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
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
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us
clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then matter of Faith or Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and would not have remained in the Communion of the Church Thus with him if one or two of the Ancients that are not therefore at that time accounted Hereticks for it can be shewed to dissent the concurrence of all the rest is held not sufficient to prove a Catholick Doctrine in a matter of Faith nor such an accord of them sufficient to be called a Catholick consent or such as that all maintaining the contrary thereof after it is declared by a Council to be such a Catholick Doctrine will be Heresie Whereas contrary it is manifest both that some Dissenters from a Catholick Doctrine of Faith especially if not so universally evident as some others are or a consequential that is in those times not so much considered are not therefore guilty of Heresie before a more publick declaration and clearing of such points by a Council witness S. Cyprian in the Point of Non rebaptization and yet that the Doctrine may be truly called Catholick before the Council and the Dissenters also perhaps not free from a culpable ignorance therein For if the dissent of some few Fathers in the Council as in that of Nice or Chalcedon hinders not that a Point may be declared then a Catholick Doctrine neither doth the dissent of some few Fathers before the Council hinder that then it was not a Catholick Doctrine But to return to Mr. Stillingfleet Such conditions they say must the Point have in which the Church-Catholick is unerring and the obligation to believe and conform to which is universal and the opposite whereof is Heresie which conditions if you please to apply to the Articles of Faith opposing the Arrian Nestorian or Pelagian Hereticks you shall finde scarce any of them but that the Opposers thereof upon a deficiency in some of these requisites may withdraw his obedience thereto without any guilt of Heresie But 2 ly They leave us also still uncertain which or how many these Fundamentals or necessaries are Or who shall judge what points have or have not such an universal attestation as they require from the Church and therefore they leave us also uncertain what is or is not Heresie leave us also uncertain by whose sentence and judgment such Hereticks may be restrained proceeded against and punished since they hold Councils no certain Judge concerning these Points what are necessary and Fundamentals or universally attefted what not and likewise since they hold these Fundamentals as to private men varying according to a sufficient proposal of them more Points being Fundamental to one than to another ‖ Chill p. 137. Still P. 98.99 and consequently Heresie in opposing them varying accordingly they having cast off also that of the Church from being a sufficient proposal of any ones conviction therein § 53 And indeed if 1 st Protestants maintain that no Councils or Church without tyranny may require belief or internal assent from their Subjects to their Definitions or Articles of Religion a practice much exclaimed against in the Church of Rome and if I misunderstand them not denied to be lawful by several reformed And 2 ly this be granted that the holding of a Tenent contrary to some Fundamental Point and not only the outward profession and publick maintaining of such a Tenent is Heresie I see not how the reformed Churches though they should declare a particular Tenent to be an Heresie yet can discover any Heretick whatever unless he voluntarily publish his Heresie nor how they can or do remove any such out of their Communion or also sacred Orders if 1 neither those who hold such Heretical opinions stand anathematized by their Canons nor there may be the exacting from such entring into Orders a confession of their belief or an acknowledgement of any internal assent to their Articles of Religion Both which for such Points are the practise of the Catholick Church But if it be maintained that this also is the practise of the reformed Churches or at least this of England why is the requiring of such assent to and belief of the contrary of that which she deems Heresie blamed in the Roman § 54 Lastly the description which is made by Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 153. of that Catholick Church which our Blessed Saviour instituted in the world mentioned before § 41. seems to take away all such Judge upon the earth by whom Heresie can be discovered or made known for if the Church-Governors cannot prescribe infallibly i.e. infallibly without mistake for there is no need that infallibly here signifie any thing more in any Controversie on which side is Divine Truth but That men are to be left herein to judge for themselves according to Scripture that is what seems to them out of Scripture to be truth because saith he overy one is bound to take care of his soul and of all things that tend thereto Then neither could the Fathers of Nice Judge concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son a thing strongly questioned and put it into the Creed Nor those of Ephesus and Chalcedon judge so concerning one person of our Lord and 2. natures and put these in the Creed Judge I say so as that others can be obliged to hold that to be Heresie in these points which they pronounce so Nor was there then any way to convince the Arrians infallibly of Heresie but that they are still to be left to judge for themselves as bound to take care for their own souls and of all things that tend thereto The same may be said much more concerning Pelagianism and other errors formerly condemned for Heresie which do expresly oppose no Articles in our Creeds By this way then an Ecclesiastical restraint of external profession there may be but none of belief or opinions nor obstinacy in holding them where no Obligation acknowledged to hold otherwise This of those who express Heresie as an obstinate error against some Fundamental or necessary article of faith universally attested such by the Church in the manner before mentioned But Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heresie §. 2.11 n p. 70. somewhat more condescending and enlarging the compass of Heresie though he makes it indeed to be an opposition of the Faith in any one or more branches of it by way of Emphasis and excellence that was once delivered to the Saeints and that was set out by Christ or his Apostles from him to be by all Men belâ—eved to their Righteousness and confest to their Salvation And an opposition of such faith saith he ‖ §. 5. n. 2. as descends to us from the Apostles by a Catholick Testimony truly such i. e. universally in all respects 1 of place 2
with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. The III. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed § 18. THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it which see Disc 3. § 86. c § 18. 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party contestingt his for many years before with the other side condemned and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present persuasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. The IV. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie § 23. THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined Or that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgement and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficicient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism § 28. 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i. e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that what ever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrines in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient 〈◊〉 41. The Fourth DISCOURSE CONFERENCE I. The Socinian's Protestant Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures § 1 THat those things which have been delivered in the three former discourses concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith and suppressing Heresies may be clearlier seen and more seriously considered I have thought fit in this for an Example to shew what Apology a Socinian upon the forementioned Protestant-positions may return for himself to a Protestant indeavouring to reduce him to the true faith and using any of these five motives thereto the testimony 1. of Scriptures 2. Of Catholick Church 3. Of her Councils 4. The danger of Heresie 5. The danger of Schism In which would not be thought to go about to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors but only to shew that several defences which in respect of the former motives Protestants use for retaining theirs if these are thought just and reasonable the Socinians may use the same for much grosser Tenents For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of
my faith § 2 Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule which in this point you do not Soc. However I believe in this point truly or falsly I am secure that my faith is entire as to all necessary points of faith Prot. How so Soc Because as Mr. Chillingworth saith †p. 23. p. 159 367. He that believes all that is in the Bible all that is in the Scriptures as I do believes all that is necessary there Prot. This must needs be true but meanwhile if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you or the true sence of some part of that you know for the Scripture as that Author notes †Chill p. 87. is not so much the words as the sence be mistaken by you how can you say you believe all the Scriptures For when you say you believe all the Scripture you mean only this that you believe that whatsoever is the true sence thereof that is God's Word and most certainly true which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing or also your believing the contrary to the true sence thereof and then you not believing the true sence of some part of it at least may also not believe the true sence of something necessary there which is quite contrary to your conclusion here § 3 Soc. †Chill p. 18. I believe that that sence of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is is certainly true And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths against which I err Next †Chill Ib. I do my best indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence thereof By my best indeavour I mean †Chill p. 19. such a measure of industry as humane prudence and ordinary discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Of using which endeavour also I conceive I may be sufficiently certain for otherwise I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures this due indeavour being the condition which Protestants require that I shall not be as to all necessaries deceived in the sence of Scripture Now being conscious to my self of such a right endeavour used †Chillingw p. 102. For me to believe further this or that to be the true sence of some Scriptures or to believe the true sence of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my faith or salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed †Chill p. 18.92 For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a tyrant § 4 Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 â— But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles †Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine †Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpretor no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sence of Scripture also which I embrace a sence you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the preface to his book de uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum literâ—ram testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firmâ—ssimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostritenuitatem sublevat c Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilia adeo quidem ut eorum vim deâ—linare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut à verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression other texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socinians maintain Joh. 14.28 17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their cause but to shew their confidence § 7 Prot. O strange presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sence of these Scriptures because you strongly perswade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is
and either these evidences remain still unsatisfied Or these satisfied yet some other new ones appear to call for a new consideration Soc. †Stillingf ib. Because it may also err it follows not it must err and it is probable that it shall not err when the former error is thus discovered and if the Council proceed lawfully be not over-awed c. †Idem p. 526 But however if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence yet I not convinced of the truth of its decree this silence is the uttermost that any future Council after its rejecting my reasons can justly exact of me and not belief or assent at all it may not oblige me that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all but that not divulge it whereas now by the Acts of former Councils I would gladly know upon what rational ground an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresie meerly for retaining this opinion which retaining it is called obstinacy and contumacy in me after the Councils contrary Definition CONFERENCE IV. 4. His Plea for not being guilty of Heresie § 23 4 PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath alwayes been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many wayes of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it †p. 271. being not an erring but an obstinate defence of an error not of any error but of one against a necessary or fundamental Article of the Christian faith 1st Though this which I hold should be an error and that against a Fundamental yet my silence practiced therein can never be called an obstinate defence thereof and therefore not my tenent an Heresie 2ly Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons and as Mr. Chillingworth saith †No Catalogue thereof p. 134. that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him †p. 98 99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assigne what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations § 24 to those that were without Law or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say †Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean onely this That all Fundamentals i. e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For †I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all fundamentals I cannot incur Heresie which is opposit to some fundamental †Chilling p. 367. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked * Id. p. 101 and one contrary cannot but manifest the other Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamentall or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sence you can have no security in your Fundamentall or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most general Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamentall Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter †p. 97 The Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the divine authority of Gods written word And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yeilds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the
