fortunes less necessitated to serve private interests are by all these the less liable to error of the two And that the confining of the belief of such persons to the directions of supposed fallible Superiors is of the two evils the much more tolerable than the leaving them in such high an spiritual matters to the roving of their own fancies For thus in stead of some few errors of the Church in matters obscure will be multiplied thousands of such persons in matters most evident and clear § 293 S. Austin speaks much on this subject in his Book de utilitate Credendi of the benefit of believing the Church written to his friend Honoratus led away by many extravagant Manichean dotages advising him submission of judgment to Church-Authority Nihil est facilius saith he †De utilitate Credendi c. 1. quam non solum so dicere sed etiam opinari verum invenisse sed reipsâ difficillimum est And †c. 12. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis under which name he saith he comprehends all except those quibus inest quanta in esse homini potest ipsius hominis Deique firmissime percepta cognitio utilius atque salubrius esse praeceptis obemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere Hoc si in rebus minoribus ut in mercando vel colendo agro c. expedire nemo ambigit multo magis in religione Nam res humanae promptiores ad dignoscendum sunt quam divinae in quibusque praestantioribus sanctioribus quo majus ets obsequium cultumque debemus eo sceleratius periculosiusque peccatur And c. 17. he argues Si unaquae disciplina quanquam vilis facilis ut percipi possit Doctorem aut magistrum requirit quid temerariae superbiae plenius quam divinorum sacramentorum libros ab interpretibus suis nollecognoscere And c. 7. Nullâ imbutus poeticâ disciplinâ Terentionum Magistrum sine Magistro attingere non auderes Tu in eos libros qui quoquomodo se habeant sanctitamen divinarumq rerum pleni prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur sine duce irruis de his sine praeceptore audes ferre sententiam c. And c. 16. Cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibiratione cognoscendus sit omnes ne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana Thus he to induce Honoratus in such divine matters to yield the guidance of himself to Church-Authority And then the Church-Authority he would have him submit to he describes thus c. 17. Quae Ecclesia usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circum latrantibus partim plebis ipsius judicio partim Conciliorum gravitate partim etiam miraculorum Majestate damnatis culmen authoritatis obtinuit Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae Nam si nulla certa ad sapientiam salutemque animis via est nisi cum cos rationi praecolit prepares them fides quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino quam tanto labore praeditae praedictae rather authoritati velle resistere Again c. 16. Quae authoritas sepositâ ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis very frequent in his times See De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. partim sequentium multitudine And c. 14. Quae celebritate consensu vetustate roboratur And c. 11. Si jam satis tibi jactatus videris finemque hujusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros maenatura est I have given you St. Austins advice somewhat more largely as hoping his words will have more weight § 294 And because if this obligation of submission of judgment to Authority for the unlearned not able to examin Controversies or the learned after examination in some degree unsatisfied be received for a truth thus the greatest part of Christians are hereby for ever settled in their religion and belief as to all points determined by the Church I will here also set down for the benefit of such Readers as most value their judgment the testimony of several learned Protestants in confirmation of it several of which have been mentioned in the former Discourses The Reader who thinks the allegation of witnesses needless in a matter so evident and would only know when Ecclesiastical Authorities divide and dissent to which of them his submission is due may omitting them pass on to § 296. In confirmation hereof then first consider that noted passage of Dr. Field in the Preface of his Book §. 295. n. 1. recommending to Christians chiefly the discovery of the True Church and when this found submission to it Seeing saith he the Controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment In the same manner Dr. Hammond writes §. 295. n 2. in his Answer to the Catholick Gentleman chap. 2. p. 17. When the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit a bare yielding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve may rationally be yielded to a Church or the Governours of it without deeming them inerrable And in his Treatise of Heresie § 13. n. 2 3. he speaks thus of the Christians security from the Divine Providence in his adherence in matters of Faith to Church-Authority If we consider Gods great and wise and constant Providence and care over his Church his desire that all men should be saved and in order to that end come to the knowledge of all necessary truth his promise that he will not suffer his faithful servants to be tempted above what they are able nor permit scandals and false teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect his most pious godly servants If I say we consider these and some other such like general promises of Scripture wherein this Question about the errability of Councils seems to be concerned we shall have reason to believe that God will never suffer all Christians to
fall into such a temptation as it must be in case the whole Representative should erre in matter of Faith I adde to define therein any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum and which Christians may not safely believe or without Idolatry practice and therein find approbation and reception amongst all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused which were out of the Council And though in this case the Church might remain a Church and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it and still retain all parts of the Apostles Depositum in the hearts of some faithful Christians which had no power in the Council to oppose the Decree or out of it to resist the general approbation yet still the testimony of such a General Council so received and approved would be a very strong argument and so a very dangerous temptation to every meek and pious Christian and it is piously to be believed though not infallibly certain That God will not permit his servants to fall into that temptation Thus he But if here the Doctor be asked why upon these considerations he doth not submit to all those latter Councils held in the Church that have delivered something opposite to the Protestant Tenents For example all those Councils concerning Transubstantiation held before Luther I suppose his answer is ready because these were not General nor universally accepted But since these were the most General that the Churches Subjects have had in those times for their direction and had also the most universal acceptation that those times could afford unless he would have also the Berengatians the persons condemned in them to accept them an acceptation most unreasonably demanded why do not here also Gods Providence and Promises stand ingaged in compassion to the meek and pious Subjects of the Church that these Councils erre not nor the Christians of those times fall into such a temptation as it must needs be if these the greatest Representatives the Church had in those dayes should misinstruct them in a matter of so great consequence as is the committing of Idolatry ever since See also his Comment on 1 Tim. 3.15 The Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to this it is saith he that Christ is said Eph. 4.12 to have given not only Apostles c. but also Pastors and Teachers i. e. the Bishops in the Church for the compacting the Saints into a Church for the building up of the body of Christ confirming and continuing them in all truth that we should be no more like Children carried about with every wind of doctrine And so again when Heresies came into the Church in the first ages 't is every where apparent by Ignatius his 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 form of wholsome words kept by him was supposed to be corrupted c. And in his Treatise of Schisme chap. 2. § 10. he speaks in this manner A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Churches communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposite his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due For the Church where his lot is fallen may by Heresie or Schisme stand divided from the Church-Catholick Here he allows depositing of our judgment in deference to our Superiors where the Fundamentals of Faith c. are not concerned But would not one think rather that in these points especially a person to be safe should adhere to the Churches judgment rather than his own Suppose a Socinian in the Point of Consubstantiality Doctor Jackson on the Creed §. 295. n 3. l. 2 § 1 c. 6. p. 175. in stating the Question ‖ p. 170. Whether the injunction of publick Ecclesiastical Authority may oversway any degree of our private perswasion concerning the unlawfulness of any opinion or action goes on thus Superiors saith he are to be obeyed in such points as their Inferiors are not at leisure to examine or not of capacity to discern or not of power or place to determine whether they be lawful or no. Again p. 170. In case of an Equilibrium in ones perswasion he argues thus Wheresoever the perswasions or probabilities of the goodness of any action are as great as the perswasions and probabilities of the evill that may ensue a lawful Governours command must in this case rule all private choice either for doing or omitting it The case is all one as in things meerly indifferent for here is an indifferency of perswasions But suppose we have not such indifferency yet p. 172 Whilst men of skill and judgment saith he appointed by God to advise in such matters are otherwise perswaded than we in private are the rule of Christian modesty binds us to suspect our own perswasion and consequently to think there may be some good even in that action wherein heretofore we thought was not And the performance of obedience it self is a good and acceptable action in the sight of God Now what he saith here concering the goodness of an action holds as well concerning the truth of an opinion Again Ibid p. 174. True spiritual obedience were it rightly planted in our hearts would bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for authorities sake than to disobey authority for the private dislike of them Both our disobedience i. e. dissent or non-submission of judgment to the one and dislike of the other are unwarrantable unless we can truly derive them from some formal contradiction or opposition between the publick or general injunction of Superiors and express law of the most High And. c. 4. p. 165. Sundry saith he in profession Protestants in eagerness of opposition to the Papists affirm that the Church or spiritual Pastors must then only be believed then only be obeyed when they give sentence according to the evident and express law of God made evidens to the heart and consciences of such as must believe and obey them And this in one word is to take away all authority of spiritual Pastors and to deprive them of all obedience unto whom doubtless God by his word hath given some special authority and right to exact some peculiar obedience of their Flock Now if the Pastor be then only to be obeyed when he brings evident commission out of the Scripture for those particulars unto which he demands belief or obedience what obedience do men perform unto him more than to any other man whatsoever For whosoever he be that can shew us the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all But
Primitive Church But that those in the Primitive Church condemned many doctrines as such that were not so To the Sixth That the Doctaine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers who lived in the first 600 years even by the confession of Protestants themselves He Answers not by denying this but by retortion of the like to the Roman Church That the Doctrine of Papists is confest by the Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points But here he tells not in what points And had he I suppose it would either have been in some points not controverted with Protestants As perhaps about the Millenium communicating of Infants or the like or else in some circumstances only of some point controverted To the Tenth That Protestants by denying all humane Authority either of Pope or Councils or Church to determine controversies of Faith have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring unity to the Church He answers not by denying Protestants to reject all humane Authority Pope Councils or Church But by maintaining that Protestants in having the Scriptures only and indeavouring to believe them in the true sence have no need of any such authority for determining matters of Faith nor can be Hereticks and do take the only way for restoring unity In all which you see Church-authority and ancient Tradition led on the man to be Catholick and the rejecting this authority and betaking himself to a private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures and indeavouring to believe them in their true sence reduced him to Protestantism He mean-while not considering how any can be said to use a right indeavour to believe Scripture in the true sence or to secure himself from Heresie or to conserve unity * who refuseth herein to obey the direction of those spiritual Superiors past present Fathers Councils Bishops whom our Lord hath appointed to guide and instruct his Church in the true sence of Scriptures as to matter of Faith Vt non fluctuantes circumferamur omni vento doctrinae c. Eph. 4.14 Again * who refuseth to continue in the Confession of the Faith of these Guides so to escape Heresies and to continue in their Communion so to enjoy the Catholick unity And what Heresie at all is it here that Mr. Chillingw suppresseth which none can incur that is verily perswaded that sence he takes Scripture in to be the right and what Heretick is not so perswaded For professing any thing against ones Conscience or Judgment or against what he thinks is the sence of Scripture is not Heresie bu Hypocrisy And what new unity is this that Mr. Chillingw entertains that none can want who will but admit all to his communion whatever tenents they are of that to this Interrogatory whether they do indeavour to believe Scripture in a true sence Will answer affirmatively †See his Preface §. 