at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How lawful General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things How Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that these Councils do not err § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
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
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
on those Nations who from time to time even from the furthest East and West have entred into this Church not as thus reduced only from one Idolatry to another which he formerly imagined from the Heathen Idolatry to the Râ—man but from Gentilism to that Faith to which our Lord foretold and promised a conversion of all Nations Matth. 24.14 before the last times and that not the Kingdome of Antichrist but of Heaven hath been truly preached unto them the same Kingdome to other Heathen People by her indefatigable missioners now which was heretofore to our Ancestors by St. Austin that holy Monk All these illuminations and consolations will he receive and all these Divine Providences will he rejoyce in and praise God for in this Church if it shall once be discovered to him to be his true Guide and if that which is asserted in these Discourses shall by the Grace and Benediction of God appear to him Truth In the proof and evâ—dencing of which the Author likewise hath reason to expect from him the more favourable audience because those who most vehemently dispute against any such infallible Director yet cease not to wish that there were such a one as a thing acknowledged most highly beneficiall to Christianâ—ty and they maintain the Controversie not without a professing that they would most willingly be confuted in it If there be such an infallible Judge of Contraversies saith Mr. Chillingworth †c 2. §. 136. it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church and perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible if in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one proposition had been set down in terms c. Now if it be not necessary that there should be such an infallible Judge what great necessity certainly to know him in case there were one yet this a thing he saith infinitly beneficial to the Church and perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible And elsewhere If I knew saith he any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church Behold this by Protestants so earnestly wished for R. Catholicks shew unto them with proofs sufficient to satisfie the rational but not force the obstinate It faring no better with this Church than with its Lord Of whom many of the Pharisees and self-wise though desiring nothing so much as the happiness once to see their Messias or live in his daies yet even whilst they conversed familiarly with him and received all Salutary doctrine from him confirmed with Miracles being blinded with many other prejudices and mistaken fancies concerning Him and also wanting that humility of the Common people to Learn this Truth amongst others from Him that He was their Messias could never perswade themselves that He was indeed such a Person and so perished in their unbelief But Blessed be our Lord who mean while both then clearly manifested Himself to those who were Babes i. e. humble Matt. 11.25 Rom. 12.16 and not wise in themselves And since upon his necessary departure hath not left his Children here Orphanes and destitute either of Spiritual Fathers of whom he hath said that He that heareth them Luk. 10.16 heareth Him therefore these not misguiding in necessaries or of a Spiritual Mother of whom he hath said that He that Heareth Her not shall be esteemed as an Heathen Nor yet left his Little ones destitute of sufficient Evidences and markes by which for ever to discern true Parents and Guides from other Pretenders and Impostors so that they know their Voice and do not follow the voice of strangers Jo. 10.4 5. Which Evidences the Author presents to the serious Inquirer in these following Discourses and commits him to the powerful Teacher of hearts and the illuminations of his Holy Spirit Errata Disc 1. Page 1. lin 12 read belong Page 6. l. 15. r. 3. And. Page 10. l. 32 dele If. Page 11. l. 14. r. are Page 20. l. 27. r. render Page 25. l. 1. r. Bishops Page 26. marg r. 398. Page 29. l. 22. r. 176. Page 30. l. 14. r. which Councils marg r. 10. and 14. Page 33. l. 21. r. Contrasts Page 36. l. r. them Page 38. 21. r. Consequently Page 39. l. 33. r. Melchites l. 42. r. is necessary Page 42. l. 10. r. 1st These Page 44. 19. r. 37. Page 45. l. 7. r. men professing Page 50. 23. r. and Transubstantiation in five l. 41. r. Nice Page 56. 3. r. religion for so none would be Schsmaticks but Arch Hereticks Page 73. ult r command Disc 2. Page 79. 4. r. these Page 80. 33. r. sufficient for deciding Controversies Page 83. 8 r. there is considering the times Page 87. l. 15. r. colour see 4 Disc § 11.12 Page 96. 22. r. rendring Page 103. 15. r. Sabellianism Page 104 27. r wherein Ib. Dele 28. r. But Page 105. 29. r. Valens 33 r. Essence Page 122. marg r. 104.172 Stillingf p. 241. Page 123. 19. r. Quonam Disc 3. Page 143. 33. marg r. Chillingw p. 140. 118. 166 Page 145. 8. r. that part Page 17. r. subordinate Page 150 9. r. oppose or deny the truth of Page 153. 14. r. follows Page 156. 3. r. clearing Page 157. 7. r. limitation Page 169. 14. r. Corporal presence in the Eucharist Page 170. 11. r. to be generally condemned Page 186. 10. r. to Page 194. 27. r. thereof under one Page 199. marg r. Churches Page 203. 30. r. Monachi Page 204. 10. r. probate Page 205. 22. r. confession 26. r. veterum Page 213. 9. r. Testimony 21. r. plures an paucos 22. dele paucos Page 223. 1. r. is so evident 17. r. hoped Page 224. 3. r. reflections 10. r. quos 15. r. Faith only 32. r. the contrary doctrines Page 234. 6. r. Anathema Page 247. 26. subjacete Page 254. 40. r. the last Page 259. 19. r. upon Page 267. 21. dele authority Page 269. 8. r. fide Page 271. 23. r. fidei Page 275. 38. marg r. †p. 137 Page 286. 38. r. on Page 301. 36. r. honoratis Page 305 Chrisma Page 307. 3. r. regimine Page 311. marg Aethiopum Page 321. 3. r. Church Disc 4 Page 332. 23. r. Carpocratos Page 338. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Page 342. 39. dele as Page 365. 30. r. fides Preface p. 4. l. 1. r. 2. THE FIRST DISCOURSE Relating and considering the varying Judgements of learned Protestants concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide The CONTENTS Chap. 1. THE Church Catholick granted by all in some sence unerrable in Fundamentals for ever § 1. I. Some Protestant Divines granting the Church Catholick unerrable in Fundamentals or Necessaries but not as a Guide § 3. Reply § 6. That the divine promises of indefectibility or not erring in Necessaries belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide or to the Guides of the Church Catholick § 6. Chap. 2. Several limitations of Protestants concerning these promises 1. That they were made only to the Apostles
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
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-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.
at all to the preservation of the Church which subsisted well without it for the first three hundred years having had for that space no General Councils and therefore it is vainly put Or 2ly If such unerring Guide necessary yet that Christians have no such Guide to repair to in the Intervals of these Councils ‖ Dr. Pierce his Answ to Cressy p. 6. c. 3ly γ as for these Supreme Councils γ it is urged that Experience hath shewed them not unerrable in deciding Controversies since they are found as well as particular persons and Churches somtimes to contradict one another See Chillingw p. 131. arguing in this manner If you say that these particular Clergy-men or Churches would fail us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church i.e. Catholick of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 4. Lastly If such Councils granted unerring ‖ Chillingw p. 93. Stillingf p. 538 c. Whitby p. 432. δ. δ yet that no certain knowledg can be attained by private Christians which Councils is general and lawful which otherwise ε. ε what be their definitions and how many and what the true sense of their definitions which and many more like Objections see more fully solved Disc 3. § 86. c. To the first of these α. α I answer That this Inerrability in Necessaries accompanies the Clergy and preserves the Church in all times and did so in the three first Centuries § 18 Answererd R. to being annexed to the whole Body or much major part of this Clergy not only when met in a General Council which supposition the Objection proceeds upon but out of it also whenever and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their Judgment and Agreement in their doctrine whether it be by several Provincial Councils assembled or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous errour which Council afterward hath the ratification of the chief Pastor of the Church together with his Council and hath the tacit approbation or non-contradiction of other co-ordinate Churches Or whether by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters Or whether in their publick Liturgies and Offices Or in a General Consent in their publick Writings Catechismes and Explications of Christian-Doctrine In none of which as to Doctrine Necessarie the whole Body of the Clergy or that which in any dissent is to he accepted for the whole shall ever err § 19 To the second I answer That this Body of the Clergy remaining in all times if in the Interval of Councils any new Errour dangerous to the faith and not formerly condemned by any such Council To β. doth afflict the Church is vigilant by some of those wayes aforenamed wherein it is unerrable as the times afford convenience to suppress it So was Pelagianism crushed without a General Council by several Provincial ones and the joint Declarations of the Chief Prelates of the Catholick Church But if such Errour trouble the Church as hath been condemned by such former Councils here the same Governours within their several Circuits take care to put in execution the former unerring Decrees In both therefore the present Church-Guides are secure from Errour in any Necessaries whilst in respect of Errours fore-condemned they adhere to and follow the definitions of former Councils in new ones raised which are thought any way to hazard the Christian faith they unite afresh their common Judgment in some of the foresaid wayes as times permit either in one General or several inferiour Synods or other Intelligence or Correspondences of Churches such as may be equivalent to those Assemblies which are more Oecumenical § 20 To the third γ. To γ. It is denied That experience hath at any time shewed the latter Church or Council to have varied from or contradicted the precedent As for those points which are frequently alledged by Protestants to prove some such difference they are either Decrees of some Council that is declared by the Church Catholick unlawful or Tenents held indeed by a considerable part of the Church in several ages diversly but in none defined by her in the manner above-mentioned § 21 To the fourth δ. To δ. I answer That what or how many of former Councils are lawful and obligatory a Christian ought to rely upon and is sufficiently secure in the judgment of the Catholick Church taken in the sense explained before § 18. and below § 36 38 § 22 To ε. To ε. A Christians certain knowing all the Decrees of Councils and their sense 1. That though all the definitions of such lawful Councils are supposed in some kind necessary to some or other yet some are necessary to be explicitly known to one that are not so to another and that there lies no obligation on every one or on most to know them all but only when sufficiently proposed to him not to dissent from them 2. Next That experience shews that in all Churches the subjects thereof do or may sufficiently learn from the common Tradition therein those publick Doctrines and Articles the confession and practise of which is required from them At least a Christian using a diligence suitable to his calling may receive sufficient instruction from his particular spiritual Guides if these are members of the Church Catholick both concerning them and the true sense of them so far as these are necessary to be known Which particular Guides also are the less liable to mistake or to deceive him because as hath been faid they do no more than he proceed upon their own judgment but do hold themselves obliged to submit this to the common one of the Church a way of security of not erring themselves in what they teach others which the Guides of all other Sects disclaim 3. But yet when any hath suspicion of mis-information from these he hath other superiour Guides subordinate in authority one to another whom to consult and is obliged only to acquiesce in the supremest which is secure from erring in any necessaries as is explained in the answer to the first In which obeying of his Guides God who hath enjoyned it to them will never suffer him in necessaries to be misled by them This then is the Catholick course § 23 As for the greater security which Protestants pretend to be in their way of directing Christians for the knowledge of necessaries ‖ See Chillingw p. 376. 377. because the Rule which they refer men to for their Guidance the Bible or holy Scriptures are all true certain infallible but these Guides the Roman Party directs men to especially those particular Pastors beyond whom few go are not so they mis-relate the matter For 1st The Bible or Holy Scriptures are equally acknowledged an all-true certain and infallible Rule for the guidance of Christians by both parties
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
Church-Governours in it whose judgments can be had to be sufficient though some lesser party continue to contradict I think several Controversies that are yet agitated will appear formerly decided and the Church's Peace not so difficult to be setled For in the Church Catholick within this last thousand years have been assembled many Councils so General as the times permitted and as the Callers thereof could procure and these her Councils have made many Definitions contrary to the Protestant Doctrines and yet she hath not hitherto though importuned by several pretending Demonstrators of the contrary to these Definitions assembled her self in any other Synod equal to the former to recall such Councils or their acts such a tacit admission being all that the Archbishop requires ‖ See before §. 327. Nay when later Councils have been called from time to time yet in these she hath altered nothing concerning those Definitions in the former Nay a much major part at least of the Church Catholick have also out of Councils in their publick VVritings Doctrines and Practises not only not contradicted but owned the Legality of these Councils and the truth of their Decrees Now may we not hence conclude that the whole Church Catholick I mean whose judgment we can procure hath in such a sence as is necessary admitted and accepted them And that nothing hath been or is brought in that she takes for a demonstration to the contrary to what she hath defined And here may we not conclude that according to the Archbishop's sence these fore-past and so long unquestioned Councils are to be esteemed infallible Or if this we may not presume what hopes have we left of ever knowing the Church Catholick's mind her acceptation or non-acceptation of any thing or of enjoying at all as to Necessaries this her infallible Guidance promised us by Protestants in stead of that of her Council's VVe have waited now above 400 years since the Conciliar determination of Transubstantiation no Council equal to those which passed it hath been assembled by the Church Catholick to retract it I ask Hath not the Church then already sufficiently accepted it though some in some times have offered to her their seeming demonstrations against it In the expectation of new domonstrations of a new Assembly such as shall be called by the whole Church Catholick and not by the Pope and of a Council more full and compleat than any former for a thousand years have been wherein the Cophtites Melahites Armenians Abyssines Russians c are to have a part I ask what shall poor Christians do for a Guide that may secure them at least in Fundamentals If first The most supream Guides that they have and have had and such acceptation of their Acts as hath been may not be securely relied on and then such an infallible Guide as is promised them instead thereof can never be had Unless these Divines also will here retreat and make use of the Answer that is mentioned before § 8. viz. that nothing at all that is or can come into controversie is necessary to be decided § 39 But If the past Councils need an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church to render them infallible more than the acceptation that is fore-mentioned what must it be 1st Must it be that of another Council assembled by the Church For such thing the Archbishop mentions But how shall we know again of this Council whether the Church Catholick sufficiently accepts it And what if it accepts this no more amply than the former Or are there any such new Evidences or Demonstrations now discoverable