it that were zealous of the Law though these should have bin the proper Pastors and Guides of the Church of Antioch because of the subordination of these Pastors to the other supreme Representativé of the Church And again in any great division hapning in this Body it self our obedience follows the fuller Body of them still which in respect of the rest being fewer bears the name of the whole Especially when the supremest Ecclesiastical Governor that is upon earth the chief President of this Body joynes with it upon which terme only obedience to these Guides is demanded feom those of the Reformation Thus it is before that any be excluded by heresie from this Body But when any in its former lawful Councils are so cut off then our obedience follows the fuller Body of them these other how numerous soever afterward excepted Now this fuller Body at this day joined with the chief Pastor of Christs Sheep here on earth § 48 if any one seeketh after for his safe conduct to future happinesse he cannot but discern it from all other Christian Societies that pretend to guide him And this found

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

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

firmly believe that Doctrine infallible which Christ delivered but yet judge themselves all fallible and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all men 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 Thus he And generally Protestants hold that the Church-Catholick diffusive of all ages and therefore the Catholick Church of the four first and therefore also the General Councils of the four first ages though universally accepted may err in non necessaries which is as much as to say may give a wrong sence of Scripture in them notwithstanding that the Church of England obligeth Her self to the sence of this ancient Church and this also whilst she doth not know the necessaries from the other points that are not so and so neither knoweth in what this ancient Church is not liable to errour § 42 From these Quotations I think it appears that whatever fair professions are made yet no Assent is given by them to the first four Councils on this account that they could not err in their Definitions Nor yet because they are their Soveraign Judge from whose sentence they may not dissent if they be perswaded that it is repugnant to the Scriptures And yet of this repugnancy how they should come to any certain knowledge I see no means Certain I grant they may be that the Scriptures are the Word of God and again certain of that which the Scripture delivers where the sence thereof is by all pronounced clear and not ambiguous But then In a matter where Scripture by several and these in great numbers and on both sides learned is taken in a several sence and the true sence thereof is the thing in question as it is granted by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 58. to have been even in some of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith and yet further ‖ See Stillingf p. 59. where it seems the Scripture may be so doubtful that the sence of the Catholick Church or its lawful General Councils they say ‖ Ib. can be to them no certain or infallible Interpreter of it and lastly where the judgment or common Reason of a lawful General Council thinks it self so certain of the contrary as to anathematize dissenters On what grounds here any particular Person or Church can assure themselves of their own sence of Scripture to be the true they having left that of the Church's Councils and of a major part of Christianity who also judge their sence false I understand not Surely they will not say they have this certainty from the Scripture because the true sence thereof is the thing so mainly questioned the certainty or infallibility of the traditive sence of the Church they renounce and then which only is left their own judgement or their own which I see not how they rightly call common Reason when that of a General Council or major part of Christianity differs from it one would think should be a more fallible ground to them than the judgment or common Reason of the Church This of the Obedience of Assent denied and that of silence or non-contradiction only allowed by them to the Definitions of Councils § 43 But 11ly This obedience also of silence and non contradiction they allow not 1 as due to be yeilded absolutely to all Decrees of such Councils For if they would but stand to this the Church's peace were kept safe enough for so there could never be any reformation or publick teaching of the contrary of such Decrees as are once concluded by a General Council but by a following General Council 2 Nor yet as due to be yeilded to all Decrees of such Councils that do not err manifestly against some Fundamental verity The Arch-bishop ‖ P. 226. said this once repeated by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 534. in these words When private men know it if the errour of a lawful General Council be not manifestly against Fundamental verity in which case a General Council cannot easily err I would have A.C. and all wise men consider whether external obedience be not then to be yeilded For if Controversies arise in the Church some end they must have or they will tear all asunder This he said once but did not hold constant to it for after in the same Section ‖ P. 227. he saith Vnless it err manifestly and intollerably and if the errour be neither Fundamental then he adds nor in it self manifest it is safer to agree c. For were non-contradiction thus far yeilded seeing that neither the Catholick Church before Luther nor her Councils have been held to have erred manifestly against any Fundamental verity for so it would have lost the very essence of a Church therefore all her subjects whatever would have stood obliged to her and to her Councils in the external obedience of silence at least and thus her peace been always secure and undisturbed But only this silence to be yeilded to such Decrees wherein the errour of the Council is not manifest or intolerable Or as Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Still p. 560. expresseth it where the errour is not such as overweighs the peace of the Church Now they affirm that many errours that are not in Fundamentals or necessaries strictly taken may be such For the Catholick or if you will the Roman Church that was immediately before Luther they hold erred not in Fundamentals and yet they made a Reformation from it as mean while erring many errors manifest and intolerable and they see it necessary to add these manifest errors to the other Fundamental errors so to justifie the Protestant's former proceeding § 44 But here again if a contradiction and breach of external obedience or of silence in respect of such imagined manifest and intolerable errors were only allowed so far as to the making a peaceable complaint and representation thereof to their Ecclesiastical Superiors in present Being for the assembling of another Council of equal authority to reverse it which is also mentioned by the Archbishop ‖ P. 227. and Mr. Stillingfleet † 537. and then that if these Superiors see no force in their Reasons these Plaintiffs should here acquiesce and return to their obedience of silence thus also the peace of the Church would be still continued And this seems still the more equitable because the Protestant Writers ‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. Hooker prefat p. 29. For preventing the exorbitances as they say and capricious humours of fantastical Spirits † Still p. 540. and for the shutting out the whirl-winds of private Spirits from ruffling the Church ‖ A p Lawd p. 245. do oblige those who thus break silence to bring demonstration against such errours and then for the shutting out pretended demonstrations also of which the world is full define this demonstration to