43. parag To the 10th But this is beside my present purpose and his Principles have been already discussed at large in Disc 2. § 38. c. So much of Mr. Chillingw By these Instances the disinteressed will easily discern what way he is to take if he will commit his ignorance or dissatisfaction in Controversies to the guidance of Antiquity or Church-Authority past when he sees so many of the Reformed in the beginning but also several of late deserting as it were their Title to it excepting the times Apostolical as not defendable 5. Lstly In all this he will be the more confirm'd when he observes that these men instead of imbracing and submitting to the Doctrines and Traditions of former Church-Doctrine fly in the last place to that desperat shift of the early appearance of Antichrist in the world who also as they say must needs be comprehended within the Body of the Church and be a professor of Christianity nay must be the very chief Guides and Patriarchs thereof and these as high as the Fourth or Fifth age nay much sooner say some even upon the Exit of the Apostles A conceit which arm'd with the Texts 1 Jo. 2.18 little children as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come so are there even now many Antichrists and c. 4. v. 3. This is the spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world arm'd I say with these Texts misapplied to the persons whom they think fit to discredit at one blow cuts off the Head of all Church-Authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever And the main Artifice this was whereby Luther made his new Doctrine to spread abroad and take root when he had thus first taken away all reverence to former Church and its constant Doctrines and Traditions as this Church having been for so long a time the very seat of Antichrist Babylon the great Whore and I know not what And after this ground-work laid now so much in Antiquity as any Protestant dislikes presently appears to him under the shape of Antichristian Apostacy and in his resisting and opposing the Church he quiets his conscience herewith and seems to himself not a Rebel against his spiritual Governours but a Champion against Antichrist But on these terms if they would well consider it our Lords promises to the Church that it should be so firmly built to the Rock as that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it and the Apostles Prediction that it should alwaies be a Pillar and ground of Truth are utterly defeated and have miscarried in its very infancy For how can these Gates of Hell more prevail than that the chief Guides and Governours of this Church signified by the false Prophet Apoc. 13.11 c. with great signes and miracles shall set up Satans Kingdom and Standard in the midst of it shall practice a manifold Idolatry within it and corrupt the Nations with their false Doctrines and lastly maintain this kingdom of Satan thus set up I say not without or against but within the bowels of the Church now by the ordinary computation of Protestants for above Twelve hundred years whilst the Emperor and other Roman Catholick Princes are imagined during all this time to be the Beast or Secular State that opens its mouth in Blasphemy against God and makes war with the Saints †Apoc. 13.6 7. To whose Religion this false Prophet gives life Apoc. 13.11 15. Both which this Beast and this False-Prophet for their Idolatry and Oppression at the appointed time before this expected now they say not far off shall be cast into the Lake or poole of Fire For so their doom runs Apoc. 19 20. And the Beast was taken and the False Prophet and both these were cast alive into a lake of fire § 312 And this so great and mischievous an error becomes in them much the less excusable since the latter world hath seen the appearance of the great False Prophet Mahomet upon the stage and since
utilitate Cred. c. 1. that he was enticed by the Sect of the Manichees on this account because they promised Se terribili authoritate separatâ merâ simplici rations or as afterward magna quadam praesumptione pollicitatione rationum cos qui se audire vellent introducturos ad Deum erroreomni liberaturos And Se nullum premere ad fidem nisi prius discussâ enodatâ veritate And again †Ibid c. 9. Eos Catholicam Ecclesiam eo maxime criminari quod illis qui ad eam veniunt praecipitur ut credâ—nt se autem non jugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriari And therefore he saith in his Retract l. 1. c. 14. That upon this he writ against this presumption of their's his Book De utilitate Credendi Or Of the benefit of ones believing Church-Authority This from § 318. of the weak Grounds Protestants have of pretending Certainty against Church Authority § 330 2 But next Suppose a person may be infallibly certain of and can truly demonstrate something the contrary of which Church-Authority delivers as certain yet if this certainty be only of such a Truth from the knowledge of which ariseth no great benefit to Christians or to the Church or at least not so much benefit as weighed in the ballance will preponderat this other benefit of conserving the Churches peace Here again these Demonstrators Protestants also being Judges are to yield to Church-Authority the obedience of silence and non-contradiction and are to keep such Truth to themselves and not to disturb the publick peace after any thing defined to the contrary by divulging it to others § 331 In vindication of such obedience thus Dr. Potter ‑ It is true when the Church hath declared her self in any matter of opinions or of rites her Declaration obligeth all her children to peace and external obedience nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Where he saith also That by his factiously opposing this his own judgment to the publick he may become an Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false After him Bishop Brambal thus †Schism guarded p. 2. That Church and much more that person which shal not outwardly acquiesce after a legal Determination and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And Vindic. of Church of England p. 27. When inferior Questions saith he not fundamental are â—nce 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 patience and they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Doctor Fern Division of Churches p. 81. requiring conformity of Sectaries to the Church of England argues thus If Sectaries shall say to us You allow us to use our reason and judgement in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction not to abuse it against the Church But we do not abuse it say they but have consulted our Guides and used all means we can for satisfaction We tell them You must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church and next having modestly propounded it attend the judgment thereof But what if after all this go against them To which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yield an external peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it Thus he states the point Now such an external peaceable subjection and obedience as hath been often said if it were well observed stops all Reformations as to these points that are found of less consequence the Demonstrators Truth must die with him Nor thus will any Disciples be drawn from the Church or their Pastors to follow Strangers § 232 Next To know whether the truth they are so certain of be also of so great weight as that the Churches peace and external unity is to be broken rather than such a Truth strangled or lost what less thing also can secure them for this that it is a Truth of much importance than that which secures them of their certainty that it is a Truth namely a Demonstration hereof Now the Evidences Protestants have brought either of the one or the other either that such Church-Doctrines are errors or if so errors of great consequence have been heard and considered by Church-Authority And these by it neither thought errors intollerable nor errors at all But if Church-Authority may not interpose here and every one may rely on his own particular Judgment when truths or errors are of moment when not who is there when his thoughts are wholy taken up with a thing and he totus in illo and perhaps besides troubled with an itch that that knowledge of his which he esteems extraordinary should be communicated and that se scire hoc sciat alter will not thus induce himself to think the smallest matters great Lastly concerning truths of much importance let this also be considered Whether that which is so much pretended by the Reformed that the Holy Scriptures are clear in all Divine Truths necessary doth not strongly argue against them that none of those things wherein they gain-say the Church are matters much important or necessary Because all these Scriptures clear in necessaries will surely be so to the Church as well as to them As they grant these Scriptures to be generally as to all persons perspicuous in all those common points of faith that are not at all controverted § 333 3. But let this also be allowed That the error of Church-Authority is not only manifest but that it both is and is certainly known to be in a point most important and necessary and that neither the obedience of assent nor yet of silence or non-contradiction ought to be yielded to Church-Authority therein yet all this granted will not justifie or secure any in their not yielding a third obedience meerly passive viz. a quiet submission to the Churches censures however deemed in such a particular case unjust Whereby if this censure happen to be Excommunication he is patiently to remain so as who in such case injoyes still the internal communion of the Church though he want the external till God provide for the vindication of Truth and his Innocency But by no means to proceed further to set up or joyn himself to an external communion apart and separated from that of his Superiors and such a communion as either refuseth any conjunction with them or at least is prohibited and excluded by them which must alwaies be schismatical as being that of a Part differing from the Whole or of Inferiors divided from their Canonical Superiors by which now that Party begins to lose that internal Communion of the Church also which when unjustly excommunicated and acquiescing therein he still
the things to be handled there § 160. 2. The Consultation made in every thing with the Pope § 164. 3. The excessive number of Italian Bishops § 167. And the not voting by Nations but by the Present Prelats § 169. 4. The Popes giving Pensions § 170. 5. And admitting Titular Bishops § 171. 6. The Prohibition of Bishops Proxies to give Definitive votes § 172. CHAP. XI IV. Head Of the Councils many Definitions and Anathemas 1. That all Anathemas are not inflicted for holding something against Faith § 173. 2. That matters of Faith have a great latitude and so consequently the errors that oppose Faith and are lyable to be Anathematized § 175. Where Of the several waies wherein things are said to be of Faith § 176. 3 That all general Councils to the worlds end have equal Authority in defining matters of Faith And by the more Definitions the Christian Faith is still more perfected § 177. Where Of the true meaning of the Ephesin Canon restraining Additions to the Faith § 178. 4. That the Council of Trent prudently abstained from the determining of many Controversies moved there § 184. 5. That the Lutherans many erroneous opinions in matters of Faith engaged the Council to so many contrary Definitions § 185. 6. That all the Anathemas of this Council extend not to meer Dissenters § 186. 7. That this Council in her Definitions decreed no new divine Truth or new matter of Faith which was not formerly such at least in its necessary Principles Where In what sence Councils may be said to make new Articles of Faith and in what not § 192. 8. That the chief Protestant-Controversies defined in this Council of Trent were so in former Councils § 198. 9 That the Protestant-Churches have made new Counter-Definitions as particular as the Roman and obliged their Subjects to believe and subscribe them § 199. 10 That a discession from the Church and declaration against it◠Doctrines was made by Protestants before they were any way straitned or provoked by the Trent Decrees or Pius his Creed § 202. CHAP. XII V. Head Of the Decrees of this Council concerning Reformation 1. In matters concerning the Pope and Court of Rome 1. Appeales § 212. and Dispensations § 215. 2. Collation of Benefices § 218. 3. Pensions § 218. Commenda's § 219. and uniting of Benefices § 220 4. Exemptions § 221. 5. Abuses concerning Indulgences and Charities given to pious uses § 223. 2. In matters concerning the Clergy 1. Vnfit persons many times admitted into H. Orders and Benefices § 225. 2. Pluralities § 232. 3. Non-Residence § 235. 4. Neglect of Preaching and Catechising § 236. n. 2. 5. Their restraint from Marriage and Incontinency in Celibacy § 238 239. 6. Their with-holding from the people the Communion of the Cup § 241. 7. Too frequent use of Excommunication § 243. n. 1. 8. The many disorders in Regulars and Monasticks § 243. n. 2. 9. Several defects in the Missals and Breviaries § 243. n. 3. CHAP. XIII Solutions of the Protestant Objections Brief Answers to the Protestant-Objections made before § 3. c. § 247. c. Where Of the Councils joyning Apostolical Tradition with the Holy Scriptures as a Ground of Church-Definitions § 264. CHAP XIV Considerations concerning a Limited Obedience to Church-Authority 1. Of the pretence of following Conscience against Church-Authority Two Defences against obeying or yielding assent to Church Authority § 271. 1. The necessity of following our Conscience 2. The certainty of a Truth that is opposed by the Church Reply to the first That following our Conscience when misinformed excuseth not from fault § 272. Three waies whereby the Will usually corrupts the Judgment or Conscience and misleads it as it pleaseth in matters of Religion 1. Diverting the intellect to other imployments and not permitting it at all to study and examine matters of Religion § 274. 2. Permitting an inquiry or search into matters of Religion but this not impartial and universal § 275. 3. Admitting a free and universal search as to other points controverted in Religion but not as to Church-Authority § 277. Where That the Judgment may and often doth oblige men to go against their own Opinions and seeming Reason § 278. CHAP. XV. Consideration For remedying the first Deceit § 281. Where Whether Salvation may be had in any Christian Profession retaining the Fundamentals of Faith § 282. For remedying the second Deceit § 289. Where That persons not wholy resigned to Church-Authority ought to be very jealous of their present opinions and indifferent as Reasons may move to change their Religion Ib. For remedying the third § 291. Where 1. That the Illiterat or other persons unsatisfied ought to submit and adhere to Church-Authority § 294. That apparent mischiefs follow the Contrary § 296. 