in matter of Faith that are not as liable to be mistaken in one Council as in another in a later as in a former If you say Yes Because a Demonstration in the Archbishop's sence ‖ is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it I answer Such a Definition suits not with Theological but Mathematical Demonstrations such as this that twice two makes four for what or how few Theological Truths are they that all in their right wits and understanding the Terms immediatly assent to when proposed Or what Judge in these matters can promise such Evidence as that none having the use of Reason shall deny his Sentence Lastly As to one Council's accepting of another where can we stay if we may not in the first For will not this second Council be rendred as uncertain to us for it's Definitions and as liable to Appeals upon other new Evidences and Demonstrations pretended against it as the former was For when in it's Definition against these false ones that are already examined it corroborates the former yet this hinders not but that some other Evidences may be produced against it and against the same Definition that may be true Or 2ly Must it be such an acceptation of the whole Catholick Church out of Council that no person or at least Church contradicts such former Council This also is unreasonable For some not only Persons but Churches and these very considerable I mean in comparison of some other Churches though not in respect of the main Body of the Catholick Profession may stand condemned of Heresie and Schism by some former Council and therefore do become uncapable of any right now either of Voting in or accepting of a future Council I mean in such a manner as that their Vote and acceptation are any way necessary to the validity thereof Or such Persons or Churches if not condemned of former Heresie yet may be by the much greater and more considerable part of the present Council for some new Doctrine of theirs against the former traditive Faith of the Church either suspended from sitting and voting with them or admitted to vote as in a thing perhaps not so clear in former tradition yet when they are in the number of Suffrages much inferior in this case neither their contrary Vote in the Council nor their non-acceptation of it afterward are of any effect as to the annulling of the Acts of such Councils Otherwise no new Tenent can be condemned by the Church if those who hold it being a considerable number will not concur to vote or to accept the condemnation thereof Some Arrian Bishops never accepted the Council of Nice nor now the Socinians Unless therefore the former acceptation of the Church Catholick though perhaps deficient in some persons or also Churches may suffice to render or declare the judgment of that Council infallible who can be assured but that this Nicen Council erred in a point Fundamental if the Deity of our Saviour may be thought such The Church Catholick's acknowledged Infallibility in Fundamentals and her acceptation of Councils may not be obstructed with such unactuable Circumstances as that these can never in any particular come to be known This for the Archbishop § 40 Again thus Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 2. concerning the present Catholick Church in any one Age As
then at the time that she is not so we believe a falshood under the Article of the Christian Faith Of this more needs not be said § 44 3. Again If under such Governors the visible Church preceding the Reformation is allowed to have been Catholick and Holy from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical or Schismatical Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholick Church and all the Members of it and in which Churches dividing from the Vnity of the Catholick no salvation can be had by those who if either knowing or culpably ignorant of these sins of such a Church do not actually desert such a Communion For this likewise see the Quotations out of the Archbishop before § 367. and out of Dr. Field before § 40. Bellarmine saith he is to be blamed for idle and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresie which we most willingly grant And l. 1. c. 7. he saith That the name of Catholick Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismaticks whom as also Hereticks though he there affirms to be in some sort of the Church taken more generally as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels yet not of the Church Catholick or fully and perfectly of the Church with hope of Salvation ‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21 c. 7 p. 13. The Common Prayers also used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday shew the same Oremus saith the one pro Haereticis Schismaticis ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur Have Mercy Lord saith the other upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and so fetch them home to thy Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepherd But in the trans-ferring these Good Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book 't is observable that though the Reformed retained Hereticks yet they omitted Schismaticks and 2 ly changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam into Fetch home to thy Flock c. As if the mention of our Holy Mother the Catholick Apostolick Church might occasion in the people some Mistakes See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England c. 2. p. 9 27 28 before § 34. And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion ‖ 208. ' When we say we believe the Catholick Church as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved we do not profess to believe that there is such a company of men as professing Christianity but that there is a Corporation of true Christians excluding Hereticks and Schismaticks and that we hope to be saved by this faith as being members of it of that Corporation And this is that which the stile of the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the Body of true Christians to wit so far as Profession goes from the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if Hereticks and Schismaticks were not barred the Communion of the Church Thus he § 45 In the former passages you may observe that the Authors fore-quoted speak not of some or other in the Church before Luther to have bin Catholick and consequently holy c. but of the visible Church consisting of the ruling Clergy and the subject and conforming Laity according to the publick doctrines and Definitions thereof as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholick either as to Faith or Holiness for such a Church Catholick they believe always to be whose doctrine and definitions discipline and external visible profession maintained by the Governors thereof is Catholick And if in any other sense we call it a catholick-Catholick-Church when we hold its Governours and Doctrines mean-while Heretical and Schismatical viz. by reason of some that may be found herein Catholickly perswaded we may as well call that an heretical Church the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholick if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected To go on Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far as to own the Western Church that was before Luther § 46 for the Protestants true Mother for indeed where could he find at that time a Church any whit better to call Mother and to confesse ‖ l. 3. c. 6. ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time And To those saith he that demand of us where our Church was before Luther began We answer it was the known and apparent Church in the world wherein all our Fathers lived and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized and ‖ 3 Part p. 880. wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found In order to which he so far justifies the publick service also of those dayes which our Fathers frequented even the Canon of the Mass it self as to say ‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. ' That the using therof no other was used in those days than is now is no proof that the Church that then was was not a Protestant Church and that both the Liturgie it self and the profession of such as used it shew plainly that the Church that then was never allowed any Romish errour And again so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church which he owns as Catholick and the Protestants Mother as to affirm ‖ 3 l. p. 81. That none of those points of false doctrine and errour which the Roman Church now maintaineth and the Protestants condemn were the doctrines of that Church before Luther constantly delivered He must mean constantly for the present Age before Luther for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholick or generally received by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution or factiously defended by some certain only c. It seems therefore that look how many Doctrines of those now condemned by Protestants may appear to have bin in the Church §. 47. n. 1. I say not here the Catholick but the Latin Church for of this he speaks before Luther not doubtfully broached but in her Councils resolved in her publick Liturgies conformed to and generally received Generally not as including every single person for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity or of Christs Incarnation received but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils for more than this cannot rationally be required so many he will acknowledge for Catholick and in obedience thereto shew a filial Duty to this his Mother And therefore after this to defend the discession of the Reformed from and their present non-communion with the present Western Church he seeks to relieve
that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not fundamental and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed i. e. that she may require our Assent and Belief of all things by the device of her proposing them as necessary § 9 6 ly When the Church-Guides are said to be infallible in Necessaries Prop. 6. Catholicks contend That Necessaries * ought not to be taken here in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all men explicitly believed as that Salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them which are thought by the Learned to be only some few Articles of the Apostles Creed Of which see Dr. Potter § 7. p. 242. c. But * ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least * all such Points as are so requisite and beneficial to Salvation as that there is some danger of a miscarriage therein either in respect of Faith or Manners either to Particulars or to the whole Society either to all or at least to some persons and conditions of men by the ignorance or disbelief of them * all such Points as corroborate Fundamentals by their near connexion to them or as serve to repel the malignant Influence of some Error that either directly or by some consequence at least undermines and corrupts or to use the Archbishop's words ‖ § 35. n 5.6 grates upon or miss-expounds some Fundamental either in the Christian Faith or Manners § 10 The Reason 1st Because our Saviour's promised assistance of his Church is not expresly limited to Necessaries in the first sence by any of those Texts that mention it nor can upon any account of the superfluousness or non-necessity of such assistance be denied to the Church in respect of the second where-ever any Error in such points though they be not Principles or Fundamentals but Deductions and Superstructions appears to be gross dangerous damnable blasphemous idololatrical grating the Foundation which sort of Errors Protestants grant there may be in non-fundamentals and by them are such Errors charged upon the Church of Rome ‖ Arch-bishop Lawd § â—7 n 5.6 Art of Rel. 31. Chill p. 119 but it seems unsutable to our Lord's Love and everlasting protection of his dearest Spouse that they should be also incident to the Church Catholick or its supreme Guides 2 ly Because the Practice of the generally-allowed Primitive Councils defining and under Anathema imposing the belief of many several points of Faith which fall not under the first notion of Necessaries doth shew that Church-tradition hath always understood Christ's Promises made to the Church as extending to Necessaries in the second acception Neither will infallible assistance in necessaries as they are taken in the first sense extend to the Church-definitions made in the points delivered in the Athanasian Creed which points yet the Church hath defined as necessary and infallible Again since it is affirmed by Protestants that a Lawful General Council 〈◊〉 Stillingf p. 330. accepted by the whole Catholick Church diffusive may err in non-necessaries for so say they may the whole Catholick Church dissusive err ‖ See Arch-bishop Lawd p 139 140 141. if then the Church-definitions found in the Athanasian Creed are also to be reckoned such i. e. non-necessaries upon what account can Protestants firmly believe them for true except so many as are able to demonstrate them out of the Scripture seeing they are deprived of any confidence of the Church's not erring therein as being points reckoned non-necessaries And the Promises thus restrained to Necessaries of the first kind what an hurtful liberty is there left to all Sects to question the Church's Infallibility in many principal Articles of her faith as for example to the Socianians to question it in the point of Consubstantiality under this pretence of the Churches possibility of erring in non-necessaries 3 ly Because I see not how the title of Holy continued for ever to the Church-Catholick by the Promise of our Lord can consist with all those errors that yet do oppugne Necessaries only as taken in the second not first notion called gross dangerous damnable blasphemous if as these are imputed promises to the Catholick If her doctrines and consequently practice be somtimes damnable blasphemous c. how She always Holy Because by the same divine assistance the Catholick Church is affirmed by Protestants never to fall into Heresie which thing also infers a divine assistance thereof beyond Necessaries in the first notion unless they will affirm the contradictories of several of the Church-definitions that are delivered in the Athanasian Creed or the first allowed G. Councils not to be heresies § 11 5 ly Because One reason which Protestants give why our Lords Promise of these Guides non-erring is to be restrained only to some and not enlarged to all Truths is * because they are by and unnecessary Truths to which her curiosity or weaknesse may carry her beyond her Rule c. ‖ Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 141. * because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith * because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtilties for which the Promise was not made * because Deus non abundâ—t in superfluis ‖ Dr. Poâ—ter p. 5. p. 150 c As natare so God is not lavish in superfluities therefore what points though not Necessaries in the first kind yet are as far removed from superfluous or curiosities and are though not absolutely yet very necessary still thus far in these we may suppose our Lords assistance continued to his Church and preserving her from failing in them ‖ A second reason which Protestants also give why the Church cannot err in fundamentals is the perspicuity of Scriptures in these Points This power of not erring saith the Arch-bishop ‖ p. 140. is in the Church partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the watter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to salvation But doubtless many more points there are as plainly delivered in Scripture as those Necessaries of the first rank and therefore no reason to confine her un-erring verdict only to these And if more points then the primary fundamentals were not clear in Scripture how come Protestants in several of them on this account of their clearnesse in Scriptures to oppose and contradict the Supreme Guides of the Church 7ly Concerning the Church-Governours their exact distinguishing of Fundamentals § 12 or Necessaries from non-Necessaries 1st There setms no