own understanding and industry to find out his own way to Heaven because he can securely trust no living guide on Earth besides through all the thorny controversies of the present age grown as Dr. Field saith in number so many and in matter so intricate which require vast pains throughly to examine and an excellent judgment aright to determine and which much eloquence and long smoothing of them the interposing of humane reason in divine matters and the varying records of former ages have rendred on all sides so far plausible and resembling truth that a little interest serves the turne to blind a man in his choice and make him embrace an errour for truth let him I say humbly resigne his wearied and distracted judgment wholly to her direction § 80 For as Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Relation of the Western Religions ‖ p 29. speaks methinks very pertinently though in the person of a Romanist pleading his own cause Seeing Christianity is a Doctrine of Faith a Doctrine whereof all men even children are capable as being gross and to be believed in general by all Seeing the high vertue of Faith is in the humility of the understanding and the merit thereof in the readiness of Obedience to embrace it and seeing the outward proofs thereof are no other than probable and of all probable proofs the Church-testimony is most probable So he which I propose rather thus Seeing of outward proofs of our Faith where the true sense of Scripture is the thing disputed the Church's testimony whether for declaring to us the sense of Scripture or judgment of the Ancients is a proof of most weight What madness were it for any man to tire out his soul and to wast away his spirits in tracing out all the thorny paths of the controversies of these days wherein to err is no less easy than dangerous what through forgery of authors abusing him what through sophistry transporting him and not rather to betake himself to the right path of truth whereunto God and nature reason and experience do all give witness and that is to associate himself to that Church whereunto the custody of this heavenly and supernatural truth hath been from heaven it self committed to weigh discreetly which is the true Church and that being once found to receive faithfully and obediently without doubt or discussion whatsoever it delivereth § 81 And then further If in this disquisition of his to make use here of that plea which the same Author in the following words hath very fairly drawn up ‖ Relation of Western Religious p. 30. for the Church of Rome and her adherents without giving us any counter-defence or shewing any more powerful attractives of the Churches reformed what ever he intended If besides the Roman and those Churches unitted with it he finds all other Churches to have had their end or decay long since I mean the Sects and Religions that have been formerly in the Western World Hussites Lollards Waldenses Albigenses Berengarians which some Protestants make much pretence to or their beginning but of late if This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ that Hell gates should not prevaile against it but that himself will be assistant to it till the Consummation of the World hath continued on now till the end of a 1600. years with an honourable and certain line of near 240. Popes Successors of St. Peter both tyrants and traytors pagans and hereticks in vain wresting raging and undermining If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world have from time to time approved and honoured it if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings such armies of Saints with their holiness of Martyrs with their Blood of Virgins with their purity should sanstifie and embellish it If even at this day in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole Nations into her bosome If Lastly in all other opposite Churches there be found inward dissentions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governours things much more experienced since this authors death in the late Presbiterian wars confusion of order invading of Episcopacy yea and Presbytery too whereas contrariwise in this Church the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continual increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it follows that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further inquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or a pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of the Church that was before Luthers time and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from errour i. e. dangerous to or distructive of Salvation and yet peremptorily commanded men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of Mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard been of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truth of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed are they who believe and have not seen Though they do not see reason always for that they believe save only that reason of their Belief drawn from authority the merit of whose Religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptation before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others Thus that Author pleads the cause of the Roman and its adherent Churches without a Reply To which perhaps it will not be amiss to joyn the like Plea §. 82. n. 1. for this Church drawn up by another eminent person ‖ Dr. Taylor liberty of prophecying §. 20. p. 249. in a treatise writ concerning the unreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith wherein he indeavoured to represent several Sects of Christianity in their fairest colours in order to a charitable toleration These considerations then he there proposeth concerning the Roman Church Which saith he may very

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 doctri●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 ‖ B●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 ●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 A●chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far sho●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