2. That in present Church-Governours divided and guiding a contrary way such persons ought to adhere to the Superiors and those who by their Authority conclude the whole § 298. 3. As for Church-Authority past such persons to take the testimony concerning it of the Church-Authority present § 301. Yet That it may be easily discerned by the Modern Writings what present Churches most dissent from the Primitive § 302. Where of the aspersion of Antiquity with Antichristianisme § 311 CHAP. XVI 2. Of the pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority Reply to the 2d Defence The pretended certainty of a Truth against Church-Authority § 318. 1. That it is a very difficult thing to arrive to a rational and demonstrative certainty in matters intellectual more in matters Divine and Spiritual and especially in such Divine matters where Church-Authority delivers the contrary for a certain Truth Ibid. Instances made in four principal points of modern Controversie For which Church-Authority is by many Protestants charged with Idolatry and Sacriledge § 320. 1. The Corporal presence and consequently Adoration of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist § 321. 2. Invocation of Saints 322. 3. Veneration of Images § 323. 4. Communion in one kind § 324. 2 That such certainty if in a Truth of small importance though it cannot yield an obedience of Assent to Church-Authority yet stands obliged still to an obedience of silence § 330 Conceded by Protestants § 331. 3. That such Certainty of a Truth never so important and necessary where also one is to be certain that it is so though it be supposed free from the obedience of Assent and of silence yet stands obliged to a third a passive obedience to Church-Authority a peaceable undergoing the Churches Censures though this be the heaviest Excommunication and that unjust without erecting or joyning to any other external Communion divided from it Which third obedience only yielded preserves the Church from schisme § 332 333. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Council of Trent CHAP. I. Protestant-Objections against this Council Objected by Protestants 1. That the Council of Trent was not a General Council § 3. 2. That not Patriarchal § 4. 3. That not Free and Legal in its
proper to Hâ—storians to asperse and blemish the most specious and candid actions of those though the most sacred Persons whose interests he disfavours with some or other uncharitable Gloss upon them and to represent the fairest fruit they bear still worm-eaten with some corrupt Design or malignant Intention for which a bare possibility thereof seems his sufficient warrant to affirm it And again for the second constantly after each Session of this Council He under the Mask of the vulgar talk and common Fame takes liberty to sum together all that which he apprehends may any way disparage the precedent Decrees and that which perhaps never entred into any ones save his own fancy 4 Lastly That he was a Person with whom the Arch-Bishop of Spalato had an intimate Acquaintance and of whom also he gives this Character in the Preface to the first Edition of this History London 1619. which Preface is omitted in the latter as some think because it too manifestly discovers the Historians Dis-affection to those whose actions he relates That he lived so in the Roman Captivity as to guide himself by a right Conscience rather than the common Customs That he had a great Zeal to the purity of Religion against such unexcusable i. e. Roman depravations thereof That he abhorred those who defended the Church of Rome's abuses as holy Institutions and professed Truth wherever found was to be embraced That this his work was only known to him and some others his great Confidents From which as also from some Extracts out of his Letters holding correspondence with some French Hugonots mentioned in Casoni's Preface to the Second Volume of Pallavicino may easily be gathered that his Religion was much-what of the same temper and complexion with that of Spalatensis Unless perhaps we may think that after his writing this Book he return'd to a better mind and that from this change came that reluctance of his Spalatensis mentions ‖ Prefat to Soave's History for communicating this work Nay as the same Bishop relates it ‖ a Purpose to have quite suppressed and made it away Destinato ad essere sommerso dal suo Genitore Which thing as he imputes to his fear of some danger from it so Charity will rather judge that it proceeded from remorse of Conscience when in a pious reflection upon his former Conceptions he discern'd that in stead of an History he had brought forth a Satyre against Gods Truth and his Church and the most Supreme and Sacred of those Governors whom our Lord himself had appointed over It and Him However This his History hath not so far corrupted the truth of Affairs as not to contain in it many Evidences very advantageous to the Catholick Cause and so much remains sound in it as may serve very well to confute that which is vitiated and in the main things that are charged against the Pope and Council especially concerning the Councils Liberty this History is found as it were to destroy it self by its own Contradictions A thing which observed by Phil. Quorlius an Italian Doctor produced his Book entituled Historia Petri Soavis ex Authorismet assertionibus consutata This account in my entrance I thought fit to give you of this Author that you may see what just credit on such a Subject he deserves out of whose Quiver the Reformed have taken most of those arrows with which they seek to wound this Council The chief of which I shall first summarily relate to you and so proceed to its intended Defence § 3 First then it is Objected by the Protestant Divines That this of Trent can no way truly be called a General Council as it is stiled by the Romanists 1. α. α Because it is necessary to the Generalness of a Council that some be there and those Authorized from all particular Churches See Archbishop Lawd § 27. n. 3. where he quotes Bellarmine ‖ De Concil l. 1. c. 17. for it §. 4. ut saltem But none from the Eastern Churches were present in this of Trent or so much as summoned or afterwards approved or consented unto its Acts And the number of the Bishops β. who were present from other Churches was frequently so small that in many Sessions it had scarce 10. Arch-Bishops or 40 or 50 Bishops present Bishop Lawd § 27. n. 2. And That it had not so many Biships present at the Determination of the weightiest Controversies concerning the Rule of Faith as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a Months warning B. Brambal Vindic. c. 9. p. 247. And see what Soave saith to the same purpose l. 2. p. 163. Add to this γ. γ. That it was not lawfully called so as General Councils ought and used to be namely by the Emperor and other Christian Princes but only by the Pope this was one of Henry the 8th's Pleas in his Manifesto's against it Lastly δ. δ. That the Popes themselves as many as lived in the time thereof would never consent that this Council should be affirmed to represent the Vniversal Church prudently foreseeing that if this were granted as in the Council of Constance it was the Council as being the whole would put off its subjection and depend no longer on the Pope that was but a part of it nor would need his confirmation to render it what it was before viz. the Representative of the whole Church thus Dr. Hammond Her 11. § n 8 9. This against its being a General Coucil § 4 2. That neither was it a plenary Patriarchal Council 2. for the West ε ε Because from some Churches in the West as from the Britannick and some other Reformed Churches there were no Bishops present there who also had just cause for their not coming thither B. Lawd ib. n. 2. neither can it justly be pleaded that they were Heretical or Schismatical Churches being never condemned by any former Council B. Brambal Answer to Chalced. p. 351. ζ. ζ. And of other Western Churches save only Italy present very few in all the Sessions under Paul the 3d. but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the sixth Session under Julius the 3d. B. Lawd ib. n. 2. â— And Twice so many Bishops out of Italy present as there were out of all other Christian Nations put together B. Bramb Vind. p. 247. as appears at the end of the Coucil where the Italians are set down 187. and all the rest make but 83. B. Lawd § 29. n. 2. Neither was this Council after its rising fully acknowledged or received by the Western Churches nor by the Britannick and other Reformed Churches Nor by the Gallican Church of the Roman Communion And Let no man say saith B. Bramb Vind. p. 248. that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline not of Doctrine for the same Canonical Obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General I add or other Superior
assembled in his own Territories and with his leave To hinder their making any definitions in spiritual matters or publishing them within his Dominions without their being first evidenced to him to be in nothing repugnant to Gods Word a thing he is to learn of them and without his consent first obtained whereby he assumes to himself in the Churches Consults a negative voice * To hinder also the execution of the Churches former Canons in his Territories so long as these not admitted amongst his Laws * Again when some former Church-Doctrine seems to Him to vary from Gods Truth or some Canon of the Church to restrain the just liberty of his Subjects I mean as to spiritual matters then either Himself and Council of State against all the Clergy or joined with some smaller part of the Clergy of his own Kingdom against a much major part or joined with the whole Clergy of his own Dominions against a Superior Council to make Reformations herein as is by them thought fit * Lastly To prohibit the entrance of any Clergy save such as is Arrian into his Kingdom under a Capital punishment who sees not that such an Arrian Prince justified in the exercise of any such power and so the Church obliged to submit to it must needs within the circuit of his Command overthrow the Catholick Religion and that the necessary means of continuing there the truth of the Gospel is withdrawn from the Church And the same it would be here if the Clergy within such a Dominion should upon any pretended cause declare themselves freed from obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors or by I know not what priviledge translate their Superiors Authority to the Prince § 25 Many of these Jurisdictions vindicated by the Church are so clearly due to her for the subsistence of true Religion as that several passages in many Learned Protestants seem to join with Catholicks in the defence of them of which I shall give you a large view in another Discourse Mean while see that of Dr. Field quoted below § 49. and at your leisure Mr. Thorndikes Treatise of the Rights of the Church in a Christian State and B. Carleton's of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal In the last place then this Bar was set by the Church against any Clergies making use of the Secular Power for remitting their Subjection to the Laws and Constitutions of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or for possessing themselves of any Ecclesiastical Dignities or Jurisdictions contrary to the Churches Canons § 26 Now then to sum together all that hath been said of these Subordinations of Clergy Persons and Councils so high as the Patriarchal for preserving a perpetual unity in the Church 1 First No Introduction or Ordination of inferior Clergy could any where be made without the approbation or confirmation of the Superior § 27 2 The several Councils were to be called when need required and to be moderated by their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors and matters of more general concernment there not to be passed by the Council without his consent nor by him § 28 without theirs or the major part of them 3 All differences about Doctrine Manners or Discipline arising amongst inferior persons or Councils were to be decided by their Superiors till we come to the highest of these the Patriarchal Council And in the Intervals of Councils the respective Prelates and Presidents thereof were to take care of the Execution of their Canons as also to receive and decide appeals in such matters for which it was thought not so necessary to convene a Synod amongst which the differences with or between Primates were to be decided by the Patriarch those with or between Patriarchs by the Proto-Patriarch assisted with such a Council as might with convenience be procured § 29 4 In clashing between any Inferior and Superior Authority when these commanded several things the Subjects of both were to adhere and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of the Superior 5 All these things were to be transacted in the Church concerning causes purely Ecclesiastical and Spiritual without the controulment of or appeal to any secular Judges or Courts under penalty of excommunication to the Clergy so appealing Now in such a well and close-woven Series of dependence what entrance can there be for pretended Reformations by Inferiors against the higher Ecclesiastical Powers § 30 without incurring Schisme Whether of I know not what Independents Fanaticks and Quakers against Presbyters or of Presbyters against Bishops Reformations which the Church of England hath a long time deplored or of Bishops against the Metropolitan and so up to the Prime Patriarch the supreme Governour in the Church of Christ And next What degree of obedience can be devised less I speak as to the determinations of matters of Doctrine than a non-contradicting of these Superiors Which obedience only had it been yielded by the first Reformers whatever more perhaps might have been demanded of them by the Church yet thus had the door been shut against all entring in of Controversie in matters of Religion once defined And though some still might themselves wander out of its Pale yet in their forbearing Disputes the rest of the Churches Subjects would have slept quietly in her bosom unassaulted and so unswayed with their new Tenents And perhaps those others also in time have been made ashamed of their own singularity when they were debarred of this means of gaining Followers and making themselves Captains of a Sect. CHAP. III. Of Councils General 1. The necessary Composition of them considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents § 35. This Acceptation in what measure requisite § 39. 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils § 47. 3. And Calling of them § 47. § 31 THis from § 9. said of all inferior Persons and Councils and their Presidents so high as a Patriarchal of their several Subordinations and Obedience in any dissent due still to the superior Court or Prelate Now I come to the supreme Council Oecumenical or General the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former Wherein the chief Considerables are 1 The Composition of what or what number of persons it must necessarily consist 2 The President-ship in it and the Calling of it to whom they belong § 32 1st Then for the Composition It is necessary that it be such either wherein all the Patriarchs or at least so many of them as are Catholick with many of their Bishops do meet in person or where after All called to It and the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well be convened sitting in Council headed by the Prime Patriarch or his Legates Delegates are sent by the rest or at least the Acts and Decrees thereof in their necessary absence are accepted and approved by them and by the several Provinces under them or by the major part of those Provinces § 33 For a General or Oecumenical Council such as doth consist of all the Bishops of