as Dr. Field It is that forme of Christian doctrine and Explication of the several parts thereof ‖ Of the Ch. P. 375. which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles that delivered to them the Scriptures commended to posterity Thus he This then being the Tradition that is chiefly vindicated by the Roman Church it is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main and prime and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and compleated with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith that Catholicks do question but the non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points such as that they may be miss-understood which non-câ—earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sence is the thing that they assert and wonder that after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies and should deny For as to the Scriptures containing all the chief and material Points of a Christian's belief what Article of Faith is there except that concerning the Canon of Scripture which Protestants also grant cannot be learnt out of Scripture and excepting those Practicals wherein the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them it is enough if they cannot be shewed to be against Scripture I say what Speculative Article of Faith is there for which Catholicks rest meerly on unwritten Tradition and do not for it alledge Scripture I mean even that Canon of Scripture which Protestants allow A thing observed also by Dr. Field ‖ l. 4. c. 20. but too much extended This is so clear saith he That there is no matter of Faith 't is granted no principal point thereof delivered by bare and only Tradition that therein the Romanists contrary themselves endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition as we shall find if we run through the things questioned between them and us they contrary not themselves in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition which are also but obscurely or more evadably contained in the words of Scripture Again ‖ Ib. p. 377. So that for matters of Faith saith he we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselves that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expresly contained in Scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things evident in the light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded Thus he I say then not this whether the main or if you will the entire body of the Christian Faith as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed be contained there but this whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake or do not need therein another Guide is the thing here contested § 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said To α 1st I ask if all Necessaries be clearly revealed R. to α and all necessary Controversies clearly decided in Scripture even to the unlearned how have Controversies in Necessaries as concerning the Trinity our Lord's Deity and Humanity c. in several Ages arose and gained many Followers Here will they say that such Controversies are not in Necessaries How then came the first General Councils extolled by Protestants to put them in the Creed or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible and in what they are fallible unjustly imposing Assent Or will they say that they are in Necessaries and that the unlearned may easily discern and decide them and that not by Tradition but only Scripture How happened it then that heretofore so many learned unlearned when forsaking the Church's guidance erred in them But if they say this hapned for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures thus they leave men in great perplexity when the Scripture is plain and only obscure to them through their negligent search and so when the point perhaps may be necessary Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture whether Sociniansme or Anti-Socinianisme be the Catholick Faith which he is very sollicitous to live and die in and consulting them concerning it they tell him there is no other director left him besides Scripture whose Judgment he may securely follow the judgment of the Church or Councils here being waved by them because this judgment allowed or authorized will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture neither much matters it which side he holds for truth For God say they hath there clearly revealed all necessaries But he enquiring further whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it And then it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know but that it may be a necessary truth and so his salvation ruined if he believe the contrary Here what they can answer that will not more perplex him I see not Since so long as he may possibly fail in a due diligence though only required according to his condition he cannot be satisfied whether the point to every due Searcher be not clear in Scripture and also be not a Necessary Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it but the same Scripture which appears to him ambiguous Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter It seems reasonable saith he ‖ Ration account p. 58. that because Art and Subtilty may be used by such who seek to pervert the Catholick Doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sence of the Catholick Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way But why not a necessary way I pray upon the former supposa for us to embrace the true sence of Scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith As for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity Therefore you see in the greatest Articles Scriptures confessed not so plain especially to the unlearned and ordinary capacities § 42 2 ly If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture may we not so much the more securely and certainly rely on the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Guides and Teachers in them to whom they must needs be as or more plain than to us especially on their Judgment when assembled in a General Council on it for these Necessaries at least It seems no and that the case is now altered Even now Necessaries were so plain in Scripture as the unlearned using ordinary diligence could not mistake in them Now Necessaries are
not so plain in Scripture but that a General Council as to the major part of them the highest Authority by which the Church Catholick can direct us at least if not in their sence universally accepted for this Exception is put in by the more moderate ‖ See Disc 1. §. 32. c. may mistake in them so far as that the unlearned have even for these Necessaries no security to rely on their judgment I must tell you saith Mr. Chillingworth to F. Knot ‖ p. 150. you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible Director in Fundamentals or Necessaries Now this also he was considering his Engagement forced to say and gives the reason that made him say so I suppose for satisfying his own Party rather than his Adversary in the words following For saith he if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is fundamental and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such And what harm in it say I if you did But this he well saw would have destroyed the Reformation which was contrary to the Doctrines which the publick Director that was then in being delivered But. if these Necessaries at the last are not so few or so plain in Scripture but that the judgment of the Church-Guides even when met in their supreamest Consults may err in them will he allow us then to follow some other's judgment that is in these points fallible If so why not to follow theirs still But if not so whose judgment will he direct us to that shall less err than these Guides or that shall certainly not err in the undrstanding of these plain Scriptures wherein these Guides mistake Methinks he should * forbear here to name to us our own Judgment even when we unlearned too and yet none else can he name And * much more forbear here to alledge Passion Faction Interest c as great Blinders of this publick judgment unless he could first shew the private not at all or less liable to them which corrupters of a clear understanding seem indeed more incident to persons of a lower rank and that have much relation to and dependance on others and therefore what more common than for avoiding those to make Appeals from inferior to a more general judgment as expecting in the most general the most impartial dealing And what private person can we produce thot doth not range himself with some party and that hath not in matters controverted a strong secular Interest for one side to be truth rather than the other according to the Church and State he lives in § 43 But 3ly As it is necessary that God some way or other do clearly reveal to all even the unlearned using their due Industry that which he requires necessarily to be believed by them so it is not consequent at all that God should do this as to every thing necessary in the Scriptures First Because God cannot be said to have been deficient in a competent revelation of Necessaries to all men if he hath left as indeed he hath sufficient evidence and clearness in the Scriptures that are first generally agreed on to be his Word to every man rightly using his private judgment or common reason as to one point only viz. this That it is his divine Will that private men for all those Scriptures the sence whereof is any way dubicus or controverted should constanâ—ly be guided by and adhere to the judgment of those spiritual Superiors that he hath set over them and in any division of these should still hold to the Superiors among these Superiors according to the Subordinations by him established amongst them For thus we see after a Christian's private judgment or common reason used only in one point for all other points private judgment is now discharged and in stead thereof obedience to Authority takes place so far as its stating of any point thinks fit to restrain therein other mens Liberty of Opinion The testimony of which Church-authority as a thing clearly demonstrated and ratified by the Scriptures S. Austin in more difficult matters of Controversie often appealed to See Disc 3. § 82. n. 4. Puto saith he si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment de hac quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae And by this which is so often retorted by Protestants that Catholicks also are forced to allow to Christians the necessary use of their private Judgment will be verified only in this one point The Choice or the discerning of their Guide whereas the Protestants make it necessary for all Points and who sees not a vast difference between these two for the hazard which a Christian incurs therein 1 The being in all controverted matters of Religion and sence of Scriptures meerly cast upon his own reason and skill to steer himself aright therein And 2 The being left to it only in one matter and that one as Catholicks contend in the Scriptures very clear after which examined and judged by him all the rest wherein he may want a resolution are without his further solicitude to be judged for him by another So there is a great difference when a person falls sick between his being left to the use of his private judgment in making choice of a Physitian according to certain Rules prescribed unto him by a wise and experienced man in that behalf and then this once done submitting himself afterward to this Physitian in all things that he shall prescribe for his cure and between this sick person's undertaking by Hippocrates his Aphorisms or other Physick Books to prescribe all particular Remedies to himself upon this reasoning that if his private judgment serves for directing in the one making choice of a Physitian why not in all the other fit Medicines for his Disease Which Argument is only good where all the Objects about which our judgment is exercised are equally easie and clear to it And therefore unconsequently seems that Question to be asked ‖ Stillingf R. Ac. p. 7. If the Scripture may and must decide one Point that of the Church why may it not as well all the rest If the Scripture be not in all other Points equally clear and not-mistakable This then is one way of sufficient Revelation besides Mr Chillingworth's way I mean that of all necessary Truths being clearly revealed in Scripture viz. a sufficient Revelation of one point in Scripture concerning that Guide from whom we may securely learn all the other points not clear to us in Scripture § 44 2 ly Because God besides and before the New-Testament Scriptures left
Learned Protestants consent with Roman Catholicks ‖ Hooker p. 124. Field l. 1. c. 10. p. 14.15 D. Fern. Divis Engl. Rom. §. 10 Archb. Lawd p. 140. That the Holy Catholick Church which we believe in our Creed is a visible Church in all ages consisting of Pastors as well as People in external Profession and Communion contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches when such there happen to be in any age See before Disc 2. § 5. § 5 4ly They are also agreed That Christ hath left in this Church-Catholick these Pastors and Teachers to the end of the world for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ that we may not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men ‖ Eph. 4.11 14. Thus far they agree CHAP. II. Roman Catholicks further affirming 5. That the Church-Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining Points of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Points necessary not as taken onely for those absolutely required but all very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. shall never err in them not as infallibly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former Revelations and Traditions § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General or Obliging a Christian may safely rely on the most general judgement 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 judgement to the Decrees and Definitions of the whole § 14. BUt here the two Parties divide in their Superstructions § 6 For 5ly The Catholicks go on and affirm further That these Pastors and Governors of the Church at least when assembled in a Lawful General Council or in so general as the present times of the Church according to the several Requisites of such great meetings are well capable of universally accepted I mean in the sence before explained Disc 1. § 31 36 38. And below § 12. shall never err in their Determinations or teaching of Credends and Practicals necessary for obtaining salvation and therefore that Christians in their assenting to such Determinations remain secure from all such Errors § 7 First The Reason why the Teachers are affirmed thus unerrable is 1 Because most of those places in Scripture from which is gathered the Church's Indefectibility or inerrability in Necessaries Prop. 2. as Mat. 16.18 18.17 comp 20. 28.20 John 14.16 1 Tim. 3.15 Luke 10.16 Eph. 4.11 14. do appear to relate more especially to these Guides thereof than to the Common people And 2 Because this seems no more than necessary Since God hath required nothing to be externally professed by us as Truth or acted by us in obedience to Command but what our Judgement or Conscience first internally assents to as Truth and as Lawful It seems I say no more than necessary that in the many doubts which may arise especially to the more ignorant sort both in Credends and Practicals there be some sure and unfailing Directors of these our interior Judgements herein as to all Necessaries which Director in such doubts can neither be the Scripture the sence of which is ambiguous unto us and the thing wherein we seek direction nor yet is the Civil Magistrate in these spiritual Matters but only the Ecclesiastical to whose Guidance of Souls also we are committed and enjoyned Obedience Heb. 13.17 7. See before § 5. And Disc 2. § 4. Chillingw § 8 2. Next The Reason why these Guides are affirmed unerring at least when joyned in a General Council is because 1st It cannot reasonably be questioned but that what authority every one of them singly hath from our Lord the same all of them retain in this Body united without the need of any new Commission from the Church Catholick 2ly Because if there be any Promise made to them in any capacity of indeficiency in Necessaries then of all manners or ways deviceable wherein they may be so it is in this Conjuncture of them and that the most universal that can be procured used in all ages as the Supreme Court of Appeals that they appear to be most capable thereof and least liable to defect ‖ See Mat. 18.17 20. 1 Cor. 5.4 15. See below §. 94. In which the Catholicks are also * confirmed by the Apostolick practice in the Acts ‖ Act. 15.2 6. where for solving a great difficulty they called an Assembly of the Church-Governors and passed some Decrees therein to which all particular Churches and their Pastors stood obliged Seeming there to fortifie their Authority with these two Expressions Visum est Spiritui Sancio nobis v. 28. And Nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collectis in unum v. 25. As also the Holy Ghost descended on them at first Acts 2.1 when so assembled To which Assembly also the great Apostle St. Paul notwithstanding that his Doctrine was immediatly revealed to him by our Lord Jesus and confirmed to others by his Miracles yet was sent by God's immediate appointment for he saith he went to this Council by Revelation Gal. 2.2 that so his Doctrine might both be the more authorized to his Auditors and his Converts more readily obey it and so he not run in vain nor lose his labour when they knew it to be confirmed and established by this General Council With which thus Theodoret begins his Epistle to Leo. Si Paulus praeco Veritatis Tuba sanctissimi Spiritus ad magnum Petrum cucurrit ut iis qui Antiochiae de Institutis Legalibus contendebant ab ipso afferret solutionem multo magis nos qui abjecti sumus Pusilli ad Apostolicam sedem vestram currimus ut Ecclesiarum ulceribus Medicinam a vobis accipiamus And St. Austin ‖ Contra Faustum l. 28. c. 4. Ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Demini de Caelo vocatus si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus communicando cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem Societatis esse appareret Ecclesia illi omnino non crederet Sed cum cognovisset eum hoc annunciantem quod etiam illi annunciabant in eorum communione atque unitate viventem c. meruit authoritatem c. And again * confirmed by the Primitive Practice afterward in the first General Councils universally allowed who required Assent under Anathema to their Definitions and inserted them as it was thought meet into the Creeds which sufficiently declares that they held themselves infallible or which is all that is here meant by it actually unerring therein 3ly When any Division happens in this collective Body it being certain that some Clergy