whatever she defines to be infallibly true And The Church of England bindeth men to peace to the Churches Determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of Excommunication if they violate that peace And Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ P. 375. That Protestants cannot with coherence to their own grounds require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it without most high and most Schismatical presumption plain irrefragable indubitable consequences such therefore cannot be the most of the 39. Articles we know by how great a part of Christianity controverted denied Lastly thus the Arch-bishop answering to the fifth Canon of the Church of England objected by A. C. ‖ P. 51. It's one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publickly to affirm it as if that Canon prohibited only the latter of these This then seems of late the commoner exposition of subscription and most suitable to the Protestant Principles 8. But 8 ly Some other expressions also fall from the same Writers §. 84. n. 3. and others intimating assent required For 1 st The Arch-bishop saith concerning the fifth Article that perhaps only publick affirmation is the sence of it but speaks nothing clearly against assent required by it and I suppose he saw good reason for it I pray you view the place in him So in the precedent page he saith The Church of England is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her blessing or denounce and Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation Where this restriction remoter from the Foundation seems so to indulge dissent in respect of some of the 39. Articles as that she doth not allow it generally in respect of them all unless any will say all the Articles are such So Mr. Whitby ‖ P. 100. in his Answer to Mr. Cressy amongst other ifs puts in this for one If they the English Church-Governours require a positive assent it is because the thing determined is to be evident in Scripture c. We do use saith Bishop Bramball ‖ Reply p. 349. to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Theological verities is not this a subscribing that they assent to or hold them for Theological verities So p. 264. We do require Ecclesiastical persons only to subscribe them as Theological Truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors and Mr. Stillingfleet useth the same expression from him To subscribe them as Theological Truths meaneth he not here to subscribe that they are Theological Truths For the preservation of unity means he not unity of Opinion and of the Profession of such Truths As the title also prefixed to the Articles mentioned before ‖ §. 83. n. 1. imports saying That the Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of Opinions and establishing consent Else where diversity of Opinion is allowed in all things what extirpation of errours which follows in the next words can be hoped 9. μ Lastly §. 84. n. 4. I find frequent mention in these Authors of a conditional assent or belief required in general as due to the Churches proposals whether concerning matters of Faith or other constitutions yet without any particular application thereof to the 39. Articles Conditional viz. Then * when a person is not competent to search her grounds or * where the Church adheres to and forsakes no part of the Apostles depofitum or * when she proveth and evidenceth to them the truth of what she proposeth or * so long as they cannot evidence and prove to her the contrary But then they leave the judgement of this condition when she sufficiently proves such a thing or they the contrary when the party is not competent to search grounds or when the Church adheres not to the Apostles Depositum to themselves and not to the Church reserving to every private person the ultimate judgement a judgement of discretion as they call it See Dr. Ferne's Case between the two Churches p. 40.48 49. Division of Churches p. 45.47 61. Considerations p. 19. Dr. Feild p. 666. Dr. Jackson on the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. 6. out of which see some Quotations before § 20. Dr. Hammond's answer to a Catholick Gentleman p. 16.17 Dispatcher dispatched c. 5. p. 358. Having seen this defence of Learned Protestants for the Church of England her composing new Articles of Religion §. 85. n. 1. and exacting of her Subjects subscription and conformity to them wherein they endeavour to represent the Yoke of these her Articles and her Excommunications very light though the Presbyterians groan under the weight thereof in comparison of that of the Roman Canons and their Anathemas Now give me leave to make some reflection on what they have said and out of these to return answers to the precedents so far as it seems necessary Obs 1 1 st Then this is clear that they confining their Rule of Faith within as narrow a compass as they please yet some of their 39. Articles will be found to be a part of it and to be such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian necessitate medii and such as extra quo● non est salus as well as some of those in Pius's Bull or in the Council of Trent are Of this sort must several of the 1 st 8. Articles be concerning the Trinity Son of God c. And I ask whether they are not willing that some other of them as 8. The fall of Adam 18. Salvation only by Christ 15. Christ only without sin 11 Justification by Faith 25.27 Two Sacraments ordained by Christ and these not only bare signs but effectual Instruments of Grace 6. Sufficiency of the holy Scripture for Salvation be admitted into the Rule of the Protestants Faith but thrown amongst Theological and inferior verities Since then it is most certain that some of their Articles are part of their Rule and of the most necessary and fundamental Faith Next I ask concerning these whether in the liberty they profess in their Church and the want of it they accuse in the Roman they require no assent from their Subjects or at least from those of them whom they admit to H. Orders and Ecclesiastical Preferments to these Articles or whether they do not require them to profess and teach all or some of them at least which they cannot do unless they also oblige them to hold them for none may profess against what he thinks and therefore who is tyed by them to profess so is by them tyed to think so But if they do not require such assent then may one that holds against them the 〈◊〉 Doctrines in several of the prime Articles of their Faith not only enjoy their Communion but sit down among their Doctors only if as he believeth professeth

English Church in obliging her Subjects to believe these points Errors which the Roman Church doth hers to believe Truths hath in his as large a Creed as the other if the other hath Twelve new Articles so in her stating the contrary to them hath she and is equally tyrannical or more because the Articles of the other are the elder of the two the Subjects of the one having no liberty left to affirm them as of the other to deny them For Example A Subject of the Church of England supposing him obliged to believe her Articles true hath no more liberty left to hold Transubstantiation a Truth than a Romanist hath to hold it an Error Or to instance in the implyed affirmative that is maintained in opposition to Transubstantiation on the Church of Englands side a Subject of this Church hath no more liberty left to hold the remaining of the Substance of the Symbols in the Eucharist an Error than those of the Roman have to hold it a Truth This of the first sort those who as peremptorily deny a thing as the others affirm it But next you may observe that neither are the later sort who suspend their judgment because such point seems not proved to them in this always the most secure and safe If the proposers to them of that point be such persons as they are commanded to believe unless themselves can prove the contrary to it which is the case of all those who have Spiritual Superiors and if the knowledge of such a Truth be any way profitable to their Salvation which Truths I suppose these Superiors never define without foreseeing First such Doctrines defined beneficial to be known This from § 85. n. 2. is my 2d. Observation concerning the Church of Englands negative Articles 3ly You may observe §. 85. n. 4. that when these Protestant Writers say Obs 3 that these 39 Articles that is the most of them or the negatives see Observation 1. ‖ §. 85. n. 1. are not made by them Articles of their Faith they explain themselves to mean not made fundamental Articles of their Faith or such the belief of which is necessary ratione medii for attaining salvation and such as extra quas creditas non est salus ‖ § 84. n. 1. they meanwhile not denying that whatever is Scripture and a revealed Divine Truth is an Article of our Faith i. e. as Bp. Bramhall Necessary to be believed and assented to by us when it is known to be revealed Now as they do not make the most of their 39 Articles the rule or articles of their Faith in the forenamed sense so neither doth the Roman Church or Council of Trent her Canons whatever Protestants tell the World so often to the contrary Fundamental indeed they call sometimes all points defined by the Churches Councils and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary or absolutely extra quas creditas non est salus but onely necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them to any person that they have been so defined Again necessarily to be believed also for attaining Salvation not because that no person can be saved and that after the Churches definition of them in his not believing them But because if after such proposal and sufficient notice given him of their being defined he believe them not he now stands guilty in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual Guides of a mortal sin unrepented of destructive of his Salvation A thing spoken plainly enough by the answerer of the Archbishops Book §. 85. n. 5. and yet misrepresented by the Replier ‖ p 48 49. who imposeth these propositions as maintained by the Roman Church That what the Church determines as matter of Faith is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation as that which is necessary from the matter i. e. necessary ratione medii And that an equal explicit faith is required to the definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to Salvation of believing both of them Whenas he might easily have informed himself that there is not an equal necessity required by the Roman Church of the very Articles of the Creed in order to Salvation and whenas not onely this one condition of the Churche's having defined them for none are obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatsoever the Church hath defined but a second also of a sufficient proposal to us of what the Church hath defined renders her Definitions necessary to be believed and then necessary to be believed indeed as to the doing of our duty in order to our Salvation but not all of them necessary to be believed as if the knowledg of them were so necessary to our Salvation as that without this it could not be had as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is Neither is the Greek Church one ground of this authors mistake by F. Fisher or others of the Roman Church charged as guilty of Heresie in any other manner save this that supposing a lawful General Council accepted by the Church Catholick to have defined The procession of the H. Ghost à Filio so many of the Greek Church as have received a sufficient proposal that such a Council hath so defined it if they continue to deny or disbelieve it are guilty of Heresie leaving the rest free unless it can be proved that à Filio is a Fundamental in the other sense i. e. ratione medii free I say so many amongst them as happen to be either by natural defect and incapacity or external want of instruction invincibly and inculpably ignorant either of the just authority of such a Council or of its Divinely assisted inerrability in all necessaries or of such its Decree or of the true sense thereof which persons indeed by reason of the evidence of all these things cannot be the most or the learned but yet may be some for all in an Heretical Church are not affirmed Hereticks though the Churches censures according to the reasonable grounds of conviction concerning any such point generally published are passed upon all that are involved in such a Society whilst God who knows all capacities absolves from them whom he seeth innocent and preserves his Wheat from the fire though by the Church bound in the same bundle with the Tares As for the other ground of the Replyers mistake ‖ Stillin p 48. That famous passage of Pius Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam c. he might have learn'd to have made a more moderate and qualified construction of it from his own descant on the like clause in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque c. where he ‖ p. 70 71. could well discover a conditional necessity as to some of the Articles thereof viz. A necessity