whose vigilant providence never deserts his Church either converts Him or removes Him I say however these things be stated yet as to our present business of Trent neither did the Pope out of any such private guilt of Heresie or other Crime forbear to call this Council nor when it was assembled and the Protestants complaints against the Pope well known did this supreme Court find any ground or cause of such extraordinary proceedings against him For 1st For his Presidentship in the Council which was excepted against how could the Council deprive him of this right which was no new tyranny or device but that office which his Predecessors had anciently exercised in the most unblemished Councils which the Church ever had Of which see what is said before § 46. c. And as for any false doctrines crimes or corruptions charged on Him this Council found none valid as to his own person either for removal of Him from such Presidentship or Deposition from his Dignity Pontifical § 124 Many corruptions indeed and great need of Reformation of several things both in the Church and in the Court of Rome as the Protestants complain'd of so the Council and also the Pope himself acknowledged And in the remedying of these the Council spent the longer part of their Acts which have been not meerly delusory as a late Writer would blast them †Stillingf Rat. Account p 482. who must one day give account to the celestial Majesty of his speaking evil of so sacred and Authority but very effective as to the having produced a vigorous and during Reformation in the Roman Church and that of the chiefest disorders complain'd of as is shewed more particularly below § 203. c. And this real effect it was which with an holy envy the Clergy of France discovered in other Catholick Countries and which made them so importunate with the King and State of France to give them there the like force and that this Kingdom alone might not be deprived of so great a benefit †See §. 77. c. And so much were these severe Decrees resented and dreaded in the Court of Rome that Soave †p. 8 6. reports That this Reformation was opposed by almost all the Officers of this Court representing their losses and prejudices and shewing how all would redound to the offence of his Holiness and of the Apostolick See and diminution of his Revenues Of which see much more below § 204. This in the second place that the Council who is only proper Judge of this Head of the Church if any so be and of these matters found no such weighty accusation against the Popes person as might justly abridge any of his priviledges therein nor that any Reformation in the Church or Court was obstructed by his Authority § 125 3. Lastly Neither doth the Popes calling or declaring the Lutherans 3. Hereticks before the sitting of this Council render him uncapable of being one of their Judges in it For this prime Governour in the Church is not a Judge of heresie only in the Council and other Popes as the fore-mentioned Celestine and Leo having formerly declared against the errors of Nestorius and Dioseorus yet afterward approvedly presided in Councils and there again condemned them But much more might the Pope call the Lutherans Hereticks without shew of wrong if so be that their tenents or some of them had been determined against and condemned in former lawful Councils as Pope Leo 10 in Bull. 8. Jun. 1520. pretended they were For if the opinion be formerly concluded heresie those who own it without a new process may be pronounced Hereticks Now t is clear that some of the Protestant tenents were condemned in the 2d Nicene in the 8. G. Council in the Lateran under Innocent 3. in that of Florence in that of Constance ‖ See below §. 198. Add to this * that Leo the 10th who sent forth a formal Decree against Luther and his followers to be proceeded against as Hereticks was deceased before this Council and presided not in it * that Paul the 3d. who first presided in this Council did not formerly pass any formal sentence against the Lutherans or Hereticks but only in his Bull concerning Reformation of the Court of Rome Obiter named them so which cannot have the vertue of a judicatory Decree yet in his last Bull of the Indiction of the Council in Trent forbears also to name them so * That Pius the 4th who renewed the Council and concluded it was absolutely free from giving them this offence therefore the Acts at least under him enough to condemn them are not upon this pretence to be invalidated But here it must not be forgotten that not only the Pope but the Emperour the King of France and sometime the King of England Henry the 8th before the Council pronounced them Hereticks published Edicts and denounced heavy punishments against them and yet afterward they did not for this utterly decline these Princes judgments as hoping that such proceedings might be upon better informations and second considerations reversible § 126 To the question asked here †Mr. Stilâ—ingf Râ—t Account p. 492. If the Protestant opinions were condemned for Heresies before by General Councils why was the Council of Trent at all summoned It is easily answered 1 st That though many of the Protestant tenents had been considered and condemned in former Councils yet not all because some of them not then appearing 2 ly Had all been so yet that it is not unusual both to Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts to reiterate their sentence and by new Declarations and perhaps new reasons too to enforce their former Laws and Decrees so long as a considerable party continues to gain-say and disobey them whereby is yielded also a Testimony to the world that the present Church Governours persevere both in the faith of their Predecessors and in their Resolution for the maintainance thereof So Arianism after the Nicen was condemned again by way of a continued Testimony to the truth of Consubstantiality by the Council of Sardica and Berengarius and his party being condemned by five several Councils before the great Lateran and that of Florence yet did not these forbear to reiterate the condemnation so long as others continued to maintain the Heresie CHAP. VIII II. Head The Invalidity of such a Council as Protestants demanded The Protestant-Demands § 127. The unreasonableness of these Demands § 132. Where Of the fruitlesness of many Diets framed according to the Protestant-Proposals to decide their Controversies § 127 THus much from § 53. of the first General Head I proposed § 8. concerning the sufficient generality of this Council to render it obligatory Now I pass to the second concerning the novelty canonical invalidity and probably ineffectiveness as to their carrying the cause of such a General Council as the Protestants demanded in stead of that of Trent and as should be regulated with all their
which though advanced by the Clergy all the Embassadours and Orators unanimously opposed †See Soave p. 760 766 769. was stopped by the Legats power though I grant several times diverted or dissuaded by their advice and that proposals also were not unusually made in the Council by others if we may believe Soave proposals both most contrary to the Popes interest and most displeasing to his Legats To name some Such were * those concerning the two great questions about the Institution and residency of Bishops whether jure divino * Articles of Reformation to be joyned in their consultations with those of Doctrine and Religion * The abrogating or moderating of the priviledges and exemptions of Regulars from the Episcopal power * the abrogation or moderating of Commendams Dispensations Union of Benefices Of pensions and reservations of profits out of Ecclesiastical Benefices * Ordination of Titular Bishops Appeales to the Pope * The Councils representing the universal Church All which and many more were agitated in the Council the Legats as Soave represents them relucting yet not offering to infringe the liberty of the Council where they saw the inclinations of a considerable part bent that way So concerning residency and exemptions Soave tells us the truth of the History frequently constraining him to contradict those maximes which are elsewhere laid down by him to infer the slavery of the Council That the Legats were inforced to consent that both should be considered of and that every one speak his opinion of them and that some Fathers should be deputed to frame the Decree that it might be examined Concerning the Articles handling Reformation p. 144 145. he saith The number contending for them was so great that the Legats were confounded And that they yielded to their desire being constrained thereunto by meer necessity Concerning abrogating the exemption of Regulars p. 761 and 167 170. he saith It was a thing moved by the Bishops and that the Pope and Legats desired to maintain the Regulars Priviledges Concerning admission of the Protestant Divines to disputation p. 365. he saith That this opinion being embraced frist by the Germans then by the Spanish Prelats and at last somewhat coldly by the Italian the Legat remained immoveable and shewed plainly that he stood quiet being forced by necessity And concerning the reformation of Princes p. 769. he saith That the Legats gave forth this Article being forced thereunto by the mutiny of the Prelats If you would see more instances in Soave of the Councils bridling and over-ruling the Legats I refer you to Quorlius l. 2. first and second Chapters a diligent Collector of them So p. 656. concerning the several Articles of Reformation presented by the Emperour and by the French †Soave p. 513 652. which were thought to intrench too much upon the Popes priviledges Soave brings him in giving such instructions to his Legats That they should defer to speak of them as long as was possible That when there was necessity to peruse them they should begin with those that were least prejudicial c. That in case they were forced to propose them imparting their objections to the Prelats their adherents they should put them in discussion and controversie So very frequently in his History you shall find him as if he had forgot himself concerning what he affirms elsewhere of the domineering and tyranny of the Pope and his party revealing the distractions the fears the complaints and upon this the subtile Artifices of the Pope and of his Legats probably such as his own wit could contrive who with his fancy presumes to enter into all their secrets and speaks as if he had the Art of discerning thoughts and intentions as clearly as others do actions and Records and many times as you have seen after all these he represents the Legats yielding and going along with the stream because they could with no Art withstand it But if indeed the proponentibus Legatis was intended or executed in such a manner as Protestants affirm so as that nothing could be moved in the Council but what they pleased though a major part desiring it nor any thing pleased them that it should be moved which was prejudicial to the Popes interest or Grandeur this surely would have remedied and prevented all these fears and jealousies of the Pope and Court of Rome supposing his Legats as Soave alwaies represents them still true and faithful to him But I ask what matter of moment was there how much soever distastful to the Pope or Court of Rome that being presented once in Trent was strangled before it came to be proposed and agitated in the Council The Articles of Reformation that were exhibited by the Imperial and French Embassadors were after some delay taken into consideration in the 24. and 25. Sessions †Soave p. 751 759. And here when some Embassadors proposed that Deputies might be elected for each Nation to take care in the Council of the special interest of it The Cardinal of Lorraine and the other Embassadors both the French and Emperours contradicted it saith Soave alledging that every one i. e. in the Council might speak his opinion concerning the Articles proposed and propose others if there were cause so that there was no need to give this distast to the Pope and the Legats Such a Liberty then de facto there was used in the Council But I say not whether alwaies with that discretion that was needful or whether not with some Contradiction of some persons of a sounder judgment than the rest Or whether the Legats did not well in putting such bounds to this liberty as they well could either by using perswasions to the contrary or by interposing delaies till the first fervour was a little cooled as to many points which they saw unprofitable difficult and apt to divide the Council into parties and not tending to those end for which this Council was chiefly assembled Especially whilst they endeavoured to win the relucting party though this were not very numerous with reason and treating rather than force or overvoting them in Council § 163 4 ly Such a sole priviledge of proposal to be appropriated to the Legats of the Apostolick See further than for order sake seems needless to be contended for For if as Soave often saith the major part of the Council being Italians were at the Popes devotion for deciding all matters what mattered it who or what was proposed 5 ly You may observe That no such prescription as proponentibus legatis was made to the Councils proceedings till Pius his time and yet that all things there run in the same course before as after it Neither do any Protestants esteem the Council more free or equitable unto them under Paul's or Julius's than under Pius's conduct 6. Lastly which must be often said as to the most or all the Protestant Controversies concerning doctrine the Legats proposal could be no disadvantage in condemning which doctrines