Promise that they shall not err or misguide the Churches subjects in Necessaries § 6 7 I mean Necessaries taken in the sence above explained 2 Disc § 9. And next because what or how much is to be accounted thus necessary the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors not their subjects as is shewed before 2. Disc § 6 7. CHAP. III. R. Catholicks proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing any known Definition of the Church in a matter of Faith are Hereticks § 16. 12. All persons separating on what pretence soever from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick Schismaticks § 20. But yet that difference of Opinions or Practices between co-ordinate Churches may be without Heresie or Schisme on any side where no obligation to these lying on both from their common Superiors or from the whole § 23. § 16 11ly TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresie and Schisme dividing such persons or Churches as are guilty thereof from the Catholick Church and Communion See before Prop. 3. § 4. 1st For Heresie the Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church that maintains or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition passed in a matter of faith of any lawful General Council i. e. of those Councils that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sence mentioned before ‖ See §. 12. as such is Heretical Not medling here whether some others also besides these for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church and such as are by all explicitly to be belived may be called so 2ly They affirm That those may become Hereticks in holding an error in the faith after the Churches Definition of such a Point who were not so before § 17 Where The Reason why the certain judgement of Heresie is made not from the testimony of Scripture but of the Church and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresie though sometimes the same error before it was not so is because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresie but where there appears some Obstinacy and Contumacy joyned thereto Neither can such Obstinacy and Contumacy appear especially as to some Points of Faith from the Scriptures because the sence of Scripture as to some matter of Faith may be as to some persons ambiguous and not clear But the sence of the Church or her General Councils which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor and Interpreter of the sence of the Scriptures that are any way doubtful and disputed is so clear as that any rational or disinteressed person to whom it and the authority delivering it and the divine assistance of that authority are proposed according to the evidence producible for them can neither deny her just authority over him nor her veracity and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him who yet cannot see or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge the Scripture in such point to be so and so such person will thenceforth become in this sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and self-convinced and if others happen by their contracted fault not to be so their guilt in general at least is not lessened but aggravated thereby Tit. 3.10 Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus that after a second Admonition he should reject a man Heretical or still adhering to his own Opinion knowing that such a one sinneth being self-condemned viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church concerning which Church he either hath or might have sufficient evidence that he ought to believe Her And our Lord commands that he who in matters controverted refuseth to hear the Church should be withdrawn from by the Christian as a Heathen or Publican was by the Jew Thus it seems by these Texts is Heresie known and Hereticks to be rejected § 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Hereticks who after the Church Definition continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto whereas themselves or others in holding the same Opinion before such Definition were not so Thus St. Austin ‖ De Civ Dei l. 18. c. 51. Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt si correpti i by the Church ut sanum rectumque sapiant resistunt contumaciter suaque mortifera pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistunt haeretici fiunt It seems one holding dogma pestiferum mortiferum before the Churches corrâ—ption may be no Heretick who yet is so after it And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith ‖ De Haeresibus Post causam cum eo Caeciliano dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi pertinaci dissentione firmatâ in haeresim schisma verterunt tanquam Ecclesia Christi propter crimina Caeciliani detoto terrarum orbe perierit Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere Where observe that they are charged by this Father for Heresie which Hereticalness of theirs Protestants would fain divert to other matters in the point of rebaptization and that because this point now setled by the Church And so Vincent Lirinen ‖ c. 11. O rerum mira conversio Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici consectatores vero haeretici judicantur absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli c. the wonder here is that in holding the self same opinion the one are not Hereticks the other are i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent Again St. Austin ‖ D. Haeresibus gives Quod-vult-Deus for avoiding Heresies this General Rule Scire sufficit Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire ut illud non recipiamus in fidem It seems this was a Principle with the Father Nihil recipiendum in fidem or credendam contra quod sentit Ecclesia And we know what follows Credendum quod sentit Where the contraries are immediate sublato uno ponitur alterum But this latter also is expresly said by him ‖ Epist 118. Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est This concerning doing and then it holds also for believing the Church's Faith being if either more sure than her practise But for believing too he saith ‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. Restat ut hoc credamus quod universa Ecclesia a Sacrilegio schismatis remota custodit And Quod in hac re sentiendum est plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat Therefore after the Churches definition he saith One in holding the contrary then first becomes an Heretick when he knows or by his fault is ignorant that the Church hath defined it See de Baptism contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16. Constituamus ergo saith he duos aliquos isto modo unum eorum
diversly fancieth the true causes thereof then in all this said nothing at all is said § 20 12. 2 Again for Schism Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church which for what cause soever and particularly for this the Church's requiring his assent and conformity to the Definitions of such her Councils doth actually relinquish and separate from the external Communion of the present Church-Catholick is Schismatical Meaning here * by Catholick Church the present true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides and the Christian Congregations joyned with them in the sence explained before Disc 2. Prop. 12. § 23. And * by External Communion the Church's Publick Prayers and Worship of God and the participation of her Sacraments And * by actual relinquishing and separating either 1 the setting up or joyning with an Anti-communion or 2 a Voluntary absenting ones self from the Church's Communion or at least 3 the incurring of an Excommunication or Separation inflicted by the Church for a non-conformity to her Decrees of which see Dr. Hammond's Concession below § 22. n. 2. § 21 The Reason Because 1 all separation from the external Communion of this Church that is made out of a Non-conformity to any thing defined by these Superiors is judged causeless upon the former account given § 6. and § 14. Since they can require no unjust condition of their Communion as the assent or subscription to an Error that any Inferior can justly judge or certainly know to be so And this because in Necessaries these Church-Governors cannot misse-guide § 6 9. And of what or how much is to be accounted necessary the judgement also belongs to these Guides not their Subjects see Disc 2. Prop. 6. Of whom also divinely assisted it is rationally presumed that to things judged no way necessary they will never enjoyn Assent upon the Church's Censures But lastly supposing not granting that they should err in some non-necessary to which notwithstanding they require Assent yet cannot particular men have in such matters any sufficient ground of an infallible assurance of the contrary which the Church cannot discover ‖ See Disc 2. §. 15. 42. and therefore cannot justly on any such account withdraw their submission And for this reason also these Superiors in whatever decrees they make or impose do never fall actually or causally into Heresie or Schisme as who are not from others but all others from them directed to learn in spiritual matters what is true and lawful and to what they are or are not to conform But 2 Next If any separation from this Church should be made for any Doctrine or Practice in it to which an assent or a conformity is no way required by it This will still be an higher Schisme because more void of any just Pretence Of this matter thus S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. speaking not of the internal but the external Communion of the Catholick Church which defining against Rebaptization was upon this forsaken by the Donatists Fieri non potest ut aliquis habeat justam causam quâ communionem suam separaret à communione orbis terrarum c. And de unitate Ecclesiae c. 3. Quicunque à Chriâ—ti corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum Communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliquâ parte separatâ inâ—eniatur manifestum est cos non esse in Catholicâ Ecclesia Cum toto i. e. * with the Communion of that Body which was totum integrum before some separated from it or after the separation when now the former totum is divided * with that part of the totum from which the other part separates which Body that is parted from is still the total Catholick Church of which total only S. Austin speaks though the divided part or parts for the amplitude of this totum is a casual thing nor always the same should in time swell to a greater magnitude than it Concerning this matter also thus Dr. Hammond ‖ of Schism p. 10. in his Book of Schisme c. 1. For the universal or truly Catholick Church of Christ it is not in St. Austin's Opinion possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it nor consequently Apology to be made for those that on any whether true or pretended cause whatsoever have really incurred this guilt and that it is not the Examination of the Occasion or Cause or Motive of any man's Schisme that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter The one thing that is of force and moment and by consequence pertinent to be enquired into is the truth of the matter of fact whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed i. e. whether he that is thus accused stands really guilty of Separation from the Church of Christ Thus Dr. Hammond Where it would be ridiculous for any to say that by separation from the Church-Catholick he means voluntary separation and then that by voluntary separation he means a separation without any just cause moving him to it for this is only saying there can never be just cause of a voluntary separation from the Church-Catholick without any just cause Neither can the Doctor 's meaning here be that one indeed may not separate but yet may by Excommunication be separated for his non-conforming in something to the Church-Catholick without Schism For elsewhere ‖ Answ to Cath. Gentlm p 9. he declareth Continuance in I add or incurrin Excommunication to be actual Schism supposing that if one will submit to that which is lawful not that which he thinks lawful for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Now the Church-Catholick he holds here can never require unjust conditions of her Communion because upon such terms he alloweth a departure may be without Schism Here then taking his words in their plain sence since the Church-Catholick cannot be denyed to be such a Church as gives Laws and requires certain Conditions of her external Communion and since the Doctor affirms ‖ Of Schisme c 2. n. 3.5 12. that where a Church requires unjust Conditions of her Communion one may depart from or continue out of it without Schism it seems to follow that the Doctor holds here that the Church-Catholick can never require such unjust conditions which how it consists with what is quoted out of him Disc 1. § 5. I know not and hence that she did not require such at Luther's appearance Yet it is clear that there was no Church then extant one or more of which must be the Catholick to the conditions of whose external Communion Protestants would submit and from whose external Communion they departed not See Disc 1. § 55. n. 4. And then we see what followers upon these Principles of Dr. Hammond's § 23 Mean while the Catholicks grant 1 st That the several parts of this body may without Schism separate or differ from one another in any doctrine or practice wherein they are obliged to
no agreement or union from the Common Superiors of them both and so long as one part divides not from the other in any thing wherein the other agrees with the whole against it or which the whole enjoyns both to the other and it But in such case the division of this part is as from the other part so from the whose and so becomes for its division from the whole and not from the other part Schismatical 2 ly They grant also that one part may lawfully and without Schism separate or rather absent it self from the external Communion of another so often as either the Communion of the other part suspected of Heresiae or Schism before any evidence of the contrary is thought unlawful or as this part requires some condition of its external Communion to which the other is not by the whole or by the Superiors of both any way obliged Thus the Catholicks CHAP. IV. On the other side the Protestants after the four first Propositions conceded thus proceeding to qualifie them 5. In their granting the Catholick Church unerrable in Necessaries understanding thereby only such few Points without which Salvation no way attainable § 24. 6. Affirming the Church Catholick or all particular Churches of some one age or ages errable in several other doctrines dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief Points from which Protestants dissent were the General Tenents and Practices at the coming of Luther § 26. 7.8 Affirming * the Church's General Councils also when universally accepted to be unerring in Necessaries but not so in other and that is in the most Points And in the former 1 Extending universal acceptation to all particular Churches and 2 Restraining Necessaries as before to those absolutely so Again * The Councils not so accepted to be errable also in Necessaries § 34.35 36. 9.10 Allowing Obedience also due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councils But not that of Assent but only of Non-contradiction § 39. Where of the Quality of the Obedience yeilded by the Church of England to the four first Councils § 40. 11. Of Non contradiction not generally but where the Error of the Council not manifest and intolerable § 43. Claiming also where the Errour manifest a power against such Council to reform it for themselves § 44. 12. The judgement also as for themselves when there is or is not such Error in Councils left to particular Persons or Churches § 47. § 24 BUt the Protestants after conceding the four first Propositions labour to pull down these superstructures of the Catholicks which they see else would ruine their cause and thus proceed After the first four Propositions above agreed on 5 ly They explain themselves That by the Necessaries wherein Prop. 2 they grant the Catholick Church of all ages unerrable they understand only those few Points spoken of before Disc 2. Prop. 6. without the explicit Belief of which Salvation is not at all attainable For in their saying that she is so unerrable they thus declare themselves That there alwayes shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world So Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ Stillingf p. 251. A company of men that profess at least so much Truth as is absolutely necessary for their Salvation So Mr. Chillingworth ‖ P. 15. That Christ doth and will so defend his Church that there shall be forever till the end of the world a Church Christian on the earth So Dr. Hammond ‖ Defence of Lord Fulkland c. 1. §. 