but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked † See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously

can be established and that before one error will so be amended many truths whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy will be perverted and that it is much the better of the two that some error in non-necessaries remain unremedied than that no truth in necessaries stand fixed and confirmed Again since all persons for the truth of such things wherein the sence of Scripture is controverted if they will not profess themselves Scepticks ought to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge or other though liable to error let those then who reject a General Council name what other ultimate Judge they will chuse rather I suppose here they will blush to name themselves for that Judge neither can they have shew of reason to name either any other single person or yet inferior Council to be that Judge against a General Lastly The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith † See Disc 2. § 38. viz. That the sence of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it in all necessaries For now supposing that indeed the sence of Scripture should not be clear and so such Protestant solely guided by it using his industry yet should err in some such point such error of his is no way to be rectified so long as he maintains this ground A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike Just Weights c. 21. p. 137. 7ly Again it is asked whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with Q. 7. or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome § 104 To which waving here what testimony may be produced from Scripture and the Exposition of Antiquity concerning St. Peters supremacy and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it 1st I answer in the words of the Apostle † 1 Cor. 11.16 standing upon the Church's custom in another matter That the Churches of God alwayes have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without or against the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of the prime Apostolick See and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition See the ancient Canon concerning this Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2. against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority * urged by Innocentius apud August Ep. 91. * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13 by Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. And it is remarkable that in the times that those acknowledged by all capital errors suppressed in the Athanasian Creed troubled the Church though all the other chief Patriarchs were tainted with one or other of them yet the Bishop of Rome alwayes stood firm and the Church in her vote alwayes joyned with his Chair though divided from some of the other If the Act of Liberius be here objected see what is answered to it Disc 2. § 26. n. 4. And seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick presides in General Councils † See before §. 33. as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial therefore as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils Vt nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant c. sic enim unanimitas erit † Apostol can 35. Concil Antioch can 9. so there seems the same equity that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop their President and Head But 2ly So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants as lawfully general or infallible save only such which this Prime Patriarch hath alwayes consented to and confirmed this question whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good or their authority be infallible without his consent may be superseded 8. Again it is asked Q. 8. How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council since his Confirmation follows its final decision For now if it hath erred it is erroneous though he approves it if not it is Orthodox and so may be safely accepted though he rejects it † Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 17. Stillingf p. 509. I answer his Confirmation secures us that the Council errs not or the Council never errs when he confirms it because supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error the Grace of God or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick President of these Councils so as that it effectually hinders him after what manner or by what means it pleaseth that he doth never confirm it least so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary Or again when he perhaps would left to himself confirm an error the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so by what wayes of the divine wisdom it matters not that they do not define it And thus the Council never erreth being confirmed by him either because its decree is Orthodox or his consent with-held Hence then if the decrees be erroneous he never approves if Orthodox he safely approves them 9. Again it is asked Q. 9. if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation § 106 nor again the Pope without the assistance of a Council in which of the two the infallibility or not erring resides For in which soever we shall place it it renders the other needless I answer where is supposed the consent of both in a truth the actual non-erring lies in both But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other as also erring may be in either separated as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated or guided so as in the last question is explained CHAP. IX 10. Q. If General Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which infers Enthusiasm or new Revelation Or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due to all their Arguments § 107. 11 Q. Why being infallible at least in their conclusions they do not end all controversie but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles And the infallibility of their Decrees from that of Scripture 109. 13. Q. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils Because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain of any Council that it hath not failed § 114. 10. A Gain it is asked If a lawful General Council be not liable to error whether it is so in its Definitions and Conclusions only or in the Premises also and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them I answer That it is not necessary that it