former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide for the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n. 1. Not any certain living Guide 1. Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2. Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Decrees better than the Scriptures 3. From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schism made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church § 40. n. 1. 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guid held necessary § 40. n. 2. It is replyed then 1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 41. 2. That the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 42. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrins of these Guides § 43. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversie the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governours whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a par◠unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE THIRD DISCOURSE Examining What measure of obedience is due to these Guides and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies The CONTENTS Chap. 1. ROman Catholicks and Protestants do agree 1. That the Scriptures speaking of those books by the Protestants stiled Canonical are the Word of God § 1. 2. That in these Scriptures agreed on it is clearly declared that the Church Catholick of no age shall err in Necessaries § 2. 3. That the Church Catholick is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches § 4. 4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors and Teachers to keep it from being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine § 5. Chap. 2. Catholicks go on and affirm 5. That the Church Guides at least assembled in Lawful General Councils shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith § 6. 6. Shall never err in necessaries not taken for those that are absolutely required but for all that are very beneficial to Salvation § 9. 7. Shall never err in them not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former revelations and Traditions wherein they affirm that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible § 10. 8. That for knowing what or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General and obliging a Christian may safely rely on the General judgment of the Church since the sitting of such Councils § 11. 9. That in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils yet their acceptance of its decrees or concurrence with its doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General § 13. 10. That particular persons or Churches parts of the whole are obliged to submit their judgment and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole § 14. Chap. 3 11. That whatever particular person or Church holds the contrary to any known definition passed in a matter of Faith of any lawful General Council is Heretical § 16. 12. That any particular person or Church which for any cause whatever doth actually relinquish and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholick is Schismatical § 20. 13. But yet That several persons or Churches coordinate may without Schism differ in any thing opinion or practise wherein they are not obliged to accord by their Common Superiors or by the whole § 23. Chap. 4. But Protestants after the four first propositions conceded in some sence do thus indeavour to qualify and restrain them 5. In granting the Catholick Church in all ages unerrable in necessaries they understand only such few Necessaries without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained § 24. 6. Therefore also they affirm that though the Church Catholick cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation yet it or all particular Churches in som one age or ages may in others the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation gross damnable c. § 25. Because it appears that many of the chief points from which Protestants dissent were General Tenents and practices
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
is replied That the whole Catholick Church of Christ is but one body compacted with a due subordination of its members as well Churches as persons for the preservation of truth and peace among them and the avoiding of Schism 3ly That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See joyned with a Council composed of this Body 4 ly That being a part of this Body this Church together with the rest of the Protestants dissented and departed from the consenting judgment not only of one particular Church the Roman but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith that are necessary as the other say but as themselves confess that are of moment and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side as grievous errors which will infer the contrary to be needful truths disceded likewise from their consenting judgments concerning the testimony of Scriptures rightly understood and of the Fathers affirmed by these not to be for but against them 5 ly Departed both from them and the most General Councils that have bin held therein for near this thousand years 6 ly And departed from them in several points wherin the Eastern Churches also consented and do so still with these Occidental Churches and their Councils 7 ly And for submission required to these doctrines §. 55. n. 4. departed also from the external communion not only of all the Western but of the Eastern Churches even of the whole visible Catholick Church of that Age of which in every Age is said Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam wherein this discession was made From the external Communion I say so as they neither could nor yet can communicate with any Church Eastern or Western in their publick worship and service of God nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar And the necessity of such their universal discession both sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern and Roman Missals compared the Masses of S. Chrysostom S. Basil which admitting som small variations ‖ See Cassand liturg c. p. 24 c. are the present service of all the Eastern Southern Churches not much differing from the Roman and being as well as the Roman disallowed by Protestants And also the Discession it self is confessed both long ago by Calvin lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries ‖ Epist P. Melancthoni p. 145. A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus And by Mr. Chillingworth l. 5. § 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it i. e. renounce the practise of some Observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate See likewise § 56.89 Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church i. e. as he expounds himself § 32 by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God Thus he And this surely was done for some Errors extant in this publick Worship else why did Protestants also reform this publick Service And these again such Errors as were not only held and used in but justified and allowed by this Church Catholick and Obedience and Conformity from her Subjects required thereto since if any thing after the holy Scriptures be held by this Church Catholick sacred and authentick and by all her Subjects to be embraced and frequented her publick Liturgy and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so What ground therefore of Discession and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church excluding them from her Communion because requiring something in it they cannot conform to the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches as requiring somthing in their Communion to which they cannot assent nor in which join with them This for the external Communion of the Oriental as well as Occidental Church as to God's Publick Worship partaking of their Sacraments forsaken by them And next as to any other Communion internal mean-while professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith and Essentials of Religion they can pretend none but that they have and confess they have the same Communion with the Western Churches too In what sence therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church viz. in external Communion of their publick service of God and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament they stand separated from the Eastern also and in what sence they still retain the Communion of the East viz. in the Essential and Fundamental Articles of Faith they still retain this with Rome as much as them How is it then that they say often in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholick numbring the Greek Russian Abyssine and other Churches as three parts of four and all these as on their side and joined with them And to what purpose is the calculating what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholick when as their separation for communion external is as much from the rest as it and both Churches if any for this their separation equally culpable and when as for the internal Communion i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholick Church than they do with the Roman or Western Church But here again if they alledg their further Union with the Eastern Churches not in Fundamentals only but also in some other Points not Fundamental which are but few and none of them on the Greek side defined by any former Superior Council wherein these Churches oppose the Roman among which is named the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Church the later a thing the Roman Church taken singly pretendeth not to yet what will this help ‖ See Disc 3. §. 185. as to those many other points defined by Superior Couneils ‖ See before § 50. n. 2. and wherein both East and VVest consent as those mentioned in the third Discourse § 26. c. In which Points chiefly Protestants are questioned for having made in the Reformation not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholick Church but a discession from the consenting judgment of the whole Catholick 8. Departed from the whole in these points which were §. 55. n. 5. at that time of a general belief and practice not only so far as to dissent but also as to contradict and reform against them 9. And all this in several of these Controversies upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures the sence whereof by a much major part of the West and by the greatest Councils that could for those times be assembled there where these Controversies arose the sence also of the Eastern Church concurring in the
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
accordingly both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees the much Major part must conclude the whole and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresie and separation from their Communion Schism if an Opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 27. n. 4 14. As for the Protestant Marks whereby in any Division to know these true Guides viz. A right teaching of God's Word and a right Administration of the Sacraments that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known § 28 Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search which of the opposite present Churches or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof is our true Guide § 30. Motives perswading that the Roman and the other Western Churches united with it and with the Head thereof S. Peter's Successor are this true Guide 1st Their being the very same Body with that which Protestants grant was 150 years ago the Christian 's true Guide and the other Body confessing themselves in external Communion departed from it § 33. 2ly Their being that Body to which if we follow the former Rule recited Prop. 12. we ought to submit § 35. 3ly Their being that Body that owns and adheres to the Definitions and Decrees of all the former Councils such as the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General or obliging as well those Councils since as those before the Sixth or Seventh Century which later the other Party rejects § 37. Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain living or Personal Guide infallible in Necessaries affirming 1. That all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures and the Controversies in non-necessaries needlesse to be decided § 38. 2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture because God hath left no other certain Means Rule or Guide of the knowledge of them save the Scriptures § 39. n 1. Not any certain living Guide 1st Which is infallible as their Guide the Scriptures are § 39. n. 2. 2ly Which the unlearned in any Division can discern from the false Guides or know their Deerees better than the Scriptures 3ly From whom the Scriptures direct them to learn Necessaries or tell them what Church or Party they are to adhere to in any Schisme made In which infallible Guide if there were any such as being a thing of the greatest concernment the Scriptures would not have been silent Ibid. Reply 1. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Hereticks in their dissenting from the Church 2. That as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholicks but only the clearness thereof as to all mens capacities questioned And another Guide held necessary It is replied then I. Concerning the Clearnesse of Scripture 1. That some Controversies in Religion since the writing of the Scriptures have been concerning points necessary As those Controversies concerning the Trinity the Deity and Humanity of our Lord the necessity of God's Grace c. § 43. 2. That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture still with the more securitie may Christians relie for them on the Church's judgment from which also they receive these Scriptures § 41. 3. That there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures as to all men clearly § 41. 1. Because it is sufficient if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures that we should in all difficulties and Obscurities of them follow the Directions and adhere to the Expositions and Doctrines of these Guides § 41. 2. Sufficient if God hath by other Apostolical Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides all such necessary Truths to be successively communicated by them to his people § 44. 3. Sufficient if God hath by Tradition at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sence of such Scriptures as are in points necessary any way obscure Ibid. 4. Sufficient if God in the Scripture hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church Guides using due means though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned for from those these may learn them § 45. II. Concerning a living Guide 1. That where the Scripture especially several Texts compared is ambiguous and in Controversy the Christians Guide to know the true sence cannot be the Scripture but either the Church's or their own judgment § 46. n. 1. 2. That it is not necessary that God in the Scriptures should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair § 46. n. 2. Or to what Church-Prelates or Party in any Schism Christians for ever ought to adhere § 47. n. 2. 3. Yet that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole § 47. n. 3. And that Christians may more clearly know the sence of their Definitions in matters controverted than the sence of the Scriptures § 48. THE SECOND DISCOURSE CHAP. I. Protestants assenting 1. That there is at this present an One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church § 1. 2. That the present Pastors and Governours thereof have Authority to decide Controversies § 2. 3. And that their Governors shall never err or mis-guide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries § 3. 4. And that they with the Church governed by them do stand always distinct from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations § 5. § 1 1st THat there is an One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in this Age and at this present time All Proposition 1 I suppose grant § 2 2ly That this present Church that is in its Pastors Prop. 2. and Governors is appointed for a Guide to Christians and hath Authority to decide Controversies is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 3◠c. And I think is a part of the 20 th Article of the Church of England which Article saith The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith And what can it mean but for deciding them or who decide them but the Ecclesiastical Governors § 3 3ly That these present Governors in this present Age either * collectively taken as they are assembled in a Council Prop. 3. the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive that are absent from it or * disjunctively taken for some visible Society or other of them at least somtimes lesser somtimes greater shall never misguide Christians at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation is also acknowledged by learned Protestants ‖ See Disc 1. §. 25. c. And seems to be the clear sence of the 19 th Article of the Church of England which affirms ' The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men ‖ See Art