touching the third Head the legal proceedings of this Council Now we come to the Fourth Touching the many Decrees and Canons Definitions and Anathema's of this Council much exceeding those of former and some of them said to be in very slight matters by which this Council is charged to have multiplied and imposed on all Christians so many new Articles of Faith and Pius his Bull that followed it to have added twelve new ones to the Creed Thus when as the Reformation as Mr. Thorndike complains in Conclusion to his Epilog might have been only Provisional till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tolerable agreement this Council cutâ—â—â—â— off all hopes of Peace except by yielding to all their Decrees In this matter therefore for the Councils Defence I shall propose to you these ten Considerations following The 1st That all Anathemas in Councils are not passed 1. for holding something against matter of Faith but for other misdemeanours and Trespasses against Obedience and good manners Amongst which this may be reckoned one If any one raiseth Factions and Sects and disturbeth the Churches peace in contradicting her common Doctrines of how small consequence soever these Doctrines be or spreadeth abroad propositions schismatical and scandalous and apt to corrupt good manners or be made ill use of by the simple though the matter of them be not properly Heretical or opposing an Article that is De fide Again Anathemas that are inflicted by the Church for holding something contrary to the Faith are not alwaies or most usually denounced for those more fundamental and necessary points of Faith an error in which ruines Salvation but also and more commonly because these are more for some lesser matters of faith viz any whereby some damage smaller or greater comes as to the Author from holding them so to others from his maintaining and divulging them abroad The Church being very vigilant contrary to Sects to eradicate the least deviations from the Faith which are observed by the Apostle to be of the nature of a Cancer 1 Tim. 2.17 still eating further into the bowels of Truth she not knowing how far they may enlarge themselves and by little and little invade higher Points and lay the Foundation for more pernicious errors Nor doth the punishment of Anathema in these eye so much the greatness and malignity of the error as the pertinacy and obstinacy of its Abettor refusing submittance to the Churches authority the violating of which Authority may be a great fault and of very ill consequence though in a small matter If he will not hear the Church saith our Lord let him be to thee Mat. 18 17. as an Heathen †an excommunicated â—rn anathematized person where the censure lies upon his not hearing the Church be the matter in which small or great § 174 And the great guilt of the obstinacy against the Definitions of Superiors though in the maintaining only of some small errors in the Faith some Protestants seem to acknowledge and confess it well to merit so high a Censure Of which thus Dr. Fearn †Considerations on the Church of Engl. Preface We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus this Doctor Only he would have the Church to distinguish between pertinacious and modest gain-saying which is to know Hearts and this latter he would have to pass free from this censure and such he would have that of the Reformers to be Was that of Luther then so modest Or doth not the weight and venerableness of the Churches Authority render all known contradiction whatever truly guilty of Pertinacy and Pride Again Thus Bishop Brambal †Vindic. of Church of Eng. p. 27. When inferior questions 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 patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and disturb the peace of the Church for such a point non-fundamental deserve to be punish't as Hereticks i. e. Anathematized And Cardinal Bellarmin saith †De Concil l. 2. c. 10. of Provincial Councils That Judicium non-infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And Debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes vel Concilium Universale these two it seems only do set at liberty our tongues from the obligations of Inferiour Councills si secus egerint merito excommunicantur Notwithstanding though an Anathema in such cases in well deserved from the wilful adherence of such persons to their own fancies against their Superiors yet it is never inflicted meerly for this but alwaies for some danger also in such a Tenent if spread abroad to others the remedy of which danger of infecting others seems chiefly to be intended in the Churches using ordinarily in such Canons Si quis dixerit rather than senserit § 175 2. Concerning the Extent of matter of Faith You must know That all Divine Revelations whatever 2. and all necessary Deductions from any Article of Faith could they proceed in infinitum are also when known the matter or objects or Articles of our faith as well as the more chief necessary points thereof unless we may dis-believe something that we grant to be God's Word And are all Traditional from the Apostles times either in their own express terms or in their necessary Principles since new Divine Revelations none pretend And consequently the contrary error to any of these Deductions when ever it seems very hurtful may be Anathematized § 176 And amongst these Divine Revelations and matter of our Faith are to be reckoned these two Propositions of no little consequence viz. the Doctrine of Christian liberty namely That all things are lawful unto us which God's Word hath not prohibited And again this That the Church hath authority committed to Her by our Lord in such lawful things to make Constitutions and Decrees obliging all her subjects to obedience So that one that affirms something to be prohibited in God's Word or unlawful that is not so prohibited or one that denies obedience to the Precepts of the Church made in things not contrary to God's Word offends against the Faith and on this account is liable to an Anathema And in these things our Belief according to the several objects thereof is required of us in a several manner 1. In pure speculatives If it be a thing made known to us to be revealed by God the Faith that is required of us upon such Revelation is to believe it a certain Truth 2. In practicals if it be a thing by God commanded or
prohibited the faith required of us upon such Divine Revelation is to believe that it is our necessary Duty to do or to abstain from it 3. But if it be a thing of which we have no Divine Precept a thing neither injoyned nor prohibited by God in all which sort of things Divine Revelation hath declared our liberty the faith required of us according to such Revelation is to believe it lawful I mean as to God's law to be done or to be omitted as we please 4. Lastly Among these lawful things also if it be a thing concerning which we have a Precept of the Church to do it or where the lawfulness is doubted of a Declaration of the Church that it is lawful to be done which Church God in his Word hath commanded in such her judgment to be submitted to and in such her Precepts to be obeyed the Faith required of us from such Divine Revelation is That it is both lawful to be observed and the observation thereof our Duty And consequently he who denies the lawfulness thereof or obedience thereto opposeth a Divine Revelation Though the thing we do is not commanded by any Divine Revelation nor the particular lawfulness of it declared in Gods Word Such a point of Faith is the lawfulness of communicating only in one kind Of which thus the Council of Trent Sess 21. c. 1. Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christo fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere Anathema sit Such the Duty of communicating once a year Sess 13. c. â—9 Si quis negaverit omnes singulos Christi Fideles utriusque sexus cum ad annos discretionis pervenerint teneri singulis annis saltem Paschate ad communicandum juxta praeceptum Sancta matris Ecclesiae Anathema sit And so the seventh and tenth Canon Si quis dixerit non licere c.. And such that Sess 24. c. 4. De matrimon Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam non posse constituere c. Anathema sit and so Can. 9. And such is the Duty in general of observing the Churches Traditions Of which thus the seventh General Council Act. 7. Si quis Traditiones Ecclesiae sive scriptas sive consuetudine valentes non curaverit Anathema sit § 177 3. That all Councils to the worlds end and not only the four or three first 3. before the passing of the Ephesin Canon †Conc. Ephes c. 7. which Canon is said to restrain it may define and determine not only the greater but these smaller matters of Faith and may make new Points to be de fide or creditu necessaria in such a sence as is explained below § 192 which were not formerly when they see occasion thereof and when contrary errors do arise which they apprehend dangerous to Divine Truth or to god life or to the Churches peace And there seems no reason against it but that a Council may be as ample in the protection and asserting of Truth not only in gross and in some general and principal matters but by retail as it were in every part and parcel thereof as Innovations are in invading it that every poison may have its Antidote Especially when little-seeming errors not crushed at their first appearance do insensibly ascend from the overthrow of some conclusion to that of the Premises till they undermine at last some Truths more principal Who blames a Parent for binding his Children to abstain from things hurtful because such things are in a less degree and not exceedingly hurtful or for prohibiting them something which is not down-right poison and immediatly mortal but yet which by little and little may alter and corrupt the healthful constitution of their Body Of which noxious things the Parents not the Children are fittest Judges Neither are the Churches Subjects any way disobliged in her thus from age to age multiplying their Credends but much indebted for this her motherly care of them who before whilst they had more liberty of opinion so also had less light in their progress toward Heaven and more by-paths open to stray in and more liableness to erre or by the Heretical to be seduced in those things in the truth of which they are now by that Judgement which Gods wisdom hath deputed to direct them and by the best which the world can afford established Unless here with the Hereticks we will blame after the Foundation laid of the Apostles Creed the explications of the Nicen or Athanasian Or after this the many Articles passed in later Synods concerning Grace and Freewill and the Anathemas annexed against the Pelagian errors herein Or also complain of the obligation we now have to a great Roll of Credends under the Gospel from which those in the darker times of the Law stood free Add to this that the suppression of any new error must necessarily increase the Faith and in immediat contraries who is to renounce the Negative must belâ—eve and hold the Affirmative Neither is it possible that the Church in such points can make any fence to keep out her enemies but she must also at the same time within it inclose her Friends § 178 It is much urged indeed by Dr. Hammond in answer to the C. Gentleman 8. cap. § 2. and repeated in Heres § 7. p. 100. and by Bishop Bramhal and others see before § 6. α That the Ephesin the third General Council made a Decree That it should not be lawful for any man to produce write or compose any belief besides that which not established by the Fathers at Nice c. β That the Greeks in the Council of Florence pressed this authority to the Latines and said that no man would accuse that faith or Creed of imperfection unless he were mad γ That the Latines in their reply acknowledged that this Decree did forbid all difference os of faith from this Creed as well as contrariety And. δ That Celestines Epistle quoted in that Council affirmeth That the belief delivered by the Apostles i. e. the Apostles Creed requires that there be neither addition nor diminution These things are urged to shew that the Council of Trent had no just authority to make any new Articles of Faith But I imagine that after you have but a little with me considered this Ephesin Canon with the due circumstances you will discern a strange mis-application 1. It is meet that I first set you down the words thereof with what immediatly precedes them Sermocinatio ejusdem Sancti Concili postquam Canones editi a. 318. Sanctis beatisque Patribus qui Niceae convenerant impium Symbolum à Theodoro Mopsuestino Episcopo a ring-leader of the Nestorian Heresie confictum eidem Ephesino Concilio traditum à Clarisio Presbytero Philadelphiensi recitata fuissent His igitur recitatis constituit sanctum Concilium ut nemini liceat aliam fidem vel proferre vel conscribere vel componere quam eam quae