these divine Revelations from those who were known by Miracles to be sent from God the multitude of them I say together with their wisdom their sanctity their unanimous consent throughout so many ages their affirming such truth much contrary to all their secular interests to the appetites of the flesh and ambitions of this world their delivering them both by word and writing to their children and posterity to be delivered again to theirs as matters of the highest moment and wherein it eternally concerneth them not to be deceived as also their strict charge to deliver nothing in these matters of faith to their children which they have not received from their Forefathers their suffering many times cruel deaths for the verity of their testimony the miracles in several ages done also by them which miracles when done for the testifying of their Faith such in those ages as have seen have had the like evidence of this Faith as those who saw the miracles of the Apostles and those who have not seen but believe the credible Relators of them have the like evidence of their Faith as those also had in the Apostles times who believed as doubtless many did not seeing but only hearing of their miracles If I say I proceed th●s to prove the Church-Tradition infallible from these motives of credibility Here again it is asked concerning these motives whether they also be pretended infallible and whether they carry a certainty in them equall to that infallible assent of divine faith that is given to Divine Revelations and particularly to this of the infallibility of the Church which assent of divine faith is pretended to be more firm than any humane knowledge can be because it doth ultimately rest upon divine authority and yet which divine faith at last to avoid a Circle is by Catholicks for its certainty made to rest upon these prudential motives It is asked therefore in the last place whether these motives be pretended not-possibly-fallible or no. If not how can an infallible or divine faith be grounded on motives only highly probable or only morally certain or the thing that is proved or Conclusion be rendred certain and not-possibly-fallible to me from a possibly-fallible proof or medium since the thing proving or the ground of my assent must be more credible evident and certain to me than the thing proved But if these motives also be affirmed infallible 1st How can that be since all men however taken divided or conjoyned single or a multitude vulgar or wise and learned are possibly liable both to deceive and to be deceived and 2ly Thus at least divine faith will at last be built upon and resolved into not divine but humane authority contrary to the Doctrine of Catholicks § 122 And if it should be said here that the resolution of divine faith into these prudential motives whether fallible or infallible is only as into extrinsecal prerequisites or introductives to it not as into the formal cause or ground of it for so I ground alwayes the divine and infallible assent I give to any Article of my faith upon Divine Revelation and the prime verity because God who I believe saith it cannot lye It will be asked still since some Divine Revelation is alwayes the final motive of a Divine Faith from what other Divine Revelation I do believe such a point to be a Divine Revelation in which proceeding if it go not in infinitum I must come at last to some Divine Revelation concerning which I can produce no other revelation divine and so no ground at all why or from which I can believe it with a Divine Faith to be such unless I will betake my self to a Circle So for example in proving the Churches infallibility from Divine Revelation contained in the Scriptures and again the Scriptures God's Word from Divine Revelation unwritten delivered by the Apostles I can produce no further Divine Revelation that testifies such Revelation or Tradition to be delivered by the Apostles if I return not back to the Church's infallibility which returning thither makes a Circle And the same thing will happen the other way also in proving Scripture from Apostolical Tradition and this Apostolical Tradition again from Church-infallibility § 123 To which intricate Question to answer as distinctly as I can 1st It is agreed by all That the faith by which we are saved must be in it self most true and infallible or that there must be a certitudo objecti and those be true Revelations which our faith apprehends to be so 2ly Agreed also That such divine §. 124. n. 1. and saving faith doth alwayes ground it self on God's Word or Divine Revelation of those things which are believed and upon the authority veracity and goodness of God revealing such things And that Christians however coming to the knowledge of these Divine Revelations from their Parents Pastors or the Church in her Councils yet resolve this divine faith no otherwise as to the ultimate ground and reason of their believing than the Apostles themselves did who received these Revevelations immediately from Christ and God himself namely into the veracity of God delivering such particular Articles of their Faith 3ly Again agreed §. 124. n. 2. That this Divine Faith is wrought no otherwise in the soul than by the operation of God's Spirit † See S. Thom. 22. q. 6. De causâ fides many times begetting so firm an adherence to the things believed not only that what is Divine Revelation cannot deceive but that such particular points are Divine Revelations as exceeds that adherence we have to any humane Science whatsoever wherein there is often a possibility of deceit though not as to the thing yet as to us i.e. that we may think we know what and when we do not For this see the Arch-Bp † p. 72. Faith he means the habit or act of a saving faith is the gift of God alone and an infused habit in respect whereof the soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole infufer the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but he Which virtue of faith of whatever Article though it receive a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the faith yet i● ends in God's revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without And p. 75. Man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe though after he once believes his faith grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other reason or knowledge can in this life quoting in the margin S. Thom. † p. 1. q. 1. a. 5. Quia s●ientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia antem quae d●cet objectum

notitiam fidei sicut fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest And Biel † In 3. sent 23 d. q. 2. A. 1. Hoc autem ita intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae Fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis Majus lumen in scientiâ majus robur in fide Et hoc quia in fide ad fidem Actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est actus intellectus vero assentientis productus ex voluntatis imperio Again p. 86. Faith saith he is an evidence as well as knowledge and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be because it rests upon divine authority which cannot deceive whereas knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in deductions from Principles And if there be any that should deny such a Divine or infused faith wrought in Christians by God's Spirit besides and beyond the evidence which a moral certainty rationally affords let them declare how a Christians faith is necessarily a Grace of the Holy Spirit where there is no effect in it that is ascribed to the Spirit but all that they attribute to it is necessarily consequent to another humane and rational evidence and no other ground of their faith of the Divine truths alledged by them than of the being of a Julius Caesar viz. a credible and morally-certain Tradition § 125 4ly Therefore concerning any certainty or assurance that Christians are necessarily to have of this their faith that it is true and infallible which certitude all true believers have not alike † Mat. 14.31 S. Thom. 22. q. 5 a. 4. Here also I think all are agreed That such a certainty one may have from the inward light and operation of God's Holy Spirit though he should have neither any internal scientifical demonstration thereof which if he hath it is not faith nor extrinsecal infallible motive testimony or proponent thereof whatever but though only he hath that which is in it self truly a Divine Revelation for the object thereof § 126 5ly Since the Church may be considered either * as a Society already manifested by divine Testimony and Revelation whether this written the Scriptures or unwritten Apostolical Tradition to be by the holy Ghost for ever assisted and guided in all necessary truths Or before any such divine Testimony known * as a multitude of men famous in wisdom innocency of life sufferings c. things prudentially moving us to credit all their Traditions Both Churches here agree That humane Testimony or Church-Tradition taken in the later sence in its making known to us what are these Divine Revelations or this Word of God is only introductive to this divine faith which relies on and adheres to the Revelations hemselves as its formal object Scripture is the ground of our faith Tradition the Key that lets us in saith Arch-Bp Lawd † p. 86. Divine Revelation written or unwritten is the formal Object or ultimate divine motive into which we resolve our faith and the Churches Tradition testifying or manifesting to us these matters revealed is a condition and prerequisite or introductive for the application of our faith unto those Divine Revelations on which we exercise it say the Catholicks § 127 6ly Catholicks further affirm That as the Church is considered in the former of the two acceptions formentioned the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the Articles of this divine faith as being grounded on Divine Revelation and that so many as believe the Church's infallibility in this sence may safely resolve their divine Faith of other Articles of their belief into its delivering them as such But then they hold That the Church's infallibility thus believed is not necessarily the ultimate Principle into which this divine Faith of other Articles is resolved but that Word of God written or unwritten by which this Church-infallibility is manifested to them And again That whatever this infallible authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine authority and saving faith be infallibly certain of this infallible Church-authority Or it is not necessary That for attaining a divine faith of the Articles of the Christian belief he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent whether it be of the Church or any other save the prime verity of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible Which thing is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks a few of whose testimonies I have here inserted which the Reader may pass over if in this matter satisfied § 128 Concerning this thus Cardinal Lugo a Spanish Jesuit speaking of divine faith † Tom. de virtute fideidisp 1. §. 12. p. 247. Probatur facilè quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus sancti creditur fid● divinâ quae docet in Ecclesiâ esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere muchless infallibiliter scire in Ecclesiâ hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim Articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem Articulum authoritatis Ecclesiasticae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesiâ secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universâ fidelium congregatione n. 252. In lege naturae plures credebant ex solâ doctrinâ parentum fine aliâ Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scriptô plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur I add or before they saw their miracles or the fulfilling of their Prophecies § 129 Thus Estius † In. 3. sent 23. d. 13. §. speaking also of this divine and salvifical faith Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei i. e. divinae quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchizedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone yet these having no other formal or ultimate motive of their faith than we have rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis I add and some without and before seeing their miracles and others by a credible relation only not sight of their miracles yet all these mens faith of the same nature and efficiency alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderant cùm nondùm de