from being in some of the fore-named respects necessary especially when he must do this against better Judgments whilst these Guides consulted about any particular decrees of theirs will never professe or grant to him to have passed it but as thought in respect of some times places or persons Christian-faith or manners edification of particulars or Government of the Church necessary This concerning the reasonablenesse of believing in all points those who are infallible in all Necessaries § 17 4ly Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled by the divine assistance so far as to distinguish exactly Necessaries 4. from non-Necessaries in all points so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions or proposals Yet it seems rationally concluded That they are always so far divinely assisted not only in their decisions not to err in Necessaries but also in their judgment to discern and distinguish them from others not necessary to be so much pressed and in their diligence to propose them as that they shall never fail in the discerning or proposing in their Creeds Catechisms and other publike teaching all more absolute necessaries or all points requisite to be explicitly believed for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known or to all taught never fail in proposing these I say so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church even the unlearned as that none can be ignorant thereof without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal which is in all times made by the Church § 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries is Because it seems most just and is on all sides accorded that all Necessaries wherein an explicite faith is required of all Christians should be to them by some means or other sufficiently proposed And then the dispute concerning this sufficient Proponent lying between the Scriptures and the Church for what other external Proponent can be devised of these two as to several of these Points the latter must be it 1st Because experience shews the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides ‖ Stillingf p. 58 59. So that tho' it be true which Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 18. 160 â—6 That he who believes all that is Scripture believes all Necessaries yet so it is that in many places of Scripture and that about points thought necessary when variously interpreted many unlearned especially know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places and thus fail in the explicit belief * of some part of Scrirture and so perhaps * of some Necessaries in it 2ly Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people belonged to the Church-Guides to Timothy Titus and others Nor seems their authority by the writing of the Christian faith diminished by which Writings also they are still more enabled compleatly to perform their former duty 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us in controversies and in learning our faith to the direction of these Guides See § 3. 4ly Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith cannot have this from Writings but must receive it from their Guides and Pastors as also they did in all those times before Christ when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned or also before any of them were penned § 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgments to these present guides in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith Prop. 8. according to the fifth Proposition preceding ‖ See §. 6. it seems reasonable that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters that are pretended any way ambiguous and so cannot end the Controversie made about their sense whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures or Fathers or former Councils of the Church And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal and Obligatory So that the ultimate determination of doubts * concerning all former Determinations and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith as well as * concerning new questions when Controversie is raised in them ought to be referred to these present Judges and their determinations hereupon so far as we can have them to be peaceably acquiesced in For if we ought to receive all that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith we ought also and may as securely credit them when declaring what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors § 20 9ly Protestants also agree that though these Guides may erre in some Points not necessary yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence and by no means to contradict them Prop. 9. or as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further ought to submit their Judgments also and yield their Assent to them even in those Definitions wherein these Guides are liable to Error whenever not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions so much is thought unreasonably exacted but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary In this matter thus Dr. Jackson in stating the Question whether the Injunction of publick Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion or action ‖ On the Creed l. 2. § 1. c. 5. It is most evident saith he ‖ Ibid. c. 6. from the former places alledged ‖ Eph 4.11 Heb. 13.17 Luk. 10.16 Ioh. 20.23 Ib. concerning the Commission of Priests and Ministers that the lawful Pastor or Spiritual Overseer hath as absolute authority to demand Belief or Obedience in Christ's as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience in the State or Prince's Name And Our Disobedience i. e. Dissent or non-submission of Judgme is unwarrantable unlesse we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express Law of the most High Every Doubt or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's Law is not sufficient to deny Obedience Again We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what Obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever shews the express undoubted Command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them And so the donation of spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer Titles This he this others ‖
he a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans ‖ l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator 2 If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole World was Moderator Every Church and therefore this of England as to Ecclesiastical Governme being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the unity of it 3. Thirdly the Actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And elsewhere he saith ‖ l. 5. c. 52. p. 668. That the Patriarch of the West may call a Council of the Western Bishops lawfully punishing those who obey not his summons and he and ihe Council so assembled may make Decrees which shall be obligatory to all the Western Church And thus Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. of the Ch. of England p. 257. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishop of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterward Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties So in Schism-guarded p. 349. he saith That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order And see Ibid. p. 4. his allowing this Bishop to be Exordium Vnitatis This of the subordination of the Bishops of several Nations to a Council Patriarchal taken out of others because omitted by Dr. Hammond Above which the next and highest subordination is that of all the Bishops in Christianity to a Council General To which General Council this Doctor thus professeth elsewhere ‖ Of Heresie §. 11. p. 149. the due subjection of the Church of England Vpon the strength of this perswasion saith he that God will never permit any such universal testimony concerning the faith to conspire in conveying error to us as we have never yet opposed never opposed that implies obedience of Silence but upon the former perswasion I see not why he should not say never dissented from any universal Council nor other voice of the whole Church such as by the Catholick Rules can be contested to be such so for the future we professe never to do And on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and Ground of truth he comments thus According to this it is that Christ is said Eph. 4.11 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i.e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting of the Saints into a Church for the continuing them in all truth that we should be no longer like children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when heresies came into the Church in the first Ages it is every where apparent by Ignatius's Epistles That the only way of avoiding error and danger was to adhere to the Bishop in communion and doctrine and whosoever departed from him and that forme of wholesom words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted And the same also to S. W. objecting ‖ Schism disarm p. 255. That it availed not for freedom from Schism to adhere to the Authority of our Bishop as the Arrians did if such Bishop hath rejected the authority of his Superiors and taught contrary to them He grants ‖ Answ to Schism disarm p. 261. concerning any Bishops and those adhering to them if departing from their Superiors That retaining the Authority of their Bishops is not being taken alone any certain Argument or Evidence of not being schismaticks c. This he for establishing such Church-authority and the due subordinations thereof from any of which whether person or Council a voluntary departure of those who are subordinate ‖ Of Schism c 3. Answ to C. Gentlem. p. 30 or also a wilful continuance under their censures laid upon them ‖ is by him declared Schism Of which Schism he speaks thus ‖ Answ to C. Gent. p. 9. First saith he those Brethren or People which reject the Ministry of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing §. 4. wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop §. 24. n. 2. and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord do break off and separate from them ‖ Of Schism p. 34. refuse to live regularly under them they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks Here then are many late Sects among Protestants rejecting the Clergy I know not well by what name to call them confessed guilty of Schism In like manner saith he ‖ P. 37.41 if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as theBrethren or People are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt And as this obedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kind the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the Superior or the casting off all obedience together de throning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them so will the Schism be also a lighter and a grosser separation And here are all Protestant Presbyterial whether Persons or Churches for any thing I can understand opposing Episcopacy or setling instead of it a Presbyterial Church-Government confessed also by him guilty of Schism of Schism I mean from their spiritual Superiors wherby also they becom no members of the Church-Catholick which Church-Catholick stands always contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches nor are any such Schismaticks known to be so and not recanting such their Schism to be admitted to enjoy the communion of the Presbytery of any Church that professeth it self a member of the Catholick Which thing will 1st cut off no small body of the Protestants from the Catholick Church And 2ly will render in some manner partaker of their guilt any other Protestant-Clergy that shall communicate knowingly with them The same sentence upon the Presbyterians deserting their Bishops that is their spiritual Superiors pronounceth Dr. Ferne They have incurred saith he by leaving us ‖ The Case between Eng. and Rome p. 46 48. and I wish they would sadly consider it no less then the guilt of Schism which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the Communion of the Church of England whether they do this by a bare separation or by adding violence and sacriledge to it For making good saith he this charge of Schism against them we
due to this much greater though some smaller part dissenting and that an Opposition of their definitions in matter of faith becomes heresie and a separation from their Communion upon their requiring an approbation of and conformity to such their decrees becomes Schism if an opposition to or separation from the whole be so § 28 14. As for that way or those marks that are given usually by Protestants ‖ See Calv. Instit l. 4 c. 1. §. 9. by which Christians are to discern Prop. 14. in any division of them the Society of the true Church Guides whether these happen to be more or fewer of a higher or lower rank than the other as they say somtimes they may be the One somtimes the other from the false namely these two 1 The right teaching of the Christian doctrine 2 And right Administration of the Sacraments 1st If any are directed to finde out by these marks those Guides not only whose Communion they ought to joyn with but from whose judgment they ought to learn which is the same true Christian doctrine and which the right administration of the Sacraments i.e. are by those marks first known to find out those persons by whom they may come to know these marks as for example if one that seeks a Guide to direct him what he is to believe in the Controversie of the Consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father is first to try if Consubstantiality be true and then to chuse him for his Guide in this point that holds it The very Proposal of this way seems a sufficient confutation of it For what is this but to decide that first themselves for the decision of which they seek to anothers judgment And there is no question but after this they will in a search pitch on a Judge that decides as they do but then this is seeking for a Confederate for a Companion not seeking for a Guide for a Governour When they can state the true doctrine themselves their search for a Guide to state it is at an end and they may then search rather to whom to teach it than of whom to learn it T is granted indeed §. 29. n. 1. supposing the marks above-named were only to be found among the right Church-Guides which is not so ‖ See §. 29 n. 2. that these right Guides may be discerned from false by this mark i.e. by the truth of that doctrine which they reach by so many as can attain the certain knowledge of this true doctrine by some other means or way as by the Holy Scriptures Fathers c. Nor is private mens trying the truth of the Doctrine of these differing Guides by these denied here to be lawful nor denied that the Proposal of such a trial to the People may by the true Guides even by the Apostles be made use of with good success because the Scriptures c. may evidence to some persons intelligent in some Controversies less difficult the truth of those Doctrines which some of the learned out of great passion or interest may gainsay But then for all such points wherein a private man's trial by Scripture is very liable to mistake and the sense thereof not clear unto him as no private person hath reason to think it clear in such points of Controversie wherein the Church-Guides examining the same Scriptures yet do differ among themselves and perhaps the major part of them from him here he must necessarily attain the knowledge of his right Guide by some other Marks prescribed him for that purpose and not by the truth of that doctrine or clearness of those Scriptures for instruction in the truth or sence of which he seeks such a Guide Unsound therefore is that Position of Mr. Stillingfleet's Rat. Account p. 7. That of necessity the Rule I suppose he means and by it the Truth of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgment of any Church And very infirm that arguing of his and so all that he afterward builds upon it where he deduceth from this Proposition conceded That a Church which hath erred cannot be relied on in matter of Religion therefore men must be satisfied whâ—ther a Church hath erred or no before they can judge whether she may be relied oâ— or no for though this be allowed here that such Church as may be relied on hath amongst other properties or sure marks this for one that she doth not or cannot err yet many other Mark or Properties she may have by which men may be assured she may be relied on who are not first able to discern or prove all her Doctrines for truth or demonstrate her not erring Such arguing is much-what like to this That Body which casts no light cannot be fire therefore a man must first be satisfied whether such a body gives light before he can judge whether it be fire Not so because one blind and not seeing the light at all yet may certainly know it is fire by another property by its scorching Heat Or like this No Book than contains any false Proposition in it can be the Book of Holy Scripture therefore men must be satisfied whether such Book contain any false Proposition in it or no before they can judge whether it be the Book of Holy Scripture or no. Not so for men ordinarily by another way viz. universal Tradition become assured that such Book is Holy Scripture and thence collect that it contains nothing in it contradictory or false and so it is for the true Church or our true Guide that though she always conserveth Truth yet men come to know her by another way and of her first known afterward learn that truth which she conserveth But 2ly These Protestant Marks viz. Truth of Christian doctrine and right Administration of Sacraments §. 