with the like vehemency And seeing that in the proceeding against Sects some former Councils were wont only to condemn the Sect in general and make mention only of the chief heads of their doctrine other Councils again more punctual descended to the condemning of all the particulars this latter way was rather taken by the Council of Trent not without mature consideration had in the beginning of the Council concerning it which is related by Soave p. 192. where he saith That one part desired that four or six fundamental Articles of the new doctrine might be chosen and condemned following the example of the ancient Councils which having declared the principal Article condemned the heresie never descending to particular propositions but condemning in general the books of the Hereticks That in that universal they comprehended all the pernicious doctrine and that the honour of the Council so required But the other part saith he aimed to put under censure all the propositions which might receive a bad construction that those amongst them might be condemned which in reason did deserve it saying that it was the office of a Pastor to discern intirely the wholsome grass from the hurtful and not to suffer the flock to tast of this And if the example of ancient Councils ought to be imitated they should imitate * that of Ephesus which made so many and so famous anathematisms against the doctrine of Nestorius that these did contain whatsoever the heretick had said * and the Councils of Affrica which descended to the condemnation of all the propositions of the Sects see Conc. Milevitan against the Pelagian doctrines Conc. Gangrense Syrmiense 2. Nicaen Act. 7 and lastly the Council of Constance condemning forty five propositions of Wickleff and thirty of Jo. Huss the first opinion did undoubtedly propose a more easie way and would have left a chink open for an agreement which future times might produce yet the second was embraced c. Thus Soave As for the former way leaving a chink open for agreement It may be more easily credited when we shall see an agreement advanced in those points handled in the 25th Session where the Councils determinations are so brief and general as the Council escaped not for this generality also the censure of Soaves Chorus †p. 822. as elsewhere it incurs their displeasure for mincing matters too much and making every thing moved an Article of Faith § 186 6. That all the Canons in the Council of Trent that have Anathema affixed all which except a very few †See Sess 4. Sess 5. c. 1. run only in the form Si quis dixeril 〈◊〉 â—njoyn assent under Anathema to the contradictory proposition nor make it an Article of Faith necessary to be believed under the penalty of being reputed an Heretick unless saith Canus †Com. leci l. 5. c. 5. the decree to which such Canon relates bind to assent with a Firma fide credendum Hoc est dogma fidei catholicae Contrarium asserentes or tenentes judicentur pro hareticis Or some other equivalent expression or unless the Canon run Si quis hoc senserit And Cardinal Bellarmin saith much what the same †De Concil l. 2. c. 12. Quando autem Decretum proponatur tanquam de Fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii Semper enim dicere solent 1 se explicare fidem Catholicam 2 vel quod est communissimum dicunt Anathema ab Ecclesiâ excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt But then what if it be only Anathema iis qui contrarium dicunt or docent Quando autem nihil horum dicunt non est certum rem esse de Fide Thus Bellarmin For this Council doth sometimes expresly anathematize or excommunicate for teaching or publickly defending of some error or for accusing the Church of error in her teaching the contrary when it doth not anathematize the holding of such an error An example of which * see Sess 24. c. 7. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare cum docuit docet juxta Evangelicam Apostolicam doctrinam propter adulterium alterius conjugum Matrimonti vinculum non posse dissolvi c. Anathema sit Where the Council anathematizeth those who condemn the Church of erring in teaching such a doctrine as Luther did condemn the Church but doth not anathematize those who hold the contrary doctrine as the Greek Church doth to whom the Council in this decree was favourable in passing the Anathema not on the holding such an error but only on any ones censuring the Church of error for holding otherwise Now one who holds an opinion for truth may be highly culpable in accusing those who hold the contrary of error either because himself may be mistaken in what he holds or because he may be uncharitable or also disobedient in divulging all that he knows I add this in respect of what Soave objects about this matter p. 755. and 799. See the like can 8. and 4. and Sess 21. c. 2. * See likewise Sess 13. c. 11. where in respect that some approved Writers †See Pallav l. 12. c 2. n. 7. n. 12. both ancient and modern amongst whom Cajetan had held concerning Sacerdotal Confession to precede Communion the contrary tenent to that which the Council approved it doth not anathematize or excommunicate those who held the contrary doctrine as Hereticks but excommunicates those qui contrarium docere prudicare vel pertinaciter assetere seu etiam publice disputando defendere praesumpserint i. e. for the future is perturbers of the Churches peace as Canus one present in the Council observes †Com. loc l. 5. c. 5. § 187 So in the Canon about the canonical books of Scripture Sess 4. Si quis pro sacris canonicis non susceperit being only expressed in this Canon and parireverentiâ venerandis omitted which had some opposers Pall. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3. whilst of the three draughts that were proposed †See Soave p. 155. Bishop Cosin Hist of Canon c. 18. §. 192. every one had some maintainers no person seems under Anathema to be any further obliged than only to hold these books sacred and canonical A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike de Ratione finiend Controversias c. 28. p. 565. Neither yet is there any Injunction in this Council concerning the books called Apocryphal pari reverentiâ venerandos esse but only this said Synodus part reverentiâ veneratur which hath not the Form of a Decree Where also parireverentiâ may be understood so as that whilst in some respect it equals these Apocryphal books with some of the others as the Protestants call them generally held Canonical as perhaps with Esther Ruth Ezra Nehemiah Proverbs Ecclesiasties c. yet doth it not therefore in every respect equal them with all as namely Tobit or the book of Wisdom with the five Books of Moses or the four Gospels Some parts of the Canon being much
of Heresie yet the maintainer thereof now first by his pertinacy against the Churches Authority begins to be an Heretick †See Disc 3. §. 18. And though the ignorance of such point of faith before might bring some damage as to our salvation yet now doth it more when a contrary error begins to corrupt our practice I say such Point begins to be necessary in a new Degree of necessity to be believed or assented to or not to be dissented from or denied or not the contrary of it to be believ'd so soon as we have had a sufficient proposal of the Councils defining it And necessary it is then to be believ'd not out of an obligation or duty of belief we owe to such a Credend as that without believing it we cannot attain salvation but out of the duty of obedience we owe to the Church when defining it as that without yielding this obedience to Her we become guilty of such a sin as unrepented of ruins salvation Especially when as this our Holy Mother doth not enjoyn to us the belief of such a Divine Truth but upon some considerable Motive for the repelling and suppressing of some error that is less or more dangerous and for the preservation of some part of necessary truth or good life Concerning which Proposals the Churches pronouncing Anathema to the non-Submitters seems secur'd as by ancient practice so by our Lord's order Matt. 18 17. He that will not hear the Church let him be to us as an Heathen though otherwise the pure nescience of such a Doctrine abstracting from such Proposal harms no man as to exclusion from salvation any more after the Churches Definition than before it See what hath been said of this matter in the third Disc § 18. and § 85. n. 6. § 193 Thus to express if I can yet more clearly though with some repetitions a thing whereat so many of the Reformed and those not of the meanest sort seem to stumble and take offence an Article of Faith as to a more universal Proposal of it and general obligation to believe it so sufficiently proposed may be said new and then in respect of this new Declaration and Obligation a Divine Truth may be an Article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means so ever knows now that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new Article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or condemne but assented to and believed by him 1 When therefore a thing is said to be no Dogma Fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is either that in such express terms it is so now as it was not formerly by some fuller explication or new Deduction Or that it is now rendred necessary to be believed by all persons by whom it was not so formerly for want then of so evident a proposal 2 Again when a Point is said thus to be rendred by the Definition of a Council necessary to be believed which was not so formerly It is meant necessary to be believed not for the matter thereof Either 1st As if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to salvation at all or now more then formerly For thus a few points only some think not all those of the Apostles Creed are necessary and nothing is thus necessary at any time that is not so alwaies Or 2ly As if the actual knowledge thereof is beneficial to our salvation now and was not so at all formerly For as it is now perhaps beneficial in more respects so in some respects was it alwaies and therefore if we knew it not before so much imperfection there was then in our faith as to something revealed though not a deficiency thereof in absolutely necessaries But necessary to be believed now more than formerly ex accidenti because 1st we have a sufficient Proposal thereof by the Church-Definition now that it is a divine Truth which Proposal perhaps we had not before in so express terms and so universally discovered by the former Tradition and 2ly Because we have also a sufficient proposal or notice that such a Definition hath been made by the Church And so in not believing it we are now defective in our obedience and acceptance of some divine Truth which is made known to us by the Church as some way profitable to our salvation some way advangious to God's Glory some way conducible to Christian Edification to the peace of the Church and suppression of Heresie or to some other good end By whose Definitions from time to time the Rule of our faith is made still more compleat and conspicuous both as to the registring and solemn inrolling of her former Traditions and as to the express knowledge of several Consequences necessarily issuing from the former Principles of the Christian Belief more compleat I say to the end of the world as to several points in some respect or other beneficial to be known Though from the first the Christian Faith was ever perfect as to any knowledge simply necessary or also as to all that were fundamentally useful And therefore the chief Duty that the Church now requires to many of her Decisions made from time to time as counter-works against Hereticks and extracted alwaies out of the former Materials of Original Traditions is not so much an actual knowing of them for every Christian though this also-she desires as esteeming the knowledge of them some way contributing to Christian perfection but that they be not dissented from or opposed when made known to him and that the Contradictory of them be not believed by Him § 194 As for the profession of the Roman faith required in the Bull of Pius wherein are said to be 12. new Articles added to the Apostolical I wonder why they say not 12. score or a 1200. rather for if it adds any it adds omnia à S. Tridentinâ Synodo ab Oecumenicis Conciliis à sacris Canonibus tradita definita declarata as it runs in the same Bull though it expresseth only some few of them 1st All the order that the Council of Trent gave concerning this Profession of Faith was Sess 24. de Refor cap. 12. Provisi etiam de beneficiis teneantur Orthodoxae suae fidei publicam facere professionem in Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientià se permansuros spondeant So that Haec est Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus is a Declaration of the Pope not of the Council not can it have any more authority than other Papal Decrees 2. And again what ever profession of faith is made in that Bull or if it oblige further therein than the Canons of the Councils do bind yet it concerneth not any persons save those who enter into religious Orders or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice as appears in the Preface 3. These persons are not
therein obliged to believe the Articles §. 195. n. 1◠or Canons of Trent or of other Councils in any other sense 3. than that which we have but now mentioned †§. 192. For that Clause in the Bull which follows the whole profession Haec vera Catholica fides extra quam-nemo salvus esse potest cannot be understood distributively in such a manner as if every Canon of every lawful Council is necessary explicitly to be known and assented to that any one may attain Salvation which few Roman Doctors will affirm of all the Articles of the Apostles Creed much less do they say it of every point whatever of their faith See Bellarmin de Ecclesiâ l. 3. c. 14. Multa sunt de fide quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem I add nor yet is the ignorance or mistaking in some of them such an error ex quo magnum aliquod malum oriatur But either * it is to be understood collectively In hac Professione continetur vera Catholica Fides c. that all the fides extra quam nemo salvus is contained in that profession which expression respects chiefly the Apostles or Nicen Creed set in the front of the profession as appears by a like expression Fundamentum firmum unicum applied to that Creed alone in Conc. Trident. 3d. Sess For if only some part of that profession of faith which is made in that Bull be absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation this phrase is sufficiently justified extra quam i. e. totam i. e. if all parts of it be disbelieved non est salus As saying that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God without believing which there is no Salvation argues not that every thing delivered in these Scriptures is necessary to be believed for Salvation but that some things are Or * It is to be understood distributively but this conditionally in such a sence as extra quam nemo salvus esse potest i. e. if such person opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church infallibly assisted and appointed his Guide in Divine Truths †See before For in so doing though the error should be in a smaller matter of faith § 192 he becomes therein obstinate and Heretical and disobedient to his spiritual Guide declared by the Scriptures infallible in all necessaries and so in this becomes guilty of a mortal sin which unrepented of exlcudes from Salvation Where also since the Church makes Definitions in points absolutely necessary hence though all her Definitions are not in such yet his obstinacy in not yielding assent to all matters defined runs a hazzard of failing in something necessary And well may Protestants admit such a sence of these words in Pius his Bull §. 