into the power or grace of the holy Spirit both illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever things it revea eth and that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence of our faith thereto as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations § 133 Of which matter thus Canus † Loc. Theol. 2. l. c. 8. Si generaliter quaeratur unde fide●i constet ea quae fide tenet esse à Deo revelata non poterit Ecclesiae authoritatem inducere quia unum de revelatis est Ecclesiam errare non posse Non poterit i. e. as this Proposition Ecclesia non potest errare is the object of a divine faith from the Scriptures declaring it assisted with the holy Ghost and not the object of an acquisite saith from the prudential motives as the same Church is illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. Again Ib. Vltima fidei nostrae resolutio fit in causam interiorem efficientem hoc est in Deum moventem ad credendum Itaque ex parte objecti ratio formalis movens est divina veritas revelans sed illa tamen non sufficît ad movendum nisi adsit causa interior hoc est Deus etiam movens per gratuitum specialemque concursum And quantumcunque competenter ea quae sunt fidei proponantur necessaria est insuper causa interior hoc est divinum quoddam lumen incitans ad credendum Where he urgeth 1 Cor. 12. c. Nemo potest dicere Dominus Jesus nisi in spiritu sancto And Gal. 1. c. The adherence of this faith not to be shaken by the contrary testimony of men and Angels and that our faith must be the very same with that of the Apostles who received the matter believed immediately from God in its essence and as to the formal object and internal efficient thereof however the external motives thereof do vary by which infused and divine faith also he saith we believe Deum esse trinum I add or Ecclesiam non posse errare much more firmly and certainly than we can believe them by any acquisite faith from the prudential motives which we have thereof And of the same matter thus Layman in the place before quoted Major imò maxima certissima animi adhaesio quam fides divina continet non ex viribus naturae aut humanis persuasionibus provenit sed ab auxilio Spiritus sancti succurrentis intellectui liberae voluntati nostrae And speaking of the understanding and the will 's accepting of the first Divine Revelation beyond which it can proceed no further discoursively to any former Revelation Acceptat saith he † 2. l. tract 1. c. 4. intellectus primae veritatis testimonium 1o. Per-scientiam infusam quâ intellectus elevatus evidenter perspiciat revelationem à primâ veritate fieri c. 2o. Per actum fides immediatum ad quem eliciendum i. e. acceptandum seu credendum revelationem à primâ veritate esse extrinsecè praerequiruntur humana motiva quibus acquisita fides immititur e intrinsecè vero in genere causae efficientis requiritur Spiritus sancti gratia supplens quod humanae infirmitati ad supernaturalem infallibilem fidei assensum eliciendum deest I add per quam gratiam fides divina producitur Here scientia infusa and Spiritus sancti gratia are made the first Operators of divine faith or assent to the first Divine Revelation This for the internal efficient of divine faith as for the external first principle thereof Quod ver● saith he † Ib ad formalem fidei resolutio nem attinet expeditus ac verus dicendi modus est iste apud Caietan 2.2 q. 1. a. 1. Quòd fides divina ex parte objecti ac motivi formalis resolvatur in authoritatem Dei revelantis Credo Deum esse incarnatum Ecclesiae defintentis authoritatem infallibilem esse quia prima summa veritas revelavit Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse ulterius resolvi vel per fidem i. e. divinam probari non potest nec debet Quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur sed supponuntur onely as he said before maxima certissima animi adhaesio to this ultimate Divine Revelation provenit ab auxilio Spiritus sancti succurrentis intellectui c. But now fides humana or acqu●sita can go on and give a further ground or motire both why it believes Deum veracem talia revelasse and se fidem hanc Deum revelasse habere ex auxilio Spiritus sancti and this a motive too morally-infallible viz. the Consent of the Church or universal Tradition Of which he goes on thus Verùm in ordine ad nos revelatio divina credibilis acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva inter quae unum ex praecipuis meritò censetur authoritas consentus Ecclesiae as understood above § 126. tot saeculis tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held alwayes necessary neither for an humane induction to divine faith For he proceeds Quamvis id non unicum nec simpliciter necessarium motivum est quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur c. And thus Fa. Knot † p. 358. quoted before A man may exercise saith he an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructor or proposer be not infallible because he believes upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infallible and is such indeed to wit the Word of God Who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every act of divine faith Here he grounds the infallibility of this act of divine faith on the supernatural concourse or operation of God's Spirit Otherwise saith he in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons And indeed § 134 from what is said formerly That a divine faith may be had by those who have had no extrinsecal even morally infallible motive thereof it follows that divine faith doth not resolve into such motives either as the formal cause or alwayes as the applicative introductive or condition of this divine faith And of whatever infallibility the immediate proponent of the matter of my faith or of Divine Revelation be yet divine faith ascends higher than it and fastneth it self still to the infallibility of him whose primarily is the Revelation So the Church which I give credit to declaring to me that the things contained in the Gospel of S. Matthew were divinely revealed I resolve my faith of the truth of those contents not into the Church's saying they are true though I believe all that true the Church sayeth but into Divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again when I believe