29. n. 2. if we could attain a certain knowledge of them another way and needed not to learn them from the Church yet are no infallible Mark of that Catholick Body and Society to which Christians may securely adhere and rank themselves in its Communion because such Body when entirely professing the Christian Faith yet still may be Schismatical and some way guilty of dissolving the Christian Vnity as Dr. Field amongst others freely concedes Who ‖ Of the Ch. l 2. c. 2. p. 31. 33. therefore to make up as he saith the Notes of the true Catholick Church absolute full and perfect and generally diginguishing this Church from all other Societies adds to these two the entire profession of saving Faith and the right use of Sacraments a third Mark viz. an Union or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments Under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed and authorized to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation Which Pastors lawfully authorized he ‖ l. 1. c. 14. grants those not to be who though they have power of Order yet have no power of
not so plain in Scripture but that a General Council as to the major part of them the highest Authority by which the Church Catholick can direct us at least if not in their sence universally accepted for this Exception is put in by the more moderate ‖ See Disc 1. §. 32. c. may mistake in them so far as that the unlearned have even for these Necessaries no security to rely on their judgment I must tell you saith Mr. Chillingworth to F. Knot ‖ p. 150. you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible Director in Fundamentals or Necessaries Now this also he was considering his Engagement forced to say and gives the reason that made him say so I suppose for satisfying his own Party rather than his Adversary in the words following For saith he if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is fundamental and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such And what harm in it say I if you did But this he well saw would have destroyed the Reformation which was contrary to the Doctrines which the publick Director that was then in being delivered But. if these Necessaries at the last are not so few or so plain in Scripture but that the judgment of the Church-Guides even when met in their supreamest Consults may err in them will he allow us then to follow some other's judgment that is in these points fallible If so why not to follow theirs still But if not so whose judgment will he direct us to that shall less err than these Guides or that shall certainly not err in the undrstanding of these plain Scriptures wherein these Guides mistake Methinks he should * forbear here to name to us our own Judgment even when we unlearned too and yet none else can he name And * much more forbear here to alledge Passion Faction Interest c as great Blinders of this publick judgment unless he could first shew the private not at all or less liable to them which corrupters of a clear understanding seem indeed more incident to persons of a lower rank and that have much relation to and dependance on others and therefore what more common than for avoiding those to make Appeals from inferior to a more general judgment as expecting in the most general the most impartial dealing And what private person can we produce thot doth not range himself with some party and that hath not in matters controverted a strong secular Interest for one side to be truth rather than the other according to the Church and State he lives in § 43 But 3ly As it is necessary that God some way or other do clearly reveal to all even the unlearned using their due Industry that which he requires necessarily to be believed by them so it is not consequent at all that God should do this as to every thing necessary in the Scriptures First Because God cannot be said to have been deficient in a competent revelation of Necessaries to all men if he hath left as indeed he hath sufficient evidence and clearness in the Scriptures that are first generally agreed on to be his Word to every man rightly using his private judgment or common reason as to one point only viz. this That it is his divine Will that private men for all those Scriptures the sence whereof is any way dubicus or controverted should constanâ—ly be guided by and adhere to the judgment of those spiritual Superiors that he hath set over them and in any division of these should still hold to the Superiors among these Superiors according to the Subordinations by him established amongst them For thus we see after a Christian's private judgment or common reason used only in one point for all other points private judgment is now discharged and in stead thereof obedience to Authority takes place so far as its stating of any point thinks fit to restrain therein other mens Liberty of Opinion The testimony of which Church-authority as a thing clearly demonstrated and ratified by the Scriptures S. Austin in more difficult matters of Controversie often appealed to See Disc 3. § 82. n. 4. Puto saith he si aliquis Sapiens extitisset cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet that we should be directed by his judgment de hac quaestione consuleretur à nobis nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset ne non tam ipsi quam Domino Jesu Christo cujus testimonio commendatur repugnare judicaremur Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae And by this which is so often retorted by Protestants that Catholicks also are forced to allow to Christians the necessary use of their private Judgment will be verified only in this one point The Choice or the discerning of their Guide whereas the Protestants make it necessary for all Points and who sees not a vast difference between these two for the hazard which a Christian incurs therein 1 The being in all controverted matters of Religion and sence of Scriptures meerly cast upon his own reason and skill to steer himself aright therein And 2 The being left to it only in one matter and that one as Catholicks contend in the Scriptures very clear after which examined and judged by him all the rest wherein he may want a resolution are without his further solicitude to be judged for him by another So there is a great difference when a person falls sick between his being left to the use of his private judgment in making choice of a Physitian according to certain Rules prescribed unto him by a wise and experienced man in that behalf and then this once done submitting himself afterward to this Physitian in all things that he shall prescribe for his cure and between this sick person's undertaking by Hippocrates his Aphorisms or other Physick Books to prescribe all particular Remedies to himself upon this reasoning that if his private judgment serves for directing in the one making choice of a Physitian why not in all the other fit Medicines for his Disease Which Argument is only good where all the Objects about which our judgment is exercised are equally easie and clear to it And therefore unconsequently seems that Question to be asked ‖ Stillingf R. Ac. p. 7. If the Scripture may and must decide one Point that of the Church why may it not as well all the rest If the Scripture be not in all other Points equally clear and not-mistakable This then is one way of sufficient Revelation besides Mr Chillingworth's way I mean that of all necessary Truths being clearly revealed in Scripture viz. a sufficient Revelation of one point in Scripture concerning that Guide from whom we may securely learn all the other points not clear to us in Scripture § 44 2 ly Because God besides and before the New-Testament Scriptures left
these doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then-appointed Ecclesiastical Guides from whom both the present people and the future successors of these Guides both were and might rationally know they were to learn them and so had there bin no Scriptures might by meer Tradition have learned them sufficiently to this day for their Salvation This is a second way then of sufficient Revelation besides or without that in Scripture viz. All necessary Truth since the penning of the Scriptures only so manifested clearly to and so delivered clearly by the Church-Guides as they were manifested to them before Scripture 3ly Because as all the Christian Doctrines might before so the true meaning of some part of the same Scripture might after the writing allo of the New-Testament-Scriptures have bin clearly enough delivered by Tradition and by the first Scripture-Expositors to the Christian people that were then and so to Posterity though mean-while the Letter of such Scripture doth not so necessarily enforce this traditive sence as not to be possibly or somtimes probably capable of another This is a third way of sufficient Revelation viz. by the clear descending Tradition of the sence of those Scriptures which are in their Letter ambiguous § 45 But 4 ly Supposing it needful that all such Necessaries must be clearly revealed in the Letter of Scripture yet is this sufficient to save God's proceedings from tyranny if that they be with sufficient clearness revealed therein to the Church Guides alone and to the Learned that diligently read and compare the Scriptures together and use the helps of the comparings and comments of others and if that the illiterate people be remitted by God in all ages to learn these Necessaries from their Guides This is a fourth way of sufficient Revelation of Necessaries i. e. a revelation of them in Scripture such as must be clear to the Church-Guides in stead of that other revelation there of Mr. Chillingworth's such as must be clear to all To I answer §. 46. n. 1. that where the sence of the Scripture is ambiguous R. to β. and in Controversie which sence and not the Letter only is God's Word here their Guide to know this true sence of Scripture cannot be this by all allowed infallible Scripture which Protestants pretend but must be either the Church's judgment which they say is fallible or their own which all reasonable men I should think will say is more fallible To γ. See many of their Questions solved R. to γ. Disc 3. § 86. and concerning our understanding the sence of the Church's Definition better than the sence of Scriptures See below § 48. c. To δ. 1st It is not necessary §. 46. n. 2. R. to δ. that God should direct Christians in this matter by the Scriptures since they were sufficiently directed herein also before the Scriptures I mean before the writing of those of the New-Testament and since they might be sufficiently assured from those who were sent by our Lord to teach them Christianity in this point also that they were sent to teach them But 2ly It is maintained that God in the Scriptures hath done this §. 46. n. 3. and * hath told us ‖ Eph. 4.11 c. That he hath set these Guides in the Church for the edifying and perfecting thereof and for this in particular that the Church should not be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine with which Winds of contrary Doctrines the Subjects of the Church as Experience shews from age to age would have bin grievously shaken and dissipated but that these Governors from time to time by stating her Doctrines have preserved her Children from it And * hath told us again ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 That the unlearned wrest some of the Scriptures that are plain it seems to the Learned in that these wresters are the unlearned to their own damnation therefore these are such Scriptures also as speak concerning Necessaries And * hath therefore given us a charge to obey these guides to whom is committed the Care of our Souls and to follow their faith ‖ Heb. 13.7 17. * And declared that he that heareth them heareth him ‖ Luke 10. add that he will be with them to the end of the world especicially when gaehered together ‖ Mat. 18.17 20. and would have the refractory to them excommunicated ‖ Mat. 18.17 And accordingly to this Warrant in Scripture and out of it in primitive Tradition the Church-Guides from age to age have met together setled the Churchches Doctrines exacted Conformity excommunicated Dissenters c Next to ε. Where they say That God foreseeing §. 47. n. 1. that Divisions would happen among these Guides R. to ε. would have told us in the Scriptures which in such case among the several Parties of them we ought always to follow and adhere to As that we should adhere to the Church of Rome to the Vicar of Christ to the most General Councils and in dissenting Votes to the Major part thereof c. To which purpose are those words of Mr. Chillingworth ‖ p. 61. If our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome I add or a General Counci to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by 13 or 14. more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him And p. 104. He saith It would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in terms The Bishops of Rome with their Adherents shall always be the Guides of Faith c. And p. 171. he argues thus Seeing God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us so plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none See the same thing urged by Mr. Stillingfleet Rat. Account p. 465. And see all this as it were translated only out of the Socinian Books before § 40. n. 1. To this 1st I answer §. 47. n. 2. That negative argning from Scripture 1. such as this a thing of so great concernment to all Christians if it were true would have bin clearly expressed in the Scripture but this is not found clearly expressed rherein therefore it is not true as