5.6 p. 23. No more inerrability in Faith you see here affirmed than that without which Salvation is absolutely on what terms soever in the Profession of Christianity not attainable wherein they straiten Christs promises as the Catholicks enlarge them by which they gain the liberty of reforming as they think fit from the universal Church of God as to some age or ages in most of her Doctrines as they granting her not save in some few necessaries unerrable that may as it were still preserve life in Her neither will they concerning this Question what are points necessary wherein our Lord hath promised an indefectibility to his Church what not by any means stand to her judgement § 25 6 ly They say ‖ that though the Church-Catholick is preserved always from errors in absolute necessaries taken in their sence § 24 for otherwise there would cease to be a Church of Christ upon earth yet the same Church or at least any or all particular Churches of some age or ages some one or many or all which particular Churches must be the visible universal Church-Catholick of that age or ages may generally hold and the Governors thereof impose upon their Subjects such errors and corruptions as are dangerous to Salvation gross damnable c. and therefore which upon a general Reformation neglected are corrigible and reformable by any particular Church for it self See what Arch-bishop Laud § 26 § 37. n. 5.6 Mr. Stillingfleet Part 2. c. 2. p. 330. and c. 4. p. 370.371 and c. 8. p. 478 479. Mr. Chillingworth c. 5. § 64.49 45 27. and the 31 st Article of the Church of England have said to this purpose § 27 And the Reason of this Assertion seems to be because these great points of modern controversie § 28 1. A Corporal Presence and a Transubstantiation or substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body § 29 2. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of Christs Body and Blood as present in it which followes from the former § 30 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass not onely that of Prayers Praise and Thanksgivings nor only of the Mysteries in the consecrating of them offered as a Commemorative of the Passion a thing conceded also by learned Protestants but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries which thing follows from the first Point offered in this Service pro vivis Defunctis c. 4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and Saints § 31 And 5. Such Prayer for the dead as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement whatever their restraint or sufferings be to be conceived better able by the Intercessions of the Living Do appear to have been universally held and practised and the approbation and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors both of the Greek and Latine Church at the coming of Luther § 32 The clearning of which because it is a consideration of great importance and not meet to be omitted nor can be here inserted without making too great a Parenthesis and distracting your thoughts from the matter in hand I have rather chosen to annex it at the end of this discourse Cap. 11. § 158. referring you to that place for the perusal thereof if not in this matter already satisfied § 33 This then concerning the 6 th Proposition The Protestants affirming that the Catholick Church of some age may incurr and maintain dangerous
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
necessary conditions of her Communion upon Excommunication to those who do not submit by this becomes divided from the Communion of the Church-Catholick but then it is so without its denying any Fundamental point of Faith its crimes only being the imposing of some Non-fundamental errors to be believed upon pain of Excommunication 2 ly By their restriction of Catholick Doctrines to those only which can be made appear to have been so received §. 60. n. 1. not only by the Catholick Church of the present but also of all former ages from the Apostles they may separate from a lawful General Council of the present age universally accepted without any guilt of Schism or opposing by this any Catholick Doctrine in their sence unless they will say such Councils can define or the present age universally accept no Doctrine but what hath been the explicite Faith of all former ages And by such restriction they seem to require most unequal conditions of their obedience and conformity to the present Church-Catholick when they will allow a necessity of such conformity to no Doctrine of hers upon any cheaper terms than the producing a written evidence and that I suppose they mean not of some principles thereof but of the Conclusion it self for it in all ages for 1600 years A large field chosen wherein to continue the dispute Now all Church-Tradition is not necessarily written all former writings not necessarily descending to the present age and so many Doctrines may be universal that cannot be made appear in the Church-Records of every age to be so and it seems enough to infer the obedience of Inferiours if the Inferiours cannot shew in the former Church-Records the contrary doctrine held in any age to that maintained in the present 3 ly If the Catholick Doctrine of the present age be in a matter necessary §. 60. n. 2. the Church of the present age must be unerrable in it and its Testimony sufficient to enforce a conformity upon pain of Schism without farther search into former ages For the Catholick Church of every age is unerring in necessaries If in some matter not necessary the testimony of the Church of all ages excepting the Apostles only with them is not sufficient which as they say may mistake in it and therefore the retiring to these former ages will not be sufficient to prove it a Truth or a departure from it Schism But if they say in the testimony of former ages they include the testimony of the Apostles also then that alone will be sufficient to authorize a Catholick Doctrine without the Churches witness given thereto in any age or without that the Church's witness is nothing worth and then why press they this universal Testimony of the Church 4. But lastly §. 60. n. 3. this their affirming the Constitution and Essence of the Catholick Church to be only a right belief in Fundamentals and allowing the Communion of this Church and a security from Schism to all such persons and Churches as are in these Fundamentals no way deficient is very faulty and contrary to the ordinary notion which both the ancient Fathers and Learned Protestants have of the Catholick Communion and of Schism It is true that as the Catholick Church is a company of right Believers as to Faith absolutely required for attaining Salvation no more is necessary to its constitution or being than the Faith only of some points which for this reason are called Fundamentals but as it is also One Society or Body wherein the several Members are united in the Bond of Peace under lawful Pastors and Guides and subjected to certain Laws of Government and Discipline So many more things both in respect of the Plenitude of Faith and Sanctity of Manners according to the divine Revelations and Commands made known by these his Ministers are necessary to the Being and Constitution thereof all which being put any particular Person or Church is a true Member of the Church-Catholick But any of them wanting though the rest be present it ceaseth to be Catholick And such a Church-Catholick is affirmed to be always extant not only as shall believe aright in all Fundamentals but the Members of which shall always be united also in all other points of Faith and practice of holiness conducing to Salvation and the subjects therein obedient to their Superiors in all their lawful decrees and injunctions So that a person or Church most fully Orthodox as to all Fundamental Faith yet may want some Essentials of Unity necessary to the being a Member of the Catholick Church if such person or Church shall divide from the Communion thereof for any lawful Definition made or practice enjoyned by his Superiors even in Non-fundamentals So the Novatian and Donatist-Churches perfectly agreeing with the Catholick as to all Fundamental Faith yet became non-Catholick and Schismaticks for relinquishing the Communion of the whole in opposition to some matters not Fundamental when once defined and stated by it the one for the reception into the Church of great sinners after Baptism penitent the other for non-rebaptizing of Hereticks converted Therefore of these later S. Austine saith ‖ Ep. 48. Nobiscum estis in baptismo in Symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis In spiritu autem unitatis in vinculo pacis in ipsâ denique Catholicâ Ecclesiâ nobiscum non estis In Symbolo Sacramentis they agreed but yet not in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ because not in Spiritu unitatis Vinculo pacis i. e. not in a due subordination and subjection as to some other universal decrees of their Mother the Catholick Church in which they were Heretical and Schismatical of which see before § 18. To the compleat Being and Essence of the Church qua Catholick then there is required not only that there be unafides but unum corpus Eph. 4.4 5. under subordinate Governors verse 11. not only unitas in Symbolo Sacramentis but it in vinculo patis as it extends to all obedience and subjection of Inferiours to their Superiours of the parts to the Laws and constitutions of the whole for want of which later the Donatists Orthodox as to all Fundamentals yet are said not to be in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ And these other necessary properties of a true Member of the Church-Catholick §. 60. n. 4. besides that of a right belief in Fundamentals are freely also confessed by learned Protestants which thus Dr. Field ‖ L. 2. c. 2. This intire profession of the truth revealed in Christ though it distinguish right Believers from Hereticks yet it is not proper quarto modo to the happy number and blessed company of Catholick Christians because Schismaticks may and sometimes do hold an intire profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ And afterwards The notes saith he that perpetually distinguish the true Catholick Church from all other Societies of men and professions of Religions in the world are these First The entire Profession of those
most of the former Councils defended by R. Catholicks as to their calling or their number or freedom of Votes c. scarce any latter Council remaining unaspersed so to disenable their authority from obliging the Church's subjects accordingly renouncing the authority of those which have been held in the time of their Ancestors save only of some of the 1st contending also corruptions and superstitions and Antichristianism to have entred into the Church in the very first times but more especially in the fourth and fifth ages when the copious Writings of many Learned Prelates make more evidently appear the sence of the Church yet especially the latter Protestant-Writers not unusually in particular Controversies disputed pleading these Fathers and Antiquity the credit whereof in general is so much disparaged to go on their side Lastly §. 78. n. 2. It seems very much swerved from the pattern of Antiquity in most of those things wherein the other Body hath been said to resemble it Especially in these The high esteem frequentation various uses of the precious Sacrifice of the Altar frequency of Church Devotions solemn observance of Feasts and Fasts The Honour and solemn Commemorations of Glorified Saints and Martyrs and remembrance at Gods Altar of the other Faithful deceased the practice and recommendation of the three Monastick Vowes and other Councils of perfection The distinction of sins and painful Discipline of Penitents and a soveraign and undependent Church-Authority I mean as to true unquestionable Spirituals Therefore also perhaps that God might leave to Posterity as it were a standing mark and fore-warning of the novelty of the Reformed Religion and spirit we find the two first grand Leaders thereof Luther and Calvin as if they thought to add the more reputation to their new discoveries of truth by having no former certain Guides therein after the Apostles to have proceeded at the first much more unwarily than some of their Successors have done in slighting Councils and undervaluing Antiquity and freely confessing the ancient as well as latter times to be of a different judgment from them Of which to give you a more clear evidence I have collected several of their more free expressions used in those dayes which if a matter already well known to you you may pass on to § 79. Thus then Luther concerning the Fathers §. 78. n. 3. in the conclusion of his Book contra Regem Angliae Non ego quaero saith he quid Ambrosius Augustinus Concilia usus seculorum dicunt Miranda est stultitia Satanae quae iis me impugnat quae ipse impugno perpetuo Principium petit Pro libertate ego pugno Rex pro captivitate pugnat Captivitate in submitting to the Fathers In assertione Articul Jam quanti errores in omnium Patrum Scriptis inventisunt Quoties sibiipsis pugnant Quis est qui non saepius Scripturas torferit And in the begining Primos scire contestatosque illos volo me prorsus nullius quantumlibet Sancti Patris authoritate cogi velle nisi quatenus judicio divinae Scripturae i. e. of his own sence of it Fuerit probata id quod scio illos vehementer aegre laturos dicuntque non esse Scripturas sacras proprio Spiritu interpretandas And Cur non liceat hodie aut solum aut primum Sacris litteris studere sicut licuit primitivae Ecclesiae as if nothing descended by Tradition In his protestation before his Book de Abrogatione Misse Protestor imprimis saith he adversus eos qui insanis vocibus in me sunt clamaturi quod contra ritum Ecclefiae contra statuta Patrum contra probatas legendas receptissimum usum docuerim horum nihil me auditurum Sciant indocti Pontifices impii Sacerdotes Sacrilegi Monanchae c nos non esse baptizatos neque credentes in nomine Augustini Bernardi Gregorii c. Non audimus Bernardus sic vixit scripsit sed Bernardus sic vivere scribere debuit juxta scripturas Concerning the Mass ' Vltimo dicta Patrum inducit rex pro Missario Sacrificio ridet meam stultitiam quod solus velim sapere prae omnibus Hoc est quod dixi Thomisticos Asinos habere nihil quod producant nisimultitudinem hominum usum antiquum And in Captivitate Babilonica heresolues Si nihil habetur quod dicatur i. e. in answer to the Fathers satius est omnia negasse quam Missam Sacrificium esse concedere And on the same matter in Missa privata Hic non moramur saith he si clamitent Papistae Ecclesia Ecclesia Patres Patres quia ut dixi hominum dicta aut facta nihil in tane magnis causis curamus Scimus enim ipsos Prophetas lapsos esse adeoque Apostolos c. And the Fathers put together i.e. the Councils fare no better ' Ego doceo saith he ‖ Assertion Art Conciliis dissentire resistere si quando contraria Scripturae he must mean here contrary to what he apprehends to be the sence of Scripture statuunt And in his Book de Judicio Ecclesiae de quavis doctrina he saith ' Christus adimit Episcopis Doctoribus Conciliis tum jus tum potestâ—tem judicandi de Doctrina ac tradit illa omnibus Christianis in Genere quoting for it Jo. 10.4 Oves meae vocem meam audiunt alienum autem non sequuntur sed fugiunt c. and 1 Thes 5. Omnia probates So contra Regem Angliae On ' Attendite a falsis Prophetis Matt. 17.15 Haec sola authoritas saith he satis esse queat adversus omnium Pontificum omnium Patrum omnium Conciliorum omnium Scholarum sententias quae jus judicandi discernendisolis Episcopis Ministris tribuerunt And in the distractions of the new Reformation some motioning a Synod to be called amongst them as necessary for setling them he gives his grave judgment of Synods thus ‖ Tom. 2. p. 243. ' Quantumvis bono zelo tentata est res mali Exempli ut probant omnia Ecclesiae concilia ab initio so far as not to spare that of the Apostles Act. 15. Ita ut in Apostolicâ— concilio ferme de operibus Traditionibus magis quam de fide sit tractatum in posterioribus vero nunquam de fide sed semper de opinionibus questionibus disputatum ut mihi conciliorum nomen paene tam suspectum invisum sit quam nomen liberi Arbitii Lastly the 3d. Canon of the Council of Nice prohibiting the Clergy ne haberent secum in their house mulierem extraneam nisi forte sit mater aut soror aut avia aut avita out matertera he saith ‖ De conciliis Se non intelligere sanctum spiritum in hoc Concilio And again An vero nihil alind est negotii spiritui sancto in conciliis quam ut impossibilibus periculosis non necessariis legibus suos ministros obstring at oneret I beseech all sober Christians to