195. n. 2 when themselves make use of a much larger upon the like words in the Athanasian Creed Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter crediderit salvus esse non poterit which words being urged by a Catholik against Archbishop Lawd to shew That some Points may become necessary for salvation to be believed when once defined by the Church that yet are not absolutely so necessary or fundamental according to the Importance of the matter All the points contained in the Creed being not held in this latter sence so fundamental or necessary ratione Medii to Salvation that none can possibly attain it without an explicit belief of them Here a late Protestant Writer †Stillingf p. 70 71. in answer to this can find out a sence of those words yet more remiss than that we have now given viz. That as to some of the Athanasian Articles Haec est fides Cathol c. neither infers that they are necessary to be believed from the matter nor yet from Church-Definition but necessary only if there be first a clear conviction i. e. not from Church-Authority but from Scripture that they are Divine Revelation Where the authority of the Church in defining these matters of the Athanasian Creed as to any obligation of her Subjects to conform to it seems quite laid aside since upon a clear conviction that those Articles are Divine Revelation from whatever Proponent one stands obliged to believe them and without such conviction neither stands he so obliged by the Church Upon which account the Socinian is freed here by his exposition from the Quam nisi quisque fideliter c. because he is not yet convinced of the Truth of this faith by Scripture Since Protestants then take such liberty in expounding the sence of this conclusion of the Athanasian Articles it is but reason that they should allow the same to the same words used by Pius § 196 4. Lastly If these words of Pius should be taken in such a sence as Protestants fetter them with Namely 4. That the Roman Church hereby obtrudes her new-coined Articles as absolutely necessary to salvation As Bishop Bramhal †Rep. to Chalced. p. 322. Which whether true or false one is to swear to as much as to his Creed As Mr. Thorndike †Epilog Conclus p. 410. That whereas the Church of England only excommunicates such as shall affirm that her Articles are in any part erroneous the saine Church never declaring that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith by the Church of Rome every one of them if that Church hath once determined them is made fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens belief As Bishop Laud ‖ §. 15. p. 51. That supposing the Churches Definition one passed that thing so propounded becomes as necessary to salvation i. e. by this Proposal or Definition as what is necessary from the matter And That an equal explicit faith is required to the Definitions of the Church as to the Articles of the Creed and that there is an equal necessity in order to salvation of believing both of them As Mr. Stillingf †Rat. Account p. 48. If I say Pius his Haec est Bides Catholica must be taken in such a sence and then it be considered also that by the Bull this clause is applied not only to the Articles expresly mentioned in it but to all other Definitions also of all other former allowed Councils the Consequent is that in this Bull the Pope hath excluded from salvation and that for want of necessary faith the far greater part not only of Christians but of Roman Catholicks viz. all that do not explicitly believe and therefore that do not actually know every particular Definition of any precedent Council when as who is there among the vulgar that is not ignorant of the most of them who amongst the learned that knows them all Now the very absurdity of such a Tenent might make them suspect the integrity of their comment on those words and that they only declaim against their own Fancies When as indeed to render
Synodica ad Antiochenses And Epist. ad ubiq Orthodoxes S. Austin De verâ Religione c. 5. S. Hilary lib. contra Arrian S. Basil Epist 293. to some Egyptian Bishops And see in Theodoret ‖ Hist l. 2. c. 17. the jealous deportment of the Romans towards Felix who substituted by the Arrian Emperor in Liberius his place sent into banishment Tametsi saith Theodoret fidem in Concilio Nicaeno expositam ipse servavit integram tamen quia cum illis qui eandem labefactare studebant libere communicarit nemo ex Romae habitatoribus in Ecclesiam dum ille intus erat ingredi voluit And this resolution signified to Constantius happily procured the return of Liberius This of the Declaration of the Church against any such liberty of Christian Communion where soever our Secular interest or Education may be apt to fix us 3. But were there no such bars put in against it by the Scriptures or H. Church yet this were enough to disswade it § 288 that by remaining in any such separated Society either we are put to practice several things contrary to a right Faith and good manners and offensive to a a good Conscience or at least necessitated to forego the practice of many other things beneficial not to say necessary which are to be injoyed only in the Communion of this Catholick Church not so in others For a particular Catalogue of which not to be here too tedious I refer you to the Preface before the former Discourses touching the Guide in Controversies and to the conclusion of the third Discourse § 155 c. Lastly as for that internal Communion with the Church which it granted some who want the external may nevertheless injoy or the security of a votum where is an actual defect of the participation of its Sacraments that some may have they seem no way to such persons as those who are not by force hindred of her Communion but invited to it do voluntarily deprive themselves And partaking the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing to us where de facto we may have them and de facto do refuse them And then what other advantages can there be that can make us satisfaction for such a loss I will conclude this point with the Declaration sent to the followers of the Donatists some of whom for their stay in that Sect urged this very excuse we are now speaking to Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit by S. Austin and the rest of the Provincial Council at Cirta in Numidia presently after that famous Conference with them at Carthage A. D. 411. †S. August Epist 152 Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesia fuerit separatus amongst whom they reckoned the Sect of the Donatists quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet hoc solo scelere quod à Christi unitate disâ—unctus est non habebit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum And as for the Sacraments received in that separation Sacramenta Christi say they though celebrated in the same manner with them as in the Church in sacrilegio schismatis ad judicium habetis quae utilia salutaria vobis erunt cum in Catholicâ pace habueritis Caput Christum ubi charitas cooperit multitudinem peccatorum Thus much I fear not needlesly I have taken occasion from § 283. to set down in opposition to that irrational Fancy Nihil interesse in quâ parte quis Christianus sit not knowing but that this Discourse may meet with some Readers not much averse from such a perswasion For by the foresaid Arts of the Will mens Judgments are too apt to digest opinions very gross where the Secular advantages by these are very great 2. Thus much considered by a Judgment set at liberty in order to the first Art of the Will to deceive it Viz. It s keeping the Judgment in much ignorance as to the Divine matters and to a cold indifferency as to parties and diverting it wholy to other matters Next as to the Second mentioned before § 275. namely applying it indeed to the learning of these Truths but this only from those Authors and Instructors that are of its own party a rectified Judgment will as freely conclude and resolve That all those who are not well settled upon this Basis of Church Authority and so by a resign'd obedience have prevented all disputes ought rather in making such a quest after Divine Truth in so many Controversies agitated between parties and in chusing their Religion to apply themselves for learning it to the reading of those Books and Authors and discoursing with those persons who oppose the tenents in which they have been educated and to which all Secular or carnal advantages do incline them that thus they may bring things to some equipoise and having first heard the plea of both sides be able to make a truer Judgment And if in the issue neither side do seem to preponderate should chuse rather that to which their interest seems more averse for they may well imagine that men are ordinarily so far partial to their own sides that they would not think both equal unless that against 〈◊〉 were over weight and that a crooked staff to be made streight must be bent the contrary way And upon this such Judgment also will consider That since our first perswasions in Religion and the particular sect thereof wherein we live are not taken up upon our own choice but anothers who having some command over us anticipate our judgment and educate us in what opinions they please hence it is that our constancy and perseverance even sometimes to the loss of Estate and Life to whatever we thus casually first light on called by the name of Fidelity and love of Truth and the contrary perfidiousness and Apostacy is indeed before we have examined things better only a rash and inconsiderat Obstinacy and that on the contrary in prudence every one ought to put himself in a great indifferency to change those first principles he is thus seasoned and possessed with as he shall by new experience find cause and to esteem that only Constancy in his Religion i. e. in his true serving of God to alter every day and that through a thousand Secular obstacles to any thing wherein he conceives he may serve him better As in our manners when any way deficient we do this without reproach Yet further will consider since as hath been shewed there is but one Communion of all those various Sects in which promiscuously the Education of Christian Youth happens to be moulded namely that which adheres to the Supreme Church-Authority that is Catholick and truly disingaged of Schism That all those who find themselves to live under such Superiors as are broken off and stand divided from their Superiors and condemned by them ought to entertain a great jealousie of their present state and not acquiesce in any such Government at adventure but presently to reduce their subjection to
too much verified in this our Nation But Dudithius the famous Bishop of Quinquecclesiae in his disconsolate Letter to Beza when Dudithius now a Protestant and married and beginning to stagger in his new Religion that had dispensed with his Celibacy much more deplores these their intestine discords and schismes in a scisme There †Apud Becaw Epist 1. Si quae aliquando saith he inter eruditos ex quodam disputationis quasi calore Controversiae extiterunt illis statim Concilii sive etiam Pontificis decreta finem imposuerunt At nostri quales tandem sunt palantes omni doctrinae vento agitati in altum sublati modo ad hanc modo ad illam partem differuntur Horum quae sit hodie de Religione sententia scire sortasse possis sed quae eras de eadem futura sit opinion neque ille neque tu certo affirmare queas Again Ecclesiae ipsae pugnant inter se capitalibus odiis horrendis quibusdam Anathematismis perhaps looking at the Dissentions then between the followers of Futher Zuinglius Oecolampadius Calvin c. not yet healed Ipsi qui summum haberi volunt Theologi à seipsis indies dissident fidem cudunt à suá ipsius quam paulo ante professi fuerant ab aliorum omnium fide abhorrentem denique menstruam fidem habent perhaps looking at the often varyings of Luther Melancthon Bucer and others from their own former opinions and doctrine Thus Dudithius For though the Churches make some particular standing Articles to bind together their own Subjects yet both the Articles of the several Churches do not accord one with another in some principal Points as appears in the Lutheran Calvinist Belgick French English reformed Churches and the Subjects of each Church do upon the reforming Principles without scruple break these Bonds upon any new greater verisimilities thinking their Christian liberty infringed by them And certainty whatever deviation from Truth and former Tradition we may suppose the first Reformers to have made yet if they could have restrained the people their Subjects from following their example and from taking that liberty of dissenting from them which they being also Subjects took of dissenting from their Superiors both the whole Body of the Reformation would have had much more unity and peace and such persons much less error § 298 2. 2 Advanced thus far learned Protestants consenting That all such persons as we here speak of are to conform to and to suffer themselves in matters of Religion to be guided by Church Authority Next a Judgment freed from the interests of the Will may easily further add That where these Ecclesiastical Governours happen to differ amongst themselves and guide a contrary way here since these are placed for avoiding schismes in a due subordination such persons in such case owe their obedience to the Superiors of them To which in all regular Governments the inferior Magistrates if they do not ought to give place Si aliquid saith St. Austin †De verbis Dom. Serm. 6. Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator nunquid dubitatur isto contempto illi esse serviendum i. e. in things which our Ecclesiastical Guides do not instruct us to be contrary to the Divine Laws So as to spiritual matters and the sence of Scripture a Provincial and a National Synod guiding such persons several waies their obedience is due to the National again a National and a Patriarch Council of all the West or a General determining matters in a diverse manner the obedience of such persons is due to the Patriarchal or General not the National Council And the same it is in any Patriarchy or Province in the intervals of Synods as to the subordinate Pastors and Prelats See the obedience required by the Church of England from all inferior Clergie or Synods to a National Council in the Canons made 1603. Can. 139. and 140. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to the decrees thereof c. let him be Excommunicated And as of persons so Churches That Church saith Bishop Bramhal †Schism guared p. 2 which shall not outwardly aquiesce after a legal determination i. e. of its Superiors and cease to disturb Christian unity though her judgment may be sound her practice is schismatical And elsewhere †Vindic of Church Engl. p. 12. If a Superior presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church i. e. of his Ecclesiastical Superiors it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him and obey them And I acknowledge saith Dr. Hammond †Knew to Cath. Gentl. c. 8. §. 1. as much as C. G. or any man the Authority of a General Council against the dissent of a Nation much more of a particular Bishop And in his Book of Schisme p. 54. and 66. He grants it Schism for the Bishop to withdraw his obedience from the higher power of the Metropolitan or Primate as well as for Presbyters from the Bishop Now from these I collect that if these inferior Synods or Clergy are to yield such external obedience to their respective Superiors Then are the Subjects of these when ever a lower Church-Authority clasheth with an higher either in submission of their judgment or of their silence to adhere to the higher nor are the one freed from this duty because the other neglect it So some National and a Patriarchal Council dissenting or some Metropolitan and his Patriarch here the forenamed persons being the Subjects of both owe their submission of judgment only to the higher Church-Authority of the two which Authority if the forecited Protestants allow the lower to dissent from yet not to gain-say § 299 Nor is it reasonable for any to decline here the present Supreme Authority that is extant and in being and transfer such his obedience and submission to a future that hath no being as to transfer it from his Primate or Patriarch or so large and universal Councils as have been convened in his own or in former times to a future absolutely General Council For thus so many only are subject to the present supreme Powers as are content to be so if an appeale to a future Authority streight unties them from it And yet more unreasonable this if this appeale is to such a future Council as probably can never be namely where either the Assembly or the approbation of it must be absolutely Vniversal either as to the whole Body of Christian Bishops or at least as to some Bishops of every Province an usual demand of the Reformed For such Provinces as are censured or condemned by the Council which thing often happens it cannot be presumed that they will ever accept it No more than the Council of Trent supposed