it is very plausible and much used especially against Church-authority so is it very fallacious by which the more Orthodox party of Protestants also have suffered much from several Sects Whenas it cannot be denied that there are many things granted most true and of most high concernment which are for those excellent ends of Gods infinite wisdom which we cannot fully discern nor so clearly expressed there for preventing disputes as they might have bin Our Saviours Sermon made partly at least concerning the Eucharist amply set down in the 6th of S. John and therefore perhaps mention of the Eucharist omitted afterward by that Evangelist in the Story of his passion was delivered by him in some expressions so obscure as that as St. Austin observes not only his enemies the blinded Jewes but his own disciples misunderstood it and some of them deserted him upon it calling it durus Sermo and yet saith that Father ‖ In Iohan. Tract 27. Sic oportebat ut diceretur quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur And what contentions and also persecutions think we might a declaration of the abrogation of Circumcision and the Mosaical Ceremonies have saved in the Apostles times if it had been any where delivered expresly by our Lord who well foresaw those troubles in the Gospel he preached Or what contentions would the Athanasian Creed have prevented in the times that followed had it been written verbatim in one of S. Pauls Epistles or had the points of modern Controversie bin set down there in as expresse termes as they are in a Protestant Catechism in the 39. Articles or in the Council of Trent 1 Cor. 1.23 25. If we will give humane wisdom in respect of which God's Wisdom is often thought foolishnesse liberty to devise what is best or fittest had it not bin much more to purpose for Conversion of the Iews to Christianity that our Lord upon his Resurrection should have openly manifested himself to all the Nation at that great Festival on the top of the Temple with a Trophee of victory in his hands And for the salvation of mankind God-willing that all should be saved ‖ p. 103. had it not bin better to have made the divel at first close prisoner 1 Tim. 2.4 and prevented the temptation of Eve and fall of Adam Hear Mr. Chillingworth himself where it concerned him reprove the folly of such arguing In humane reason saith he it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies that the Apostles Successors should do miracles will you now conclude they have the Gift of doing miracles It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have bin preserved free from variety of reading which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the Word of God and which is the error and presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us Who can conceive but that an Apostolick Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have bin strangely beneficial to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sence of them as is by you pretended c. And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter Thus Mr. Chillingworth Supposing then that a General Council or the Bishop of the prime Apostolick See were constituted by God the Supreme and Final Judge of Controversies in Religion and of all Appeals from inferior Ecclesiastical Courts yet Gods wisdom might think meet not to register this in these or the like short and clear expressions in Scripture for many excellent reasons tending to the manifestation of his greater glory who makes darknesse as well as light to bring light out of darknesse and leaves many arguments of contradiction to humane reason See Disc ◠§ 16. the more to shew the power of the operation of his grace who discloseth the things belonging to our salvation somtimes with more somtimes with lesse evidence yet this always sufficient for the necessary preserving of truth on the one side and for the exercise and greater merit of faith on the other But 2ly to come closer to the matter in hand God hath in the Scriptures not only left a General Command of following their Guides § 47. n. 3. but also sufficiently directed Christians to know in any division of these Ecclesiastical Guides 2. ‖ See before which are those they ought to follow in that he ‖ 46. n. 3. being in all things the Author not of confusion but of order and peace ‖ 1 Cor. 14 33 hath not left these Guides in the Church without a due subordination from the very first and Apostolical times and also hath authorized the Church-Governors to make afterwards such wholesom laws for the Regency peace and unity thereof as do justly and unappealably oblige all inferiors and subjects Hence there is not wanting both Precept and Example sufficient both in the Holy Scriptures and primitive Church-constitutions and practice whereby the inferior Clergy are subjected to the Superior and a part unto the whole Body i.e. one or a few parts to the many parts or to all the rest of the Body and by this also is our obedience directed whenever an inferior and a Superior a part and the whole differ Nor can any justly raise a dispute in this divided Body whom they should obey when both the Number and Primacy are unequal See for these things what is said before Prop. 12. § 23. And 1. Disc § 15. Therefore In a division between any single Guide and that Corporation of them whereof he is a member this body justly claims both the Laicks and that Guide's obedience As the decree of the whole in the Acts Act. 5. was to be obeyed by the Antiochians before the orders of one or a few members of it that were zealous of the Law though these should have bin the proper Pastors and Guides of the Church of Antioch because of the subordination of these Pastors to the other supreme Representativé of the Church And again in any great division hapning in this Body it self our obedience follows the fuller Body of them still which in respect of the rest being fewer bears the name of the whole Especially when the supremest Ecclesiastical Governor that is upon earth the chief President of this Body joynes with it upon which terme only obedience to these Guides is demanded feom those of the Reformation Thus it is before that any be excluded by heresie from this Body But when any in its former lawful Councils are so cut off then our obedience follows the fuller Body of them these other how numerous soever afterward excepted Now this fuller Body at this day joined with the chief Pastor of Christs Sheep here on earth § 48 if any one seeketh after for his safe conduct to future happinesse he cannot but discern it from all other Christian Societies that pretend to guide him And this found
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
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
consider whether this seems a fit and well seasoned vessel for God to infuse into it those new Evangelical Truths which had been hid to so many former generations and whether he speaks like a true genuine Son of the ancient Church Neither §. 78. n. 4. after him will he find Calvin of any different temper who pleaseth for his satisfaction to peruse those many places in his Institutions wherein he so freely censures Antiquity There ‖ Iastit 4. l. 18. c. 11. §. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass ' Quia veteres quoque illos saith he video alio hanc memoriam i. e. sacrificii in cruce peracti detorcisse quam institutioni Domini conveniebat quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae immolationis faciem eorum caena prae se ferebat a thing objected still to the present as to the ancient Church Nihil tutius piis pectoribus fuerit quam in purâ simplicique Dei ordinatione acquiescere Again Excusari veteres non posse arbitror quin aliquid in actionis modo peceaverint Imitati sunt enim propius Judacum sacrificandi modum quà m out ordinaverit Christus aut Evangelii ratio ferebat In quâ merito eos quis redarguat quod non contenti simplici germanâ Christi institutione ad legis umbras nimis doflexerunt see much more in Beza Epist 8. About the manner of consecration of the Elements and the reposition or reservation of the Sacrament to be ready at any time for communicating the fick which being reserved only in one kind infers likewise ancient communicating the fick only in one kind Sedenim saith he ‖ L. 4. c. 17. §. 39. qui sic faciunt habent veteris Ecclesiae Exemplum Fateor Verum in re tantâ in quâ non sine magno periculo erratur nihil tutins est quà m ipsam veritatem sequi Concerning prayer for the Dead ‖ L. 3. c. 5. §. 10. At vetustissima fuit Ecclesiae observatio Cum mihi objiciunt adversarii ante mille trecentos annos receptum fuisse Eos rursus interrogo quo Dei verbo quâ revelatione quo exemplo factum est Calling there S. Monica's request to S. Austin ‖ Augustin Confess 9. c. 11. to be remembred at the Altar anile votum Concerning penances and satisfactions the imposing a necessity of which penances by antiquity upon secret criminous Offenders infers also a necessity to such Offenders of Sacerdotal confession ‖ L. 3. c. 3. §. 16. Plus aequo certe insistere in his mihi videntur vetusti Scriptores And In exigendis castigationibus fuerunt aliquanto rigidiores quà m ferat Ecclesiastica mansuetudo And ‖ L. 4. c 12. §. 8. Quâ in parte excusari nullo modo potest immodicà vederum austeritas quae prorsus a Domini praescripto dissidebat c. And ‖ L. 3. c. 4. §. 38. Parum me movent quae in veterum scriptis de satisfactione passim occurrunt Video quidem eorum non-nullos dicam simpliciter omnes fere quorum libri exstant aut hac in parte lapsos esse aut nimis aspere ac dure locutos Concerning Monastick vowes and life ‖ L. 4. c. 13. §. 16. Non dissimulo vel in illâ quam Augustinus commendat priscâ formâ esse nonnihil quod parum mihi placeat Christianae mansuetudinis non est quasi odio humani Generis in desertum solitudinem confugere Exemplum inutile periculosum in Ecclesiam induxit Concerning the vow of Continency and Celibacy of the Clergy ‖ L. 4. c. 13. §. 17. Fateor antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hunc morem sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo ut pro regulâ habendum sit quiequid tunc factum est And ‖ L. 4. c. 12. §. 27. Secuta sunt deinde tempora i. e. post Nicaenam Synodum quibus invaluit nimis superstitiosa caelibatus admiratio Hinc illi Canones quibus primo vetitum est ne matrimonium contraherent qui pervenissent ad Sacerdotii gradum deinde ne in eum ordinem assumerentur nisi caelibes aut qui thoro conjugali unà cum uxoribus renunciarent Concerning free will ‖ L. 2. c. 2. §. 4. Inter Scriptores Ecclesiasticos i. e. veteres multi longe plus aequo Philosophis accesserunt Concerning authority of Councils ‖ L. 4. c. 9. §. 8. Quoties alicujus Concilii decretum profertur velim illud ipsum de quo agitur ad Scripturae am ussim examinari And ‖ §. 12. Nulla conciliorum Pastorum Episcoporum nomina quae tà m falso obtendi quà m usurpari possunt nos impediant quo minus verborum rerum documentis moniti omnes omnium spiritus ad divini verbi regulam exigamus i.e. ones own interpretation of it And ‖ §. 8. In recentionibus Conciliis dum numerantur non appenduntur sententiae meliorem partâ—m a majore uinci saepius necesse fuit Much more might be added out of these two the most famed Reformers And he that would look further let him pass on to the Centurists viewing their then free and candid Confessions concerning the Lapses of the fourth age i. e. the first wherein Christian Religion flourished and shewed her face more openly and so downward as if they added so much more credit to the Reformation by how much more ancient they shewed those errours or corruptions to have been which it encountred and overthrew But this I have here set down I think is sufficient that by the complexion and temper of these two cheif Authors of the Reformation you may discern what blood runneth in the veins of their posterity whatever Alliance to antiquity is professed and may see whether their followers in the same Doctrine can any way justly own that antiquity for it that these Predecessors disclaimed § 79 This appears to me much-what the face of the two present Churches the latter of which because I may be thought not to have drawn favourably enough or yet some lines thereof not according to truth if they be applyed to some persons that are more moderate or Church among them that is of a better constitution I desire none to give any credit to any part thereof further than his own experience shall find it true and to look upon what is said as things proposed only to his search not imposed on his credulity After which search diligently made as it much concerns him let him again review and compare which of these two in its constitution and Oeconomy hath more resemblance of that Church described in the New Testament and acting in Primitive timess mentioned before § 67.68 and then that of the two which by its greater likeness in Government manners to this ancient Church he takes to be his Catholick Mother let him securely cast himself into her arms and communion and instead of committing himself to his
the days of Edward the Sixth Expedit quidem saith he prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis quae sibi nimium licere volunt claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctriâ—ae ab omnibus recepta quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi Parochi jurejurando adstringantur ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclaesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive and Preach such a certain forme of Doctrine and to practice such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governours In which thing if He speaks reason what can more justify the proceedings of the Church-Catholick in restraining not only her Subjects tongues but tenents and opinions in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief Notwithstanding these evidences cited above §. 84. n. 1. implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England yet her Divines when charged therewith by Roman Catholicks do return many answers and Apologies whereby they seem either to deny any such thing or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tiranny 1 rst Then they say α That they require not any oath but a Subscription only to these their Articles ‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264. 2. β Require subscription only from their own not from strangers See Bishop Bramhall vindic p. 155. And This Church prescribes only to her own Children whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World saith Bishop Lawd ‖ P. 52. 3. γ Nor yet require it of all their own but only of those who seek to be initiated into holy Orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment ‖ Bishop Brambal vind p. 156. 4. δ These Articles not penned with Anathemas or curses against all those even of their own who do not receive them 5 ly ε Subscription not required to them as Articles of their Faith or at least as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith as belief is required to all hers as such by the Church of Rome but only required to them as Theo ogical veritie ‖ Bâ—amh Reply p. 350. and Inferiour truths †Stillingfleet p. 54. To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350. We do use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Thelogical verities for the preservation of unity among our selves Again ‖ Ib. p. 277. Though perhaps some of our negatives were reveald truths and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith which rule of Faith he saith there consists of such supernatural truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to believe them ‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation And ‖ Reply p. 264. We do not saith he hold our 39. Articles to be such necessary truths extra quas non est â—alus nor enjoyn Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as Theological truths And thus the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 51. All points are made Fundamental and that to all mens belief if that Church the Roman hath once determined them whereas the Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith To which they add ζ That as for those of these Articles that are positive doctrines and Articles of their Faith they are such as are grounded in Scripture and General Truths about which there is no controversy ‖ Bramh. vindic p. 159. and such saith Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 54. as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self η And then as for the rest of those Articles they are only negative as the Arch Bishop ‖ p. 52. refuting there where the thing affirmed by the Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it Or as Bishop Bramhall ‖ Vindic. p. 159 They are no new articles or innovations obtruded upon any but negations only of humane controverted Traditions †Reply p. 279. and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles ‖ Ib. p. 277. And though some of them were revealed truths c. as before yet do they not therfore make up the rule of Faith ‖ i. e. as this Rule is before explained θ 6 ly That such subscription whether of positives or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side Though the Church of England saith the Aâ—chb ‖ p. 51. denounce Excommunication as is before expressed yet she comes far shoâ—t of the Church of Romes severity whos 's Anathema's are not only for 39. Articles but fer very many more about one hundred in matter of Doctrine 7 ly ξ Concerning the just importance and extent of such subscription several expressions I find that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles § 84. n. 2 and the reason given because the Church is fallible but only * not to oppose not to contradict them To this purpose We do not look saith Bishop Bramhall ‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism garded p. 190 Stillingf p. 55. upon the Articles of the Church of England as Essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And Si quis diversum dixerit we question him Si quis diversum senserit if any man think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not ‖ Vindic. p. 156. Again λ Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement so he did not publish it by word or writing After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ P. 104. The Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe
or teacheth none of these Articles so he do not teach or profess the contrary but spend his discourses on other subjects See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before § 84. n. 3. concerning the Arch-bishop Obs 2 2 ly Concerning those other Articles of which it is said that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith but only negations §. 85. n. 2. and refurations of new Roman assertions and additions You may note concerning them 1 st In General that Negatives may be Scripture-truths revealed therein matter of our Faith and as necessary to be believed as Bishop Bramhall granteth ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. when known to be revealed as any affirmative and possitive Articles are and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively as affirmatively proposed and seeing that the one necessarily implies and inferrs the other as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation so is the other So the negative Articles in the Nicen or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus a nullo genitus non tres â—atres Filius non factus Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem aut confusione Substantiarum are Articles of as necessary belief as the positives and indeed the same with them the same with Pater unus Pater eternus Filius genitus Filius ex duabus naturis consistens And they as much Hereticks that affirm any of these negatives as that deny the affirmative 2 ly Concerning the Negatives in the 39. Articles of the Church of England if they be well considered you may find that they are both in the Articles pretended to be Scripture and revealed truths and that all or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives and as new and positive on the one side as the Roman Articles which they contradict are pretended on the other and the Protestants Confession of Faith supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives as large and as particular on the one side as the Roman or Tridentine is on the other as to the maine Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches and these not only privatively but positively opposite For no difference can be made in the thing but only in the expression between a negative and positive Article where the negative implies and is equivalent to the affirmative of its contrary as it is where the contraries are immediate and the one of them is necessarily put wherever the other denied As God being granted a substance He that denies him to be a corporeal substance in this he affirmes him to be a Spiritual and so those that deny here something which others affirme in this must needs affirme somthing which the others deny and the negative may be as we please changed into another positive and he who had before the positive shall have now the negative side He that denies any Soules after this life to go into any temporal purgatory affirms them to go into Bliss or Pain Eternal and he that affirms Purgatory denies this So he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist affirmes the Substance of the Symboles to remain there and so e contra Hence he that hath 39. Articles of his Faith whereof 30. are in the expression negative 9. positive hath in matters wherein the one contrary being excluded the other is admitted as it is in most of these Articles of Religion that are in debate no fewer positive Articles of his Faith than he who hath 39. expresly positive and again he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39. Negative also and e contra only a negative confession argues a former contest And as Faith so Heresie is conversant in either And here also note that it is one thing for a Church meerly to exclude from or omit in her Articles or confessions of Faith those points which another Church defineth i. e not to tye her Subjects to believe them and another thing to tye her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them or not to believe them Which is indeed a defining one way as much as the other Church doth the other way For Example 'T is one thing not to tye her subjects to believe or hold the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Images Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints c. and another thing to tye her subjects to believe or hold that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory c. are vainly invented or grounded on no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned in her not leaving points in Universals only and their former indifferency but new-stating Purgatory Transubstantiation c. than the Reformed for their new-stating the contrary to these Which to make more perspicuous §. 85. n. 3. It is to be noted that of those who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm lesâ— and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith than some others do there are two sorts 1. Either such as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals which the other affirm 2. Or such as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals neither affirming nor denying them for truths only denying that the others as yet do prove or evidence them to be so Now though it may be said of these later that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith or new definitions as the other do and so also that they seem much more safe and modest in the paucity of their Credends because they who neither affirm nor deny a Tenent cannot err in it yet the former who deny as far and as peremptorily every new point as the other affirm it these can free themselves from no curiosity tyranny liableness to errour c. wherein they pretend the other to transgress nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine viz. in their not erring because not determining but do ingage every whit as far in such points as their adversaries do one in holding and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth the other in holding and endeavouring to prove it an error And this is the case of the Church of England which suspends not her judgment in those new points which the Roman defines nor denies them onely to be proved or clear in the Scripture but denies them as Errors and things contrary to Scripture So Purgatory Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints Indulgences are declared repugnant to Gods Word Art 22. Works of Supereorgation Art 14. Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People Art 24. Denying of the Cup to the People Art 30. Sacrifice of the Mass Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation for Example to be contrary to Scripture makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture and so to be also a point of his Faith if Scripture be so and hence the
of believing them upon conviction that they were of Divine Revelation why not then allow such a one here extra quam nulla salus i. e. to such as receive a sufficient proposal of their being so defined and therefore do or might receive a sufficient conviction that they must also be Divine Truth Though for a fuller answer to that clause of Pius I must refer you to the considerations on the Council of Trent § 80. n. 2. Now to proceed in our Discourse Fundamental therefore the Church of Rome affirms many of her Canons for I speak not of all not so to be §. 85. n. 6. but that 1st A Christian may be ignorant of them without loss of his salvation and indeed amongst the vulgar who is there that is not ignorant of several of them Onely in time of need and where danger of seducement as any Canon is of greater moment or the truth thereof particularly invaded the Pastors are vigilant to inform their Sheep of the Churches former definitions of them 2ly Nay further may hold the contrary to some of them though defined yet if not sufficiently proposed to him that they are so without loss of salvation 3ly In ones holding the contrary to them after sufficiently proposed I mean both the decree manifested to him and the just authority that made it and the divine assistance thereof the loss of salvation doth not ensue nor the Churche's censures take hold on such a person for the simple non-believing the matter of such Canon or for the holding of the contrary For if this the meer non-believing or the holding of the contrary to any Church-definition whatever abstracting from a sufficient proposal that such thing hath been defined by the Church were enough to destroy any ones salvation then so this would be before the Churches determination of such Point or so would be to the invincibly ignorant after it a thing which no Catholick affirms and see S. Austins stating of this matter de Baptis 4.16 before § 18. Though it is freely granted here that the ignorance of such a truth as is beneficial for our salvation which all definitions of Councils are supposed to be to some or other both after and also before the Councils defining thereof may confer something in its degree according to the benefit of the truth one miscarries in to the loss of his salvation The Churche's censures therefore I say as to many of her Canons are incurr'd and salvation ruin'd not for the meer disbelieving such Point defined but for obstinately doing this after sufficient ground of conviction that such an authority hath so defin'd it Posiquam ea quae ad fidem pertinent authoritate Vniversalis Ecclesiae determinata sunt si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnat haereticus censetur ‖ S Thom. 22.11 q. 2. Qui autem ex ignorantiâ crassâ vel etiam affectatâ saith Layman out of the common Doctrine of the Casuists †Theol moral â—2 Tract 1 13. c. propter inquirendi taedium c. errorem aliquem contra fidem tenet eum statim derelicturus si intelligat Catholicae Ecclesiae repugnantem esse talis non est pertinax nec Haereticus So that the Churches Anathema in many of her Canons seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him and diminishing his perfection in the Faith as the pertinasy of his erring and the contumacie and perverseness of his will disobeying the Church and his Spiritual Superiors sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her Doctrine and a portion of the Christian Faith and manifesting it always for some good ends of preserving her Sons orthodox in such parts thereof as she sees to be invaded by some contrary error of perilous consequence Now let it be considered whether the Church of England if the sense of the 5. Canon related above ‖ § 83. n. 1. stand good doth not make her 39 Articles Fundamental and exclude from Salvation those who affirm or hold any of them erroneous on the same manner whilst she excommunicates i. e. cuts off from the Body of Christ if the Excommunication be just as she thinks it is such persons as remain in this wicked error till such time as they repent and publickly revoke it For I ask what is this wicked error for which unrepented of he is so cut off from Christ and consequently his Salvation destroyed but his holding or if you will his not repenting upon her Admonition but persisting to hold the contrary to some one or more of her Articles or Definitions if she declare then his Salvation lost in his holding the contrary to such Article is not the Article then after her proposal made in the sense we are speaking of fundamental to him Or suppose his wicked error be not holding but saying the contrary to such Article when he holds otherwise which I cannot apprehend to be sense i. e. that any one can be said to erre in a thing when he saith onely that he holds it but really doth not hold it at least thus far then as to non-contradiction the Article still is made fundamental for here whoever contradicts unrepenting thereof is damned 4ly For the application of Haec est Fides extra quam non est salus which is so often said by Protestants to be made to all the Definitions of the Council of Trent and the confession thereof necessary to the enjoying of the Communion of this Church 1st No such Sentence is applied to the definitions by the Council it self except onely to the Nicene Creed of which they say it is Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. but onely by a Pope after it And 2ly If we should also grant the sense of this clause to be that which Protestants put upon it whereas it is capable of another sense which they cannot disallow of which see Consid Conc. Trid. § 80. namely this That an explicit belief of every one of the Definitions and Canons of all the lawful General Councils that have ever been or made any such for Pius speaks of all Canons of Councils as well as those of Trent is necessary to every one and that ratione medii for attaining Salvation For thus the Protestants will needs understand it a thing so irrational that any one may see that a Church that holds this must damn all or most of her children for who is there especially among the laity or vulgar that hath an actual knowledg or explicit faith of every Canon of every lawful General Council that hath been in the Church Yet is it not required by Pius of all men that they assent to this truth for their enjoying the Roman Communion but onely of those who enter into Sacred Orders or Religions But 5ly It may be noted also concerning this Bull of Pius which seems of a long time the main grievance of Protestants the main Apology for their