as a Prelatist For since the judgment here concerning the condition viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth or when the Subscriber proves the contrary when he is competent to search grounds or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum is left not to the Church but to the Subscriber it casts the assent and dissent also wholly into his dâ—sposal and arbitrement and note here also that who may require only a conditional assent can likewise exact only in such points as are practical a conditional conformity i. e. that none be absolutely enjoyned to practice such a thing but onely upon supposition that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful or that he is a person unable to searth the grounds of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof c. of which conditioâ—s himself also not the Church is judg For otherwise he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done which later the Church of England not owning neither may she the first and who ought to have his liberty for the one ought so for the other too Now 't is ordinary in the English Canons to require upon pain of Excommunication conformity to her Constitutions where had this secret been known to the Presbyterians that it is understood onely of such a conditional conformity I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous and unjust as those of Rome Thus I have made a search into the obedience §. 85. n. 11. which is required of her Subjects by a Church that seems not well grounded in her authority by reason that having disjoyned herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholick Church and from Superior Councils she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries which from our Lords perpetual superintendency resides in the whole as all members throughly consenting with the whole and guided by it do lay claim to such Infallibility and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines wherein they agree with the whole nor can she standing apart and alledging the reason of it the former Churches errors have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself and therefore it is no wonder if there seem some uncertainty what obedience she requireth where there is what authority she possesseth and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed than the soveraign and undeclinable authority of the Proposer Meanwhile whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects §. 85. n. 12. or that of non-contradiction I see not how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church or by her own Principles For 1st By the Laws of the Church if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it These as well as she determining nothing but what they think a clear truth Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome for requiring assent to her Canons upon Anathema when she fallible requires the same upon Excommunication For the disparities that are made here have been formerly answered and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines to which they require assent the Roman Church pleads the like for hers and so sub judice lis est Concerning this hear Mr. Chillingw †p. 375. Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it I suppose he means appearing such not onely to the Church-Governors but their Subjects and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption But 2ly If laying assent aside onely a non-contradiction of her Articles or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous is required upon excommunication of the person so offending yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous as have been determined by Superior Councils a General or a Patriarchal Synod contrarily For example It is not lawfull for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods accepted by the whole Western Church as is shewed before 1. Disc § 57. which therefore oblige Christians to the belief and profession of it against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod Neither 2ly Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one that affirms any of their Articles erroneous without condemning their own Principles because what they say of General Councils is as true I suppose for their own Synods viz. That they may err grosly and manifestly in which case they say one may lawfully affirm these Councils in such thing erroneous else how can they ever be corrected See before § 43 44. c. The case therefore is the same as to their own Synods And then for what they say a person may lawfully do they cannot lawfully excommunicate him But if it be replyed §. 85. n. 13. that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction onely to what they are certain is truth and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them or affirm they err 1st It follows they may upon the same terms require assent also of which they seem more shie But 2ly As theirs plead certainty so do other Councils whom yet they will not excuse upon this pretence for requiring assent as hath been but now said 3ly It seems unreasonable that a certainty either from the sense of Scripture necessary Deduction former universal Tradition or any other way should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters from which a major part of Christianity perusing the same evidences dissents †Disc 2 §. 5. Disc 4 § 11 12. such as are several of the 39 Articles 4ly Protestants themselves affirm that those who are certain of truth yet may not require an absolute but conditional assent from others who first know them in general to be fallible and next do not know or have it not proved to them that in this particular they dot err See before § 85. n. 10. And the same they say for non-contradiction required that it must be onely conditional i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear to the Churches Subjects necessary to be divulged Meanwhile it is not denied which was also
to some dissenting parties Thus they argue as if they should say If the Law cannot be understood much less the Judge that is appointed to explain it for also we have many Comments on the Law none on his Sentence or as if the sence of those many Canons of Councils that are urged against Protestants were not granted by them both sufficiently clear and accused by them as evidently erroneous Lastly * whether their decrees have been confirmed by the Pope And then for this it must be known also whether the Pope confirming them was a lawful Pope * whether not Simonically elected which but once hapning there follows from it the illegality of all his Successors because these chosen by some Cardinals that were created by him who are no legitimate Electors and upon this account saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 125. there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the Fifth And here again return all these questions concerning the Pope's Baptism Ordination c. with a right intention of the Priest in doing them which were asked formerly concerning the Bishops These and many more such like Queries are made by persons studying acuteness in throwing down the Pillars of a former setled faith to make way for introducing a more free and unconfined i. e. a more sceptical and arbitrary or latitudinarian Religion And since from any of these Queries a quarrel may be made against a Council as not lawful there will never want for any past Council some pretence or other of disallowing it when stating Doctrines or giving Laws contrary to our inclination or interest and how easie were it for a Socinian from several of these to quarrel with that of Nice See below Disc 4. § 18. c. To all which I return this answer 1st That a rational not-possibly-fallible § 115 certainty or assurance of the lawfulness of any Council or of the forementioned particulars whereby this lawfulness may be known is by no side affirmed necessary 2ly That as for a non-morally fallible certainty in respect of several of the particulars such as these whether all the Bishops that sate in the Council of Nice were truly and lawfully baptized ordained c. none simoniacally elected none come to the Council with prejudice none corrupted or over-awed in giving his vote c. this is sufficient that where any of these do fail the cognizance of Tradition yet any Christian in general may be rationally assured I mean as to the much major part of such Council for more needs not that that divine providence and assistance which is supposed to preserve the Church's lawful General Councils from not erring in necessaries doth consequently either preserve such Councils as are taken by this Church for lawfully general from all such defects as do render them not capable of his promise of not erring Or if any forepassed Councils reputed lawfulâ—y General have had such defects doth continue the same priviledge of not erring also to these Councils because such their defects are undiscernable to the Church Otherwise the Church's error in not discerning lawful Councils would render the divine favour in assisting lawful Councils useless and unbeneficial unto her § 116 And this answer is no more than is thought reasonable and given by Protestants in other cases So Mr. Chillingworth †p. 78. up a doubt proposed whether a Penitent doing his own best indeavours when absolved of his sins by one that goes for but really is no Priest or by a Priest but without an intention of absolving him receives any benefit thereby thinks this a good answer That God's goodness will supply all such defects as to humane indeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave absolution without intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only not his Penitent And Protestants upon supposition that God hath by no other way clearly revealed the points necessary to salvation do from the same goodness of God prove their fundamental Doctrine that all necessaries to salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture where as I conceive the supposition to fail so the arguing good upon the common Principle that Deus non deficit in necessariis § 117 3. So far as the former questions are moved concerning a sufficient certainty I suppose Protestants will affirm that they have a sufficient certainty concerning some Councils that they were lawfully General as concerning the four first whose Definitions also they retain in their Creed what ground therefore of their certainty of these Councils that they were lawfully General they will return to a Socinian asking the former questions of them whether this ground be a General Church-Tradition or any thing else the same may be returned to the same questions concerning the rest that have been held lawfully General by the common Tradition of later times since the sitting of such Councils Add to this that notwithstanding in general they allow some obedience due to lawful General Councils yet if they deny a sufficient certainty of knowing any such this is in effect to release all Christian obedience to any Council in particular § 118 4ly I answer That for solution of the former questions such as are more material as touching the sufficiency of the representative the lawfulness of their proceedings their Confirmation by the See Apostolick acceptation by the Church diffusive such as â—s necessary c. private Christians have sufficient certainty from the testimony that after the sitting of such Councils the continued Tradition of the Church Catholick or of its Governors taken in the sence explained before § 8.12 Disc 2 § 23. or also met in later Councils delivers thereof in which tradition he may securely rest and supersede that quest for satisfaction of the former doubts with which others must needs be much perplexed who have not the humility to acquiesce in the resolutions of their forefathers § 119 5ly Since the Church Catholick or its Governors as stated before †§. 2.6 of all ages and therefore that of the present age is an infallible Guide in necessaries therefore whatever former Councils and their definitions the present Church or its Governors do accept and own Christians may be assured from this that such Councils have not erred in necessaries and either were lawfully general and obliging or at least by this acceptation of the present Church are rendred equivalent thereto the act of this Church her allowing their decrees being of the same strength and vigor as is her new decreeing them And thus for such Councils the former inquiries become frustrated Note that I understand the acceptation of the present Church Catholick or its Governors in the sence explained before § 11. c. Disc 1. § 38. 6. But lastly though a sufficient certainty by these wayes a Christian may have concerning what or how many have been lawful General Councils or equivalent thereto and so concerning their
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
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
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
Epiphan Haer. 69 Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. numbers on his side Hilarius †De Synodis relates no less than eighty Bishops before that Council to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Council also seventeen some of note at first to have dissented from the rest § 14 Prot. Not yielding what you say for truth but for the present supposing it yet the judgment of so small a party may by no means be adhered to by you it being inconsiderable in respect of the whole Body of the Catholick Church declaring against you Soc. If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the whole then the reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much more numerous body of Christianity that opposed their opinions and sence of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation and do still oppose them But not to stand upon this I would willingly conform to the unanimous or most general judgement of the Church Catholick if I were secure that she could not be mistaken in it But †Stillingf p. 59. The sence of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the rule of faith †Stillingf p. 133. Nor may she usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned Prot. You may be secure that she never erreth in any point necessary Soc. But you tell me that though she never err in necessaries yet it follows not that she is an unerring Guid or witness therein †Stillingf p. 154 252. Chilling p. 150. Dr. Hammond Defence of the L. Falkl. p. 23. §. 15. or that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what not and I must first learn whether this point of Consubstantiality is to be numbred among necessaries before I can be assured that the sence of the Church Catholick errs not therein Prot. But †Stillingf p 58. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of Scripture if it appear contrary to the sence of the Church Catholick from the beginning and therefore such doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of faith which have been so unanimously condemued by the Church Catholick Soc. Why so Prot. †Stillingf ib. Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith can be held by the Catholick Church for it s very Being depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation Soc. This last is most true but then if you mean to make your discourse cohere you must say it is a sufficient prescription c. if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church viz. in a point necessary for the reason you give carries and secures you no further and then that which you say is no great matter For here we are still to seek whether the point we discourse of is in the affirmative such a necessary § 16 Prot. But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath put in her Creeds Soc. From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed and though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in the Creeds yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary †Stillingf p. 70. 71. Necessary so as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof which conviction I yet want § 17 Prot. But yet though first the Catholick Church may err in non-necessaries and 2ly in what points are necessary what not her judgment be not infallible yet you have still great reason to submit your judgment to hers because if it happen to be a point necessary she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in it not so you And 2ly If not necessary and so both she and you therein liable to error yet you much the more and she also in these things is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide Soc. Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides consider their reasons do not rashly depart from their judgement but yet †Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 19. The due submission of my assent and belief to them is only to be conditional with reservation of evidence in God's Word For in matter of faith as Dr. Ferne saith I cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for faith all that they shall define for such resignation stands excluded by the condition of the authority which is not infallible and by the condition of the matter faith of high concernment to our own souls and to be accounted for by our selves who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word upon which we may finally and securely stay our belief And †The Case between the Churches p. 40. The Church determining matter of faith saith he ought to manifest it out of God's Word and we may expect such proof before we yield absolute assent of belief And so Mr. Stillingfleet saith †p. 133. All men ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the Scripture for Consubstantiality but rather for the contrary which several of our Writers have made appear to the world And therefore unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined or at least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from the rest it seems no way justifiable that she puts this her definition into the Creed she as I conceive thus requiring from all an absolute consent thereto and not only as some †Still p. 70. would perswade me a conditional for some of them viz. whenever I shall be clearly convinced that such point is of divine Revelation CONFERENCE III. 3. Or contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof being observed § 18 3. PRot. But do you not consider by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed Namely by the first General and the most venerable assembly of the Fathers of the Church that hath been convened since the Apostles times celebrated under the first Christian Emperor by a perfect representative of the Catholick Church and by such persons as came very much purified out of the newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath suffered that under Dioclesian will not you then at last submit your judgment to the Decree of this great and holy Council one and the first of those four which S. Gregory said he received with the same reverence as the four Gospels Soc. No And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons
and the sense thereof where evident and not controverted as in many points it is clear by both sides as holding it infallible equally acquiesced in And 2ly Where the true sense of this common Rule happens to be disputed and brought into question and so there is need of some other guide to shew which sense is the right here the guide which Protestants direct men to is not the certain and infallible Scripture but indeed in the last place every mans own judgment or Reason and the guide which the Roman doctrine directs men to is their Spiritual Superiours and in the last place the most supream Council of them Where also 1st that supreme Guide whom the particular Guides of Catholicks hold themselves obliged to follow is affirmed in all their Definitions concerning necessaries to be infallible and 2ly Since such their Definitions are only in things in which the sense of the Scriptures is controverted it may be presumed that the sense of the same Definitions is to private persons much more intelligible and plain than those Scriptures that are explained by them And 3ly this living Guide from time to time as any doubt ariseth can render it self still more intelligible which the Rule of Scriptures cannot § 24 This from § 3. is spoken to those Protestant-Divines who though they make a Promise of Indefectibility or Infallibility in Necessaries absolute to the Church-Catholick yet affirm it to be to the Churches Clergy even taken in the Supremest Consultations and meetings of it only conditional which Promise of absolute Indefectibility being thus extended to the Church but withheld from the Clergy though it implies still an infinite benefit and favour to some particulars yet seems to afford very litle consolation to Christianity in General being a promising no more than this That in all Ages to the end of the World there shall be some men in it that shall not teach but only retain so much faith or divine truth as thereby to be saved which thing may be where is no preaching no Administration of the Sacraments and indeed no external visible Church at all which thing may be though all the Clergy do Apostatize if at least some few Laicks continue Orthodox CHAP. IV. II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy some or other of them alwayes unerring in Necessaries but this not necessarily the Superiour or major part of them § 25. That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians when opposing the Superiour nor a few opposing a much major part § 30. § 25 II OTher Reformed Divines there are who allow not a conditional but absolute Promise made to the Clergy some or other II. in a greater or in a smaller number in all times Nay yet further Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy and Church-Guides some or other of them always unerring in Necessaries but not necessarily the Superiour or major part of them made also to some visible distinct Body and Society or external Communion of them together with the Congregation of faithful adhering to them so that all the Clergy shall never in no Age universally apostatize but some of them still remain Orthodox or also some body of them and there shall always be a visible Orthodox Church or Churches such as hath a right publick profession of Christianity and a true Ministry in it of the Word and Sacraments so that according to these Divines the fore-mentioned Promises ‖ §. 12. advance somwhat higher * That Promise Mat. 28. signifying That Christ will be with some or other of his Clergy in some place or other for ever so as that they shall certainly teach what he hath commanded them And * that Jo. 14. That they shall so love him keep his Commandments as that his Spirit shall abide with them for ever lead them into all Truth Necessary And * that Luk 10. That they shall so faithfully recite the Truths he committed to them as that those who hear them hear him § 26 Of this Church and Clergy so assisted thus Dr. Ferne ‖ Division of Engl and Rome It cannot be imagined saith he that God who promised to be with them and guide them should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church and preserve it by the Judgment and Conscience of Lay-people but that some Guides and Pastors though of less number and place still be they that shall detect prevailing Errours and preserve the Truth § 27 To the same purpose is that Testimony of Mr. Hooker ‖ 3 l. p. 124 That Gods Clergy are a state which have been and will be as long as there is a Church upon Earth necessary by the plain Word of God Himself a State whereunto the rest of Gods people must be subject as touching things that appertain to their Souls health For where Policy is it cannot but approve some to be leaders of others and some to be led by others This Clergy then to have thus a perpetual Being must never err in Fundamentals and therefore it will be irrational to deny them in these to be a perpetual secure and unerring Guide § 28 To the same purpose speaks Arch-Bishop Lawd ‖ §. 37. p. 318 There must be saith he some one Church or other continually visible For if this be not so then there may be a time in which there shall not any where be a visible Profession of the Name of Christ which is contrary to the whole scope and profession of the Gospel And this saith he such a visible Church as hath in all Ages taught the unchanged Faith of Christ in all Points fundamental ‖ Numb 3 5 And thus Dr. Field also ‖ 1 l. 10. c. p. 14. 15. affirmes That the Church is alwayes visible in respect of the Order of Ministery and due obedience yielded thereunto and them discernable that do communicate therein and below That always an open known and constant Profession of saving Truth is preserved and found among Men and the Ministery of Salvation continued and known in the World for how saith he should there be a Church gathered without a Ministery ‖ See 2 l. 6 c. And in the Preface to his whole Book of the Church he discourseth on this manner Seeing the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the World is that blessed Company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Thus he § 29 And thus far went Mr. Calvin long ago holding that there is a visible Society consisting of Clergy and
non posse ut Christi Corpus tanto intervalio a nobis disjunctum in coenâ revera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc Mysterium nec mente percipere nec liguâ explicare posse And thus also Rivet ‖ Animad in Grot. p. 85. against it Si Corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitativè i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia Corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est Corpus Now if it be said here that though the Real Presence of Protestants to the worthy Receiver admits indeed some seeming contradictions yet doth the Roman Real Presence to the Symboles suâ—â—er many more 1st I answer that a Tenent involving one true contradiction is as far removed from Truth as that which involves a hundred And 2 ly That I know no just bounds but that if ineffable incomprehensible may be used for salving three or four seeming impossibilities so it may be for forty § 69 As for the Fears suggested by some ‖ Still p. 117. 567. Tillots p. 275 That if the judgment of all mens sences is not to be relied on in the matter of the Eucharist then it will be impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith For what assurance can be had of any Miracles c Why not the Apostles be deceived in Christ's being risen from the grave For might it not be an invisible Spirit under the Accidents of Christ's Body And since hearing may fail as well as sight may not we thus question all Church-Tradition That nothing is to be admitted by us as certain which admitted we can be certain of nothing c. As for such Tragical Consequences I say they need not much terrifie us § 70 For 1st If it be not true in the Eucharist I suppose it is in another instance that under the outward accidents and appearances to the sences of one body was contained the substance or presence of another viz. under the external appearance of men the persons of Angels so that the sences of all men that looked upon them were actually mistaken Gen. 18.19 And so would so many more as had beheld them Doth it follow now from this deception of Sence or Reason here which cannot be denied that after this it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith or that any assurance can be had of Miracles c. Or lastly That we can be thence-forward certain of nothing If not how follows it from the like supernatural Operation supposed in the Eucharist An Argument drawn from our Sences is not from any of these supernatural effects deceiving sence weakned for proving any Truth save only in so many Particulars wherein we have or pretend divine Revelation concerning such deception of our sence If then there be such Divine Revelation for a deception of sence or natural reason in the Eucharist I hope all will see these aggravating consequences to be vain But 2ly If this Revelation be mistaken yet cannot that deception of sence which is only believed upon its supposal be from hence justly extended to any other thing where this is not supposed So that whether such Revelation be or be not Catholicks and the truth in such hasty and unweighed Argumentations are much wronged This from § 62. I have annexed though somwhat besides the design of this Discourse that the reluctances of our Sence or Natural Reason may do no prejudice to our Faith and humble submission in this great Mystery to the Traditions of the Church and Definitions of Councils The End of the first Discourse THE SECOND DISCOURSE Proceeding upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants That the Pastors of the Church some or other in all Ages do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries to search which in any Division of these Pastors are those to whom Christians ought to adhere and yeild their Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. PRotestants grant 1st That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2ly That the present Pastors and Governors thereof have authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3ly That these Governors some or other of them shall never err or miss-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to Salvation § 3. 4ly That they and the Church governed by them stand always distinct from Heretical or Schismatical Congregations § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks further affirm 5ly That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries the People are also to learn from them what or how many Points are necessary so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them § 6. 6ly Again That the Necessaries wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary but extended to all such points of Faith as are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7ly Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries 1. That there seems no necessity that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them § 12. 2. That they may infallibly guide in them though not infallibly distinguish them § 14. 3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries and no distinction of these made ought to be believed in all points they propose except an infallible certainty can be shewed of the contrary § 15. 4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such all those more necessary points which it is requisite for Christians with a more particular explicite Faith to believ § 17. 8. That Christians submitting their judgment to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith ought also to submit it to them in declaring the sence of the Fathers or Definitions of Councils and former Church concerning the same Matters § 19. 9ly That supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions yet their Subjects by the concession of Learned Protestants ought to yield the Obedience either of silence or also of assent to them in all such points whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary § 20. 10. From whence it follows that none may adhere to any new Guides but only so many as can demonstrate the Errors of the former § 21. Chap. 3. 11. Granted by all that these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them more or fewer may become erroneous in Necessaries and miss-guide Christians in them § 22. 12. In such dissenting therefore that there must be some Rule for Christians which Guides they ought to follow and that this is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the major part § 23. Where Of the Major part concluding the Whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianisme § 26. n. 2. 13. That
fauteres compositionem verborum quòd Sacrae litera ejusmodi minimè complecterentur insectari possent After this upon the calling of the Council at Sardica A. D. 347. the Eastern Bishops assembled at Philippopolis and though they condemned Arrianisme yet maintaining Semi-Arrianisme were only 76. whilst the Orthodox Sardican Bishops were about 300. In the next Council following at Sirmium convened for destroying the new Heresie of Photinus both the first and last Form of the Faith that was composed by the Eastern Bishops there for the second themselves disallowed though defective yet contained nothing in them that might not well be taken in a Catholick sence And in such a sence was the first explained by S. Hilarius ‖ lib. de Synodis writing in those very times From which it follows that it is not necessary that all the Subscribers of these Creeds should either be Arrian or Semi-Arrian And there seems to be a great hand of the Divine Providence in it That it is Professed in these Creeds That Filius did ex Patris Substantiâ constare or that he was Patri per omnia similis etiam quoad substantiam or Essentiam Again that he was ante omne tempus aut secúlum all which is most true But not professed there what these Semi-Arrians held further That the Son though he had altogether the like yet had not the self-same essence with the Father which they thought could not consist with the distinction of the Persons And that the Son though ante omne tempus yet was not co-eternal with the Father for this they thought consisted not with his Generation this I say in those Creeds is not mentioned they it seems either thinking it enough as to the abatement of the former Nicene Decree if they could free themselves and others from being forced to profess any more in the publick Faith than consisted with their private Opinion or else knowing the party that reverenced and contended for the Nicene Faith so considerable as that if their own Tenents were inserted they would not have been at such times by a Major part subscribed Thus things stood in the East till the Council of Seleucia there and of Ariminum in the West 2. Next §. 26. n. 4 As for the West till that Council of Ariminum though some chief Bishops and among the rest Liberius Bishop of Rome suffered Persecution for some three or four years before it for not subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius unheard against whom the Emperor was much incensed as supposing him the chief cause of the enmity between his Brethren Constance and Constantine and himself ‖ See Theodocet l. 2. c. 16. yet the main Body thereof both remained Catholick and possessed of their Chairs till the Meeting of this Council And Liberius being by the importunity of the Roman People recalled from his Banishment where he is said * to have subscribed to one of the Sirmian Forms of Faith but as I said before expressing nothing in it but what was Catholick * interdixisse Ecclesiâ illis qui Filium Patri non substantiâ caeteris rebus omnibus similem asseverarent i. e. the Arrians ‖ Sozom. l. 1. c. 14. was now as constant an Oppugner of Arrianisme as any other denying also his Consent to the Decree of this Council ‖ See Theodl 2. c. 22. Now also the Roman Clergy were very famous for their Constancy in the Nicene Faith and their refusing the Admission of Felix supposed an Arrian into Liberius his Chair And of the Orthodoxness at this time of the other Wâ—stern Prelates see what Hilarius saith in the beginning of his Book De Synodis directed in his Exile to these Bishops and lastly S. Jerom's new wonder Ingemuit totus Orbis Arrianum se esse miratus est spoken upon a strange and unexpected issue of this Council at Ariminum shews there was no such thing before it To come to the Council then §. 26. n. 9. 