round Fides divina discursiva esse non potest circa omnia objecta sua quia alioquin sequeretur processus in infinitum Layman p. 181. quoting Caietan in 22. q. 1. art 1. Si dicas assentio huic revelato ex fide acquisitâ tunc fides infusa dependeret in esse infaciendo adhaerere alicui articulo à fide acquisit â sicut à principio Scotus l. 1.23 d. § contra fid § 145 3ly Concerning such ultimate particular Divine Revelation whether it be authority and veracity of Scripture or authority and veracity of the Church or of Apostolical Tradition or of miracles If we say further that we ground our divine faith of it upon God's veracity or because God is true and cannot lye an undisputable prime principle Yet note that God's veracity alone is not a sufficient ground of such faith of any particular Revelation since on this veracity of God in general many false Religions also are pretended to be grounded i. e. many false Religions believe that whatever God saith is true and further believe but falsely that God hath said what they are taught unless another proposition be joyned with it viz. that God who is thus True and cannot lye in whatever he saith hath also said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures our particular ultimate ground named before is true Of which thus Card. Lugo † De virtute fidei divin Disp 1. §. 7. Duplex est ratio formalis partialis cui ultimò fides divina nititur 1. Deus est prima veritas Et 2. Deus it a dixit and we know the certitude of any Conclusion must alwayes be built on two premises or principles And then letting the first pass unquestioned Deus est prima veritas the second that God hath said this or that must either be grounded that it may be the foundation of a divine faith on some other Divine Revelation from which we collect that he hath said it which still will proceed to the inquiry after another divine Revelation on which to ground that or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it and acknowledge that I have no divine faith that he hath said it which relyes on any other Divine Revelation and then why might I not have rested as well in the forenamed Revelations Lastly concerning that Divine Revelation which by due consequences seems to be the ultimate resolvent of a Christian faith those who disallow that which others assign let them assign another such as is truly a Divine Revelation and not mistaken only by them to be so as assigning the letter of Scripture taken by them in a wrong sence c. and it sufficeth § 146 4ly I take this also for agreed on by all that the internal efficient of all faith divine is the power or grace of the Holy Spirit both * illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals if perhaps the understanding herein needeth any light and also that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations * And perswading and operating in the will such a firm adherence unto these Articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations § 147 5ly Now then If any Christian be asked concerning the ultimate Resolution of his divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built on it he can alledge none other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him by what means it matters not since this varies as to several persons or from which in building of his faith he proceeds to the rest Again if any ask concerning the internal efficient of such faith as is divine the answer must alwayes be one and the same for the divine faith of all Christians That it is wrought in the faithful by the grace of the holy Spirit § 148 6ly The Motives forementioned which are such a rational evidence of the verity of Christianity and of the several Articles thereof believed in the Catholick Church as no other forreign Religion or S●ct in Christianity can produce do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the Holy and no seducing spirit But not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest alwayes on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine § 149 And by what hath been here said I think you may perceive the circle clearly avoided which is still so hotly charged on Catholicks though not for the resolution of their faith in general which resteth in the last place on the prudential motives yet for the resolution at least of the divine faith they pretend to For if a Protestant ask at large why I believe without inserting with a divine faith the Scriptures to be the Word of God It is answered because Apostolical Tradition which is the unwritten Word of God or Divine Revelation a thing conceded by the Arch-Bp † p. 81. testifies it to be so Again if asked why I believe there was any such Apostolical Tradition I answer because the Church which I believe in this matter infallible or not erring delivers such Tradition to me And if it be asked again why I believe the Church infallible in this It is answered I believe her but this is by an acquisite faith to be so from the motives of credibility forementioned † §. 121. which do so perswade me But note that this acquisite faith is not a necessary prerequisite to every one that believes with a divine faith for as Layman † Theol. moral l. 2. tract 1. c. 5. Non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur And as Estius before † See §. 129. Fidei impertinens est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei and in all this Protestants confess there is no Circle † See Stillingf p. 126. § 150 But if now putting in the word Divine the Protestant † Id p. 127. ask me again the two former questions why with a divine faith I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and then upon the former answer returned ask me why 2ly with a divine faith i. e. with such a firm assent as I give thereto transcending that of an acquisite faith I do believe that which the Church relates as Apostolical Tradition to be so indeed I answer now that I finally rest on this Revelation without having any other whereon to ground it But if asked why so firmly and if I may so say divinely without any further