but now said that particular Churches or Provincial Synods may be certain of something as Truth where either Scripture saith it or a necessary deduction collecteth it or Tradition delivereth it such as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent and that upon Excommunication or Anathema to all such Articles of Religion as are either defined or otherwise agreed on by the whole Catholick Church and that herein they have the same infallibility as the Catholick and their Subjects are or may be convinced that they are the tenents of the Church Catholick As the Church of England though otherwise fallible may require not a conditional but an absolute assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed because she in these is infallible if the Catholick Church be so Thus much said concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons by the Church of England to her Articles of Religion I now proceed to the 2d thing proposed before § 66. The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority CHAP. VIII Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide 1. Q. From what we can be assured that Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is disputed nor the Decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance § 86. 2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility such promise if made at all being made onely to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others Or if so no such Delegation from the Vniversal Church appearing to have been beforehand made at all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How Lawfull General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all Infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things how Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that in it these Councils do not erre § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils onely when confirmed by the Pope or all when yet unconfirmed by Him are infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes Confirmation can any way concurr to such Councils non-erring since if it erred before it doth so still though he approve it but if orthodox before it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this Infallibility lies For if in one of them the other is needless if in Both then either of them sufficient such qualities being indivisible and without integral Parts § 106. § 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judg of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion Solutions of several Questions asserted above in this discourse by Catholicks and the Church Governors in a Lawfull General Council affirmed to be so many difficulties are urged and some with much subtilty which it seems to me may be with as much plainness satisfactorily removed 1st Then Q. 1. it is asked †See Mr. Stillings p. 409 539 558. whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians that lawfull General Councils are infallible Since it cannot arise * from the Decree of any Council because we know not whether Councils err in such a Decree till this thing first be stated to us whether they are infallible Nor 2ly * From the Scripture Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judg of this great Controversie which Catholicks deny to be the sole Judg of any and if Scripture may decide this Controversie it may as well all others for that it is evident that there are no places of Scripture whose sense is more controverted than the sense of those urged concerning the Churches Infallibility If therefore these may be understood without a living and Infallible Judg so as that we may be certain of their true sense then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith and manners whose sense is far less disputed than of these § 87 To which I answer 1st That Scripture though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sence yet may be a rule plain and free enough from obscurity in its sense there where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted and that though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended or such argument in reason made use of on that side where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages or of the much major part of the present age yet on the other side the sence thereof that is given by the common judgment either of former or present times may be rationally urged against these few and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity they ought to yeild unto it And here see what he saith ‖ Still p. 58 59. who urgeth this both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sence even in those places of it where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sence and consent of the Church Now that these Scriptures here spoken of however by some of late controverted have been alwayes understood in the common sence of the Church to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governours for necessaries appears sufficiently by the proceedings of her Councils ancient and modern requiring upon Anathema assent to their decrees and inserting some of them in the Creeds Of which more by and by ‖ § 90. Here then it is denied that Scripture when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sence of the Church both in the former and present age as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian is no Rule plain or free enough from obscurity in the traditional sence thereof to decide such controversie § 88 2ly I answer for so much as is affirmed of such Councils namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty both from Scripture and from universal tradition that the Church Catholick of all ages is unerring in necessaries and that this Church Catholick alwayes doth and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy as a guided and subject Laity And that thus far there is no controversie concerning evidence of Scripture or Tradition And next from hence it certainly follows that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries And again from this that this Clergy when joyned in a general assembly or Council and unanimously
can be established and that before one error will so be amended many truths whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy will be perverted and that it is much the better of the two that some error in non-necessaries remain unremedied than that no truth in necessaries stand fixed and confirmed Again since all persons for the truth of such things wherein the sence of Scripture is controverted if they will not profess themselves Scepticks ought to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge or other though liable to error let those then who reject a General Council name what other ultimate Judge they will chuse rather I suppose here they will blush to name themselves for that Judge neither can they have shew of reason to name either any other single person or yet inferior Council to be that Judge against a General Lastly The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith †See Disc 2. § 38. viz. That the sence of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it in all necessaries For now supposing that indeed the sence of Scripture should not be clear and so such Protestant solely guided by it using his industry yet should err in some such point such error of his is no way to be rectified so long as he maintains this ground A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike Just Weights c. 21. p. 137. 7ly Again it is asked whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with Q. 7. or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome § 104 To which waving here what testimony may be produced from Scripture and the Exposition of Antiquity concerning St. Peters supremacy and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it 1st I answer in the words of the Apostle †1 Cor. 11.16 standing upon the Church's custom in another matter That the Churches of God alwayes have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without or against the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter and Bishop of the prime Apostolick See and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition See the ancient Canon concerning this Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2. against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority * urged by Innocentius apud August Ep. 91. * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13 by Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. And it is remarkable that in the times that those acknowledged by all capital errors suppressed in the Athanasian Creed troubled the Church though all the other chief Patriarchs were tainted with one or other of them yet the Bishop of Rome alwayes stood firm and the Church in her vote alwayes joyned with his Chair though divided from some of the other If the Act of Liberius be here objected see what is answered to it Disc 2. § 26. n. 4. And seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick presides in General Councils †See before §. 33. as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial therefore as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils Vt nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant c. sic enim unanimitas erit †Apostol can 35. Concil Antioch can 9. so there seems the same equity that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop their President and Head But 2ly So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants as lawfully general or infallible save only such which this Prime Patriarch hath alwayes consented to and confirmed this question whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good or their authority be infallible without his consent may be superseded 8. Again it is asked Q. 8. How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council since his Confirmation follows its final decision For now if it hath erred it is erroneous though he approves it if not it is Orthodox and so may be safely accepted though he rejects it †Dr. Pierce Answ to Cressy p. 17. Stillingf p. 509. I answer his Confirmation secures us that the Council errs not or the Council never errs when he confirms it because supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error the Grace of God or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholick President of these Councils so as that it effectually hinders him after what manner or by what means it pleaseth that he doth never confirm it least so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary Or again when he perhaps would left to himself confirm an error the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so by what wayes of the divine wisdom it matters not that they do not define it And thus the Council never erreth being confirmed by him either because its decree is Orthodox or his consent with-held Hence then if the decrees be erroneous he never approves if Orthodox he safely approves them 9. Again it is asked Q. 9. if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation § 106 nor again the Pope without the assistance of a Council in which of the two the infallibility or not erring resides For in which soever we shall place it it renders the other needless I answer where is supposed the consent of both in a truth the actual non-erring lies in both But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other as also erring may be in either separated as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated or guided so as in the last question is explained CHAP. IX 10. Q. If General Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which infers Enthusiasm or new Revelation Or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due to all their Arguments § 107. 11 Q. Why being infallible at least in their conclusions they do not end all controversie but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles And the infallibility of their Decrees from that of Scripture 109. 13. Q. How many persons or Guides all fallible can make up one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils Because of the many conditions required to make them such in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain of any Council that it hath not failed § 114. 10. A Gain it is asked If a lawful General Council be not liable to error whether it is so in its Definitions and Conclusions only or in the Premises also and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them I answer That it is not necessary that it
means infallibly true to us and applies infallibly not to the object but act of faith seems faulty Because God may oblige us to believe either a thing to be infallibly true i. e. as to us so as that there can be no possibility of our error in it or only most credibly so according to the proof or ground we have of such belief Therefore though it is true which he saith That God never obligeth us to believe i.e. to be absolutely true what is really a lye or false and true also that if we know that God obligeth us to believe a thing to be infallibly true we have the greatest assurance that such thing is infallibly true Yet so 1. Is this true that God obligeth us to believe nor for infallibly but only for most credibly true what is from those principles which right reason can attain of it only most credibly so And 2. So is this also true that God hath not obliged us to believe Christianity as infallibly true from the moral certainty we have thereof supposing that this moral certainty is not absolutely infallible I mean as to a possibility of the contrary Upon this supposition therefore that our moral certainty or assurance on which we ground the verity of Christian Religion involves a possibility of falshood God doth not oblige us to believe Christian Religion with an acquisite or rational faith from this evidence as freed from all possibility of falshood or as absolutely infallible but to believe in the same degree the one to be credible as we do the other in the same degree Christian Religion true as we do the ground thereof and no further And here Mr. Stillingfleet seems to incur the fault he imputes to others †Ibid. of making the conclusion surer than the premises if he would make Christian Religion by this way any whit more infallible than moral certainty is So also in the next page †p. 208. if he pretends to prove from that text of Scripture Joh. 16.13 any infallible assurance and not only a moral certainty to us of the Apostle's infallibility in the conveyance of Scripture himself must incur the Circle he objects to Catholicks For since we have this Text of Scripture only from their conveyance I cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of it till first so assured of their infallibility in conveying it 3ly It is true also That when reason is not rightly used by us and when that seems to us from false reasoning most credible which in right reason is not yet that here also God obligeth us to believe this the most credible but then he obligeth us to believe this most credible hypothetically only and upon supposition that our reasons and reasonings are good and therefore we are obliged by him herein only to believe a truth namely this thing to be most credible hypothetically c. though the thing which we believe thus hypothetically most credible is absolutely not true As also God obligeth us to follow an erroneous conscience Neither do we sin in this following it to which God obligeth us and which we do only upon supposition that it is not erroneous for if we knew it erroneous we might not follow it but we sin in not better informing it where God also obligeth us to the contrary But to let these things pass I grant what Protestants affirm That the moral evidence we have from Tradition is sufficient to produce such an assurance of Christian Religion as God requires us to have of it by an acquisite and rational faith and that both this evidence of the truth of Christian Religion and our faith built on it are morally infallible This of the sufficient certainty of Church-Tradition concerning Scripture and so concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith that are built thereon affirmed by Protestants Upon which ground also they freely grant †See Chillingw p. 114. Stillingf p. 216. That if any other point wherein they dissent from Catholicks can be proved by as universal a Tradition as that of the Scriptures they will subscribe to it § 138 2. Again the same sufficient certainty Catholicks also affirm to be in Church Tradition for what it delivers but withall they urge many motives of credibility concurring in it †See before §. 121. which are not so much insisted on by Protestants some of which motives may add to a Tradition of a less latitude a moral certainty as great or greater from the dignity of the persons as a more universal Tradition may have from the multitude of Testators amongst which motives also are the miracles done in several ages by such persons And by these motives also Catholicks affirm * that the true Religion may be rationally evident and discerned from all false ones whether they be within or without the pale of Christianity none of which Sects can produce like evidence for their faith and * that by these our faith is demonstrated a rational service Rom. 12.1 1 Pet. 3.15 These motives likewise are acknowledged by them to be the ultimate resolution of an humane faith which is begotten by them and that in respect of such a faith they are the formal principle of believing nor that such faith doth exceed the certitude of this principle and that the assent we yeild to the Articles which we believe only on this account is no stronger or certainer than these motives be on which it is grounded All which things as Protestants earnestly contend for †See Stillingf p. 137. 140. Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 61. so there seems no reason why they should be denied them Of this matter thus the fore-quoted Author Layman out of Scotus and others ‖ Theol. moral p. 183. Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solumodò humanâ credit And Authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti which we learn from Divine Revelation the Scripture's being the Word of God first supposed sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi fide humanâ And Accedit quòd assensus cognoscitivus non potest excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur § 139 This is said concerning a sufficiently certain evidence in Church-Tradition c. agreed on both by Catholicks and Protestants That the Scriptures at least the books of it called by Protestants Canonical are the Word of God But then 2ly The Protestant's declining the admission of Church-Traditions that are less universal than that of Scripture is thought unreasonable 1. Because of two Traditions whereof one appears more universal than the other yet the lesser also may have a sufficient certainty in it whereon to build a rational belief and hence Protestants may have reason enough to admit several other Traditions though not all equally universal or any so universal as that of the Scriptures For the wars of Caesar and Pompey descend by a more universal