to this total Conversion we must permit the operation of Gods Omnipotency out of his infinite kindness to us in the Holy Fucharist to stand fingular and unparallel'd by any work of Nature All these three therefore the Author in dealing ingenuously with the Greek's comparison and their expressions as it seems to me ought to have allowed But this probably he much dreaded as seeing he might as well nay in some respects better have admitted a total Transubstantiation of matter as well as Form which would have avoided those many prejudices and indignities which an Impanation labours under But yet thus the Sentiment of the Greeks supposing no total Conversion is advanced far beyond not only M. Claud's and The Calvinists vertual presence but also the Lutherans Consubstantiation For whereas these hold only Bread and Christs natural Body joyned in the Eucharist so that the Body and the Bread are two several things still this Opinion holds the one changed into the other so as that as Jeremy the Patriarch of Constant replyed upon the Lutherans in his 2d. Answ †c. 4. and as Damoscen also said long before ‖ De Fid. Orthod l. 4. c. 14 Non duo jam sunt i. e. as the Lutherans said Panis and Corpus Christi joyn'd sed unum idem i. e. Corpus Christi only The Bread made his natural Flesh animated with his Soul Hypostatically united to his Divinity in fine the same with his Body as much at least as our Nourishment interiorly received and digested is with ours Thus far the Greeks usual simile carries us §. 321. n. 16. But their common Doctrine farther even to a Total Transubstantiation as I think will appear from what follows 1. For 1 st They hold that the same Numerical Body of our Lord that was born of the Virgin and Crucifyed is exhibited to us in the Eucharist Present not by its descending from Heaven but by the Conversion of the Consecrated Elements into the self-same Body and by the multiplication of its local Existence in more places than before 1. Which appears 1 st From this That the Identity of the Body Consecrated and that Crucifyed quod suppositum or as both united to and filled with the same Divinity which well consists with a Real Substantial Numerical diversity between themselves is not sufficient that the one of them therefore may be denominated of the other or this said to be thâ—â— nor yet sufficient that all the same things may be said of them both Some general things indeed may be predicated of them wherein both agree but their Properries individual as local presince Motion any particular Qualities or applications them cannot Yet which Individual properties are usually applyed by the Greeks to the Body Crucifyed and to that distributed in the Eucharist as one and the same Any Individual Properties of the one or the other I grant may alwayes be truly demonstrated of our Lords Body in general as we will But cannot be truly said of both or either of these the Consecrated and the Crucifyed as we please if these not numerically the same So we cannot say That ones Soul is his Body or a Leg an Arm or the one in the same place or motion or every way affected as the other is because that both are parts of one and the same Person or Body and both animated with one and the same Soul And for a Grecian Priest to tell his Communicants that he delivers them the same Body that was Crucifyed and offered for their Salvation and Redemption when he gives them neither it nor any part of it because he gives them another Augmentative Breaden part belonging to the same Person which Person indeed was Crucifyed for them seems too bold an Equivocation to be by this Person so confidently imposed on the Greek Church and their ordinary expressions The Truth therefore of that which the Greeks or other Latines embracing their Opinion do affirm viz. that the Eucharists Consecrated in never so many places are all the self-same Body one with another and all with the Crucifyed because replenished every where with the same Divinity must be understood to proceed not from the meer Union or Conjunction how intimate soever of these two as is shewed but now but to proceed from the effect as M. Claude pressed with his Adversaries Arguments confesseth †p. 867. from the effect I say which this Divinity first uniting or conjoyning it self to the Elements upon the words of Consecration worketh in them to make them by a total Transmutation of their Substance for nothing less can do it individually all one and the same with one another and with that crucifyed after which follows another an Hyppostatical Vnion of the same Divinity to them as made our Lords Body 2. Again Their holding a Numerical Identity every where of this Body of our Lord appears from this that they explain its being in all places but one and in every place and in every Particle whole and intire by the Divinity 's being so and the Divinity is so numerically See that passage of Remigius and Alcuin cited by M. Claude l. 6. c. 10. concerning the effect of this repletion of the Consecrated Elements by the Divinity Sicut Divininas Verbi Dei una est una numero quae totum implet mundam Ita licet multis locis innumerabilibus diebus illud Corpus consecretur non sunt tamen multa corpora Christi neque multi Calices sed unum Corpus Christi unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis quod dedit Apostolis Divinitas enim verbi replet illud quod ubique est the Bread conjungit ac facit by a transmutation of this Bread by the Divinity joyn'd to it ut sicut ipsa Divinitas quae totum implet mundum tamen una est ita quod ubique est or Panis conjungatur i. e. by such a transmutation of it Corpori Christi unum corpus ejus sit in veritate i. e. one not only as to the Person but one in Reality and Essence as the Divinity is one and otherwise that which follows and which he collects from this Unity cannot be true Vnde animadvertendum est quòd sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes equaliter Corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt generaliter omnes specialiter unusquisque Certainly where the whole is in every part and every part if I may so say contains in it the whole here is supposed a numerical Identity and a sicut Divinitas una est Nor hath M. Claude in his holding the Substance of the Eucharist in several places really diverse and so to each Communicant any way to relieve himself in answer to such expressions necessarily inferring a total Transubstantiation but by inducing vertual presence only which Vertue he saith is every where numerically the same and whole and entire to every Receiver This for Remigius And here also if we may
Sanctificatis intelligitur oppos'd to videtur ut Deum celebrant Where M. Claud's note is †l. 3. c. 7 p. 222. that Non adorant dona sed Jesum But who saith that a Soveraign Adoration is due or given to the Dona Again 2 Jesum saith he qui intelligitur i. e. only qui representatur in Donis But all the former Expressions implying our Lords presence shew their belief to be contrary Tues said the Priest before qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster And the People after this adoring in their receiving say Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini of which the same Cabasilas Tanquam nunc ad eos venientem apparentem Christum benedicunt Who also before c. 24. intimates the custom of the Greeks in the Service adorare alloqui corpus sanguinem Domini Now I say All these Passages in the Greek Liturgy well considered Here for one to grant the Real and corporal Presence of our Lord in his whole Person in the Holy Mysteries to be believed by this Priest Deacon and other Communicants and yet to say their Adoration and other Addresses and Allocutions are not given and made to him as there present but to him only as in Heaven or only to his Divinity as there and every where present abstracted from his Humanity is such a Comment upon this Liturgie as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment The Testimonies §. 321. n 23. this Author brings †l. 3. c. 7. p. 216. do accuse the Greeks of some neglect in this Duty but do not shew them to justifie it and these very Persons that censure such neglect toward the Holy Mysteries after Consecrated accuse them almost of committing Idolatry toward them before So that it seems rather some defect of knowledge in such concerning the Ceremonies of Consecration than want of Devotion Cabasilas †c 24. long ago observed the same in some ignorant People and blamed it but yet in the same place allows the Adoraâ—ion of and Allocutions made to the Body and Blood of our Lord when the Offerings are Sacrificed and perfected The Consecration also of the Greeks being longer extended and the Adoration not so unitedly peâ—formed presently upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution as amongst the Latines but disjunctively at their communicating might occasion some mistake in those Latines who accused them of a Non Adoration So the other irreverences and indecencies objected are to be esteemed only negligences in privâ—te practice not consequences of the publick Doctrine nor countenanced by their Liturgies Which Lâ—turgies use as much Ceremony towards the Holy Mysteries as the Roman doth Where also first the Remains of the Holy Bread are carefully put into the Chalice for the People to be communicated threrewith and then for the Remains after the Communion consummated Sacerdos saith the Rubrick quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice cum attentione devotione consumit ter S. Calicem abluit attendit ne remaneat particula Margarita vocata not the least crum of the intinct Host As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament here in the West which this person dâ—ligently reckons up much to its praise not so in the East freqâ—ently urged by M. Claude as good Arguments of the Greek Church not believing Transubstantiation or such a Real Presence as the Roman and in latter times here more than in the former 1 st they are held no such necessary circumstances or consequences without the which a Real Presence may not be believed and a due Adoration in some convenient manner or other practised 2 ly The occasion of them is well known to have been the Berengarian and many other Errors concerning the Eucharist which appeared here in the West but disturbed not the East Which Errors inferrâ—ng many Indignities and affronts to this richest and dearest Legacy of our departing Lord caused the Church to multiply also the external testifications of her Devotion Gratitude and Reverence to it and Gods wisdom as usually out of such vilifyings and disrespects extracted a greater Honour as to External Ceremony to these High Mysteries So also the many subtle Questions that have been discussed and stated among the Latines not so much thought on by the Greeks but all shut up in a Quo modo novit Deus another frequent Argument with this Author of the Greeks not believing Transubstantiation acknowledge the same Originall viz. the Provocations Objections contrary false positions of the Heterodox Which forced the Church to descend to the same particulars with them Nor could she censure these as Errours without establishing their Contradictories as Truth This of Adoration To conclude The many Concessions of M. Claude § 321 n. 24. and the Consequences of them forementioned seem to me sufficient 1 st to disswade any sober and modest person who relies not on his own judgment for the controverted sence of Holy Scriptures but holds it a safer way to conform to that of Church-Authority to disswade him I say from any such Communion as he sees by the former Account opposed both by the Latines and the Greeks Greeks present or past as high as Damascen in the 8 th age and may not I say as high as Gregory Nyssen †See before in the 4 th whilst both these Latines and Greeks hold a Real or Corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist §. 321. n. 14. and agree in a literal sence of Hoc ost Corpus meum Nor will M. Claude enter with his Adversary into this Controversie 2. Next to perswade him of the two rather to the Roman Communion as whose Transubstantiation besides that it hath been established by so many Councils †See the guide in Controversy Disc 1. §. 57 58. is of it self much more credible and more accommodated to the Scripture-expressions then I know not what Augmentation of Christs natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin by a new Breaden one assumed in the Eucharist numerically distinct from the other yet by the like assumption and Union to our Lords Divinity rendred personally one and the same Body with it But much more will be confirmed in the same Resolution if by what hath been said above †§. 321. n. 16 c. he discerns M Claud's Relation of the Modern Greek opinion unsound and that the main Body of them except perhaps some few Impanatists that have been there as also in the Western Church in holding a total substantial change of the Bread have accorded with the Roman Church I hope the Reader will pardon this digression §. 321. n. 29 the rather because it serves much to illustrate that whereof I was discoursing †That notwithstanding whatever evidence of Truth Answers and Replyes from Persons ingenious and pre-ingaged find no end and that when Controversies are by one of the contending parties denyed any Decisive Judge though
Synods For M. Claude saith The word of God contains nettement clairement all that which is necessary to form our Faith and that the most simple are capable to judge of it c. Unless the Protestant Controversies be never about any thing necessary This is the way M. Claude thought on to leave no Doubters though never so unlearned among Protestants as to the Eucharist or other Points of their Faith But mean while if after such Speculations of his any such Doubters there be I do not find but that he leaves so many wholly to D. Arnaud's disposal