1st As this Meeting of about 400 Bishops assembled there appeared not above 80. or as Athanasius ‖ Athan. de Sydno saith 50. addicted to Arrianisme though some of these indeed the Emperor's Favorities accordingly the Decree of this Council confirming that of Nice and condemning Arrianisme was sent by them though never delivered â—o the Emperor and a dismission desired which long delayed several of them without leave departed the rest hindered from dissolving upon much sollicitation of the Emperor's Agents and the specious pretence of a firm Peace and Union so to be attained of the Western and Eastern Churches yielded at last to subscribe a Form in which was not rejected but omitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon these terms Quod vulgo parùm intellectum offendicula pareret quia in Scripturâ nusquam memoraretur And Neque adeo necessarium esset de Personâ Patris Filii Spiritus sancti unam Substantiam nominari ‖ Theodoret. l. 2. c. 21. where you may observe the truth of it is no way denied This I say was omitted but nothing affirmed in the Form which was not well capable of a Catholick sence If there was let it be named For this Expression Credo in Filium Dei similem Genitori suo Patri secundum Scripturas I suppose none will say contains any Error or untruth in it nor opposeth Identity any more than S Paul's Imago invisibilis Dei Col. 1.15 Or Christus aequalis Deo Phil. 2.6 Which Texts were also then urged in defence of it Especially when 1st the Arrian Forms usually joined per omnia in explication of it as may be seen in the third Sirmâ—an Form of Faith with which this wâ—s much what the same And so the Emperor Constantius exacted this Subscription of similis per omnia from Valence himself the chief Leader of the Arrian party ‖ See Epiph. Her 73. leftblank And 2. Next the Semi-Arrians in the per omnia included also Similis Deo Patri secundum Essentiam or Substantiam from which the Catholicks rightly inferred Identity of Essence And also went so far as to admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and to profess vocem illam in Concilio Niceno ad perversam Arrii doctrinam expugnandam sanctè pièque positam And Se eandem Fidem ante-hac servasse servare ad extremum servaturos ‖ Socrat. l. 4. c. 11. Only they understood this word of the Nicene Fathers in a diminutive sence ‖ Socrat. l. 3. c. 21. leftblank And thus speaks S. Basil ‖ Ad maximum Philosophum Ep. 1. of their Expression Similis ecundum Substantiam Si quid ipse sentiam dicendum est quantum ad similem secundum Essentiam siquidem huic dicto adjunctum fuerit prorsus citra ullam ipsius essentiae variationem eam ego amplector probroque vocem ut quae idem significet quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But yet because this Form though in some sence true was general
for ever must be so infallible the Church-Catholick being ever so and never consisting of People only without Pastors It is necessarily devolved also upon the much major and more-dignified part of this united Body of the Clergy to be so Because else the Catholick Church would not be One in its Constitution but a Body divided in it self and so which could not stand if two several Parties in such Council without any just subordination to one another might both pretend themselves to be the unerring Guide 6ly For these Church-Guides being affirmed unerrable in Necessaries Catholicks here do understand Necessaries § 9 not in so strict a sence as to be restrained and limited only to those few points of Faith that are so indispensably required to be of all explicitly believed as that salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief or ignorance of any of them But affirm they ought to be understood in a sence more enlarged comprehending at least all such points as are very requisite and beneficial to salvation either in respect of Christian Faith or Manners either for the direction of particulars or Government of the whole Society of Christians Of which see what is spoken more largely in the 2d Disc § 9. § 10 7ly Concerning the particular Manner or Measure of these Church-Governors when assembled in a lawful General Council their being affirmed unerrable or infallible 1st As Catholicks do not hereby understand them absolutely unerrable in any matter whatever which they may attempt to determine but only in such matters as appear to them of necessary Faith taken in the sence before-mentioned ‖ §. 9. Disc 2. §. 9. So neither do they hold touching these necessary points * any inherent habitual infallibility residing either in the whole Council or some Members thereof whereby they perceive and know themselves infallibly inspired as to such points after the same manner as the Apostles or Prophets did but only * an actual non-erring in those things which they define * from the promised Divine Assistance and super-intendent Providence constantly directing their Consultations into the Truth by what several ways or means it matters not to know or also * from the clear Evidence of former Revelation and Tradition of the point defined from which Evidence Protestants also grant that those may be certain for some divine Truths who are not infallible in all 2ly Catholicks affirm These Guides in all ages since that of the Apostles equally infallible and that the present Church doth not or way not pretend to any infallibility or exercise any authority consequent thereof which the ancient Catholick Church did not claim and also practise in the four first or other General Councils But yet as this ancient Church also required Assent under Anathema to its Definitions and inserted some of them into the Creeds and some of these also points of great difficulty and subtle discussion that so may the present or the future Church do the like § 11 8ly Catholicks affirm That of the several Councils that have been assembled in former ages to know which or how many of them have been lawfully general or in their obligation equivalent thereto any Christian without going about to satisfie himself in all those curious Questions moved by Protestants several of which are considered below § 86. c. may securely relie on the acceptation and acknowledgement or non-opposition of them and their Decrees * by the Church-Catholick of that age wherein they were held and of the ages following i. e. by the Teachers and Writers therein unanimously maintaining or not gainsaying the Doctrines of such Councils and by the Church's practice conforming to their Injunctions Or where some persons or Churches dissent from the rest * by the Major part of these Churches accepting them when these are united also with St. Peter 's Successor the always Prime Patriarch and Supreme Bishop of the Christian world the Bishop of Rome As for Example Catholicks hold that a Christian may securely embrace and obey the Decrees of those Councils as Generall or in their obligation equivalent thereto the Decrees whereof were accepted by the whole Church-Catholick tacitly at least in their Liturgies Writings Practices being conformable thereto or not dissenting therefrom at the Appearance of Luther and are accepted still both by the much major part of the Christian world and also ratified by the Supreme Pastor of the Church-Catholick § 12 The Reason of this 1 Because if a Christian may not securely rely on such an Acceptation a few persons or Churches resisting or standing out perhaps those who are condemned also of Heresie and Schism by such Councils This will void the obligation of all Councils whatever And upon the same termes the Arrian Bishops and their Churches that dissented will void the Obligation of the first General Council of Nice and those dissenting Persons and Churches of the Nestorians and Eutychians or Dioscorites some of which continue in the Eastern or Southern parts of the world unto this day will void that of the third and fourth General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon See more of this Disc 2. § 25. c. And 2 Because considering the nature of a multitude such thing can hardly be but that some will dissent from the rest and therefore it seems as necessary to proceed according to the same Rule in the Church-Catholick's accepting the Council's Decrees as in the Council's making them viz. that the Vote of the much major part conclude the whole to render the actions of such great Bodies valid § 13 9ly Concerning the Acceptation of Councils by the whole or major part of the Church-Catholick this seems reasonable That though the representatives of some considerable part of the Church-Catholick should be wanting in some of these Councils especially when they are assembled for deciding some Controversies arising only in that of Christianity where the Council sits yet the certain concurrence of that absent part of the Church-Catholick in their doctrines with the decrees of such Councils should pass for a sufficient acceptation of them and such absence no way prejudice the obligation of such Decrees For it may well be presumed the members of such Churches if present would have voted in the Council what they hold out of it hold before it contradict not after it § 14 10ly Catholicks do hold all particular persons and Churches taken divisim as being only a part of and subordinatâ—â—â— to the whole ‖ See Disc 2. §. 23. as also all particular Bishops are only single members of the whole Body of them assembled in a Council to stand obliged in submission of their judgement and in obedience of assent to the Definitions and Decrees of the whole in these Supremests Courts thereof wherein it can give its judgement viz. it s lawful General Councils when these accepted also by the Church-Governors absent in the manner forementioned § 15 The Reason Because these Supreme Courts are secured for ever by our Lords
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
for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his reinjoying the Churches Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrines it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Preface § 39. That the doctrine of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib § 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. § 39. I am perswaded that the constant doctrine of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ib. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of this Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he †Chill p. 376 so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of jud gment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to indeavor to find the true sence of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. indeavouring to find the true sence of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sence shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sence Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth That with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Vnity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS Addenda PAge 30. line 31. After Turky Add. Brerewood Brerw Enquir p. 84. 88. computing the whole Body of Christians in Asia including also those united with Rome not to amount to a twentieth part of its inhabitants and all the Turks Dominions in Europe not to exceed the magnitude of Spain Ib. p. 67. Throughout whose Dominions also the chief c. Page 30. line penult After Field p. 63. Add. And Brerewood's inquire c. 19. p. 147. Page 31 line 17 After reside Add. To which in the last place may be added that great Body of the same Communion that hath long flourished and daily enlargeth it self throughout the West-Indies Page 51 line 4. After practice Add. To all these may be further added the early Condemnation that is found in Antiquity of those modern tenents of several Protestants in opposition to a subordination of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to the utility of Prayer for the Dead of Invocation of the Saints Veneration of Saints Reliques set Fasting-dayes Festivals Vigils Abstinence from certain meats Monastick vows especially that of Virginity and Celibacy Hermitages Disparity of the Coelestial Rewards and degrees of Glory The maintainers of which long ago Arrius Vid. Epiphan Haer. 75. August Haer. 53. Jovinian Vid. Hieron contra Jovin Austin Haer. 82. Vigilantius Vid. Hieronym contra Vigilant were condemned as Hereticks i. e. as opposers of those points that the general Church practice received and allowed as lawful by the Fathers of those times and being crushed by their Censures were prevented from receiving any further sentence from a Council Lastly why was there made a departure from the Church at least for many of these points c. Page 66 line 19. After Himself Add. And so this Person supposed by Protestants to have been raised up by God to vindicate his Truth yet was permitted by him to dy in their conceit a Desertor of it i. e. reconciled to the doctrin of the Church Page 93 line ult After exordium unitatis Add. The Ecclesiasticalunity in which Bishop Grotius conceiveth so necessary as that he saith Rivet Apol. discussio p. 255. Non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jung antur cum iis qui sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua saith he nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Again Inter causas divulsionis Ecclesiae non esse primatum Episcopi Romani secundùm Canones favente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc esse Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum Thus moderate Protestants of the Churches unity founded Supremely as to single persons in the Bishop of Rome Page 96 line 15. After Coeteris Add. And accordingly in all those instances gathered out of Antiquity by Arch-Bishop Lawd § 24. n. 5. where inferior Synods have reformed abuses in manners or made Decrees in causes of Faith as it is willingly granted many have done it cannot be shewed that any of them hath done either of these in matters stated before contrarily by a Superior Authority a thing with which Protestants are charged Somthing was then stated or reformed by Inferiors without nothing against their Superiors Page 103 line 36. After times Add. Baron saith A. D. 358. That In tantâ errorum offusâ caligine qui substantiae Filii Dei assertores essent a nostris in pretio habebantur ut pote quod ut soepius est dictum nullâ aliâ re viderentur a Catholicis differre nisi quod vocem Consubstantialitatis non admitterent Page 104 line 8 After mentioned Add. So but that the words are well capable of an Orthodox sence So that the seventeenth and twenty sixth Articles in the first Sirmian Confession as they are understood by Sozomen in the Semi-Arrian l. 5. c. so are they compared with the antecedents expounded by St. Hillary De Synodis in a Catholick sence The Semi-Arrian Bishops it seems c. Page 125 line ult After errores Add. And Ib. q. 5. a. 3. Omnibus articulis fidei inhaeret fidei propter unum medium sci propter veritatem primam propositam a nobis in Scripturis secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae sane intelligendis See several Authorities to this purpose collected by Fr. a S. Clara in System Fid. c. 7. Page 206 line 3. After Accesserunt Add. Concerning 1 the corruption of humane nature and bondage under sin 2 Justification gratuital and 3 Christs Sacerdotal Office thus he censures ancient Church-Tradition Resp ad Cassand offic Pii viri in Cassand oper p. 802. Verum si quid in controversiam vocetur quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures inter nasi cerei si absque Traditionis subsidio quicquam definire fas non sit quid jam fiet praeciputs Fidei nostrae capitibus Tria solum exempli causa proferam 1. Naturae nostrae corruptio misera animae servitus sub peccati Tyrannide 2. Gratuita justificatio 3. Et Christi Sacerdotium apud vetustissimos Scriptores ita obscurè attingitur ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici Si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae jacebit omuis Fiducia quia ex illis nunquam discemus quomodo Deo reconciliemur quomodo illuminemur a Spiritu sancto formemur in obsequium justitiae quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus continua pro nobis intercessio quarum rerum luculenta explicatio in Scripturâ passim occurrit Itaque novo hoc Magistro Cassandr Authore quaecunque ad salutem apprimè cognitu necessaria sunt non tantùm manebunt semi-sepulta sed quia nulla Traditio suffragatur i. e. in Antiquity certitudine carebunt Thus he And it is very true that of such a Doctrin as many Protestants deliver in these matters no footsteps will be found in antiquity and that nulla Traditio suffragabitur Page 230 line 35. After censetur Add. And Ib. q. 5. ar 3. Si quis non pertinaciter discredit articulum Fidei paratus sequi in omnibus doctrinam Ecclesiae jam non est haereticus sed solùm errans Page 342 line 28. After Prot. Add. No person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversie as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the cause of Arrius can rightly or properly be said to be on that side for which he gives sentence a Party Nor doth their giving sentence once against any side prejudice them as enemies or opposites or interessed from sitting on the Bench as oft as need requires to passe it again alone or with others But if every one may be afterward called an Anti-Party who once declareth himself of a contrary Judgment I perceive c. FINIS