Grecian opinions are since but what they were when first the Reformation was made Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation and Cyril's above 50. years after his 2ly Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions the words of Knowles ibid are considerable who there saith That he was a reverent and learned man and that he desired to reform many errors and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church as these others were in the Western which also appears from the complaints and persecution against him more than against his Predecessors by the Agents of the Roman Church upon this pretence Knowles ibid. And he is said †Spondan A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei p. 528. at last for certain crimes objected to him and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks to have been imprisoned and shortly after executed and another Cyril ab Iberia formerly rejected to have been repossessed of his Chair But 3ly How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias yet the same testimonies above-named †§. 158. n 2. 165 162. that shew Jeremias's to be the doctrines of the Greek Church shew Cyril's whoever had new reformed him not to be so But 4ly Indeed his declaration though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions is very short and sparing general and unclear extending to few points and waving the rest and forbearing there to mention any one point save that of the procession of the holy Gho t wherein the Greeks differ from the reformed as surely in some they do and again those points therein in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict both Jeremias's and the Roman tenents namely the denying of Purgatory and of Transubstantiation if therein he intend to deny all sorts of Purgatory though not by five and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist are unquestionably singular and not owned by the Greeks as is shewed before and as is witnessed also by some reformed †§. 167 169. c. out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions and practâ—ces 5ly If Cyril or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reformed and new opinions diverse from his predecessors whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church These are to be stiled not its doctrines but his own and it is not denied that Patriarchs as well as others may be heretical for in several ages some have been so But 6ly If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation then will this only follow that it is true of the Greek Church as of the Protestant that they also have reformed from the whole Catholick Church 1. from the former as well Greek Church as Latine and so this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice if a departure from the Church Catholick bâ— Schism but only the enlargment of the same guilt to another Church THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions and present Church-Authority upon the Protestant's Grounds Divided into Five CONFERENCES The I. CONFERENCE The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures § 2. 1st THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitely believes those truths against which he errs Ib. 2. That also he useth his best indeavours to find the true sence of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation than doing his best endeavours for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Sons consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way by ass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient authority § 5. Digress Where the Protestant's and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sence of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their faith against the sence of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. The II. CONFERENCE His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sence of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige § 13. 1st THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 13. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age and whatever restrain the made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to hers except conditionally and
p. 506. 537. No authority on earth can oblige to internal assent in matters of faith or to any farther obedience than that of silence Prot. Yes you stand obliged to yield a conditional assent at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts i. e. unless you can bring evident Scriptures or Demonstration against them Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this I find indeed the Arch-Bp †§. 32 n. 5. §. 33. Consid 5. n. 1. requiring evidence and demonstration for inferiors contradicting or publishing their dissent from the Councils decrees but not requiring thus much for their denial of assent and I am told ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48. 49. Division of Churches p. 45. That in matters proposed by my Superiors as God's Word and of faith I am not tyed to believe it such till they manifest it to me to be so and not that I am to believe it such unless I can manifest it to be contrary because my faith can rest on no humane authority but only on God's Word and divine Revelation And Dr. Field saith †p. 666. It is not necessary expresly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded though it be true unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council Till I am convinced then of my error the obedience of silence is the most that can be required of me § 20 But 6ly I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither considering my present perswasion that this Council manifestly erred and that in an error of such high consequence concerning the unity of the most high God as is no way to be tolerated and I want not evident Scriptures and many other unanswerable Demonstrations to shew it did so and therefore being admitted into the honourable function of the Ministery I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an higher authority to publish this great truth of God and to contradict the Councils decree § 21 Prot. But you may easily mistake that for evident Scripture and those for Demonstrations that are not Concerning which you know what the Arch-Bp and Mr. Hooker say †Ap. Lawd 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them †Id. p. 227. You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors or to the Church desiring a redress of such error by her calling another Council And if these Superiors acquainted therewith dislike your demonstrations which the definition saith if they be right ones they must be by all and therefore by them assented to methinks though this is not said by the Arch-Bp in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations and remain in silence at least and no further trouble the Church Soc. May therefore no particular person or Church proeed to a Reformation of a forme doctrin if these Superiors first complained to declare the grounds of such persons or Churches for it not sufficient Prot. I must not say so But if they neglect as they may to consider their just reasons so diligently as they ought and to call a Council for the correcting of such error according to the weight of these reasons then here is place for inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such error without them Soc. And who then shall judge whether the reasons pretended are defective or rather the present Church negligent in considering them Prot. Here I confess to make the Superiors Judges of this is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his grievance these Superiors whose faith appears to adhere to the former Council being only Judges in their own cause and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing †Still p 479.292 Soc. The inferiors then that complain I suppose are to judge of this To proceed then To these Superiors in many diligent writings we have proposed as we think many unanswerable Scriptures and reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our party to the former Nicen Council and therefore from which evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary sentence and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this point we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church Pastor or Bishop for to reform for themselves and the souls committed to them in an error appearing to them manifest and intolerable as for the Protestants or for Dr. Luther to have done the same for Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass and other points that have been concluded against the truth by several former Councils Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils as that of Nice was Soc. Whatever these Councils were this much matters not as to a reformation from them for had they been lawfully General yet Protestants hold †See before Disc 3. §. 34. c. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in non-fundamentals errors manifest and intolerable and so may be appealed from to future and those not called their error presently rectified by such parts of Christianity as discern it and also S. Austine †De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c. is frequently quoted by them saying That past General Councils erring may be corrected by other Councils following § 22 Prot. But I pray you consider if that famous Council of Nice hath so erred another Council called may it also not err notwithstanding your evidences proposed to it For though perhaps some new Demonstrative proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained yet you will not deny this sufficient evidence to have been extant for that most learned Council to have seen the truth having then the same entire rule of faith as you now the Scriptures in which you say your clearest evidences lye for their direction When a future Council then is assembled and hath heard your plea will you assent to it and acquiesce in the judgment thereof Soc. Yes interposing the Protestant-conditions of assent if its decree be according to God's Word and we convinced thereof Prot. Why such a submission of judgement and assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing whereof you are convinced by me may this future Council then challenge no further duty from you why then should the Church be troubled to call it Soc. †Stillingf p. 542. Though this future Council also should err yet it may afford remedy against inconveniences and one great inconvenience being breaking the Church's peace this is remedied by its authority if I only yield the obedience of silence thereto Prot. But if your obedience oblige not to silence converning Councils past because of your new evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
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
Church Where the Dr. seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgement are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. else here concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers St. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Churche's censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood out against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guesse whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own conscience the plea which you also here make for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse †See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. §. 19. § 26. What say you to this Soc. What these Authors say as you give their sence seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles †See Dr. Potter p. 165.167 Dr. Hammond of Heresie § 7 n. 3 §. 9. n. 8 Des of L. Faukl c. 1. p. 23. See before Disc 3. §. 41 n. 1. and their own positions elswhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisy For since they say That lawfull General Councils may erre in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intolâ—erably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councels may erre in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councels may erre also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Councel may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisy or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning autocatacrisy as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also findes sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramball †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and alwayes shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings alwayes so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and alwayes ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not the resisting saith he †p. 128. the voice or definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my selfe Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Drs. reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to inquire whether the Decrees of an universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to reject them out or not to receive them into their beliefe And then still 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 And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils †Se before Disc 1 §. 6. and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth
of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles †Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a dâ—ssent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Mr. Stillingfleet concerning Heresie †p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Churches Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so to remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yeilding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points †See Mr. Stillingf p. 99. Then I become so either by the Churches definition of this point or without it By reason of the Churches definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Churche's defining it †Still p. 74 and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisy you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your selfe in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be Gods Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicen Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what it defined It s true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non sufficient proposal without § 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicen Council or the Church hath declared in this point †Stillingf p. 73. Whether the Churches judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgement the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Churches definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Stilling p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledg when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I finde my conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2ly The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your selfe from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can finde one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge The V. CONFERENCE His Plea for not being guilty of Schism 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publike judgment § 28 and definition of the Catholick Church