divine evidence I adhere to it I answer from the internal operation and testimony of the Holy Spirit which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church as God's Word by Apostolical Tradition for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein Neither doth here again in the matter of divine faith appear any Circle at all And if it be further asked what rational ground I have to think this is a perswasion of God's and not of some evil spirit or this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so here I urge for these the prudential motives § 151 Again Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I do believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sence of those Texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Church I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit without having at all any further Divine Revelation from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine Or if any will go one step further and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did Miracles yet here he must conclude neither have we any further divine word or work to confirm to us their doing such divine works But then if I be asked further whether I do not believe with a divine faith the Church's relation concerning such Apostolical Tradition or Miracles to be infallible I excluding now this supposition which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God and so excluding this answer that I believe the Churches relation infallible with a divine faith from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church Here I answer No I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation and if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church and here must needs be a process in infinitum But in this place I answer That I believe the Churches Tradition or testimony being taken here in the latter sence mentioned before § 126 infallible only with an humane and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition or their Miracles not the Church-Tradition or her Relation that conveys to me the Apostolical With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church but I do believe the Church her truly or infallibly I mean not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise but to the prudential Motives relating this Apostolical Tradition with an acquired or rational faith § 152 The natural order of a Christians belief then seems to be this 1st The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons chosen by God and for the confirmation of their mission from him doing Miracles which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world the chief body of which these persons also draw up and deliver in writing Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them this is one That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit as never to err in teaching all truths or if you will in truly relating all Divine Revelations any way necessary to mens salvation which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is as it ought to be delivered among the rest to all posterity by these very Successors of whom it is spoken These things thus conveyed those to whom these Revelations are made do 1. with a rational and acquisite faith believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles who are rendred most credible to them by all those prudential motives mentioned before § 121. their multitude their sanctity their Martyrdoms in testimony thereof c. 2. But then applying themselves to the things related which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles they do believe these things related after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher and a divine faith wrought in them by the holy Spirit and resting it self not on the veracity of these secondary Relators but on the veracity of God himself from whom these Revelations are said originally to come yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them 3. Then further one of the Divine Revelations which the Church or these Successors do deliver to Christians as I said being this That these Successors of the Apostles who deliver their doctrine to us shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries from this Revelation I say delivered by them Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church or of these Successors not by a rational faith only grounded on the former motives of credibility but by a divine faith because grounded on a divine Revelation and consequently believe also all things delivered by these persons as necessaries with a divine faith on the same account § 153 After all this to reflect now a little on the objection We see 1st That no Circle is made in a Catholicks ground or resolution of faith divine or acquisite but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine though this not necessary to be alwayes the same whereon divine faith resteth and into which and no humane motives it resolveth it self and an inward operation of God's Spirit whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine is effected And again that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible or also morally infallible or as some of late express themselves not-possibly-fallible which if they can prove whenas it is in the natural power of all men even taken collectively abstracting here from any divine superintendencies to tell a lye none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion or any part thereof

with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of

Prot. And your answer 's new forced absurd as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter But to omit this dispute as now beside my purpose If your sence of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest and clear as you pretend how comes so great a part of the Christian world doubtless rational men in the sence of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry well comparing these Scriptures and void of pride passion and other interest Soc. And I return the like question to you If on the clearness of the express sence of these Scriptures I cannot infallibly ground my faith against many other rational men contradicting on what plainness of the sence of any other Scripture is it that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sence given by the learned by several Councils by the whole Church of some ages as they do not promising to the Councils even to the four first an absolute but conditional assent viz. only so far as their decrees agree with these clear Scriptures If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter which Scriptures you say in fundamentals are to all perspicuous and such do many deem this point nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unb●ast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures and also in the comparing them with others in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture and then wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's faith for his not erring in Fundamentals at least Bishop Lany tells me † Serm. at Whitehall March 12.1664 p. 17. That when we have certain knowledge of a thing we may safely learn from the Schools viz. Vbi non est formido contrarii that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple doubt and fear of the contrary when the understanding is fixt we are said to be certain And that they who will say it and do think so too may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience Prot. † Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 47.61 Chillingw p. 57. You have a judgment of discretion I grant and may interpret Scripture for your self without the use of which judgement you cannot serve God with a reasonable service who are also to give account of your self and are to be saved by your own faith and do perish upon your own score † Stillingf p. 133. None may usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all 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 † Chillingw p. 59 100. In matters of Religion when the question is whether any man be a fit judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge aright as much as eternal happiness is worth and if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it To God's righteous judgment therefore I must finally remit you At your own peril be it This of the Socinians plea concerning the Scripture on his side § 9 Where the self-clearness of the sence of Scriptures not mistakable in Fundamentals or necessaries upon a due industry used of which also rightly used men may be sufficiently assured being made the ground as you see of the Protestants and Socinians faith before these two proceed to any further conference give me leave to interpose a word between them concerning this certainty so much spoken of and presumed on § 10 And here first from this way lately taken by many Protestants there seems to be something necessarily consequent which I suppose they will by no means allow viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men the Church Governors as infallible in necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both infallible in all necessaries and certain that he is so For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry and of this due industry they also affirm men may be certain that they have used it it being not all possible endeavour but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion c. adviseth to See Mr. Chillingworth p. 19. And next from this affirmed firmed that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals it must be maintained also that their spiritual Guides in a conjunction of them nay more every single Prelate or Presbyter if they are not yet may be an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary And therefore Mr. Chillingworth freely thus vindicates it † p. 140. That these also may be both in Fundamentals and also in some points unfundamental both certain of the infallibility of their Rule and that they do manifestly proceed according to it and then in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken they may saith he † p. 118 140. 166. lawfully decide the controversies about them and without rashness propose their decrees as certain divine Revelations and excommunicate anathematize also any man persisting in the contrary error And there seems reason in such Anathema because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means as these Governors do Now then what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have I hope may also those of the Church Catholick and then obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors this will restore all things to their right course All this follows upon certainty 1 That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals And 2 that due industry is used to understand them But if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used then again is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished But now to pass from this consequence to which I know not what can be said and to enquire a litle after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing which is here so much pretended 1st It cannot be denyed that he that doth err in one thing may be certain that he doth not err in some other because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing which he hath not in another Nor again denyed that he who possibly may err yet in the same thing may be certain that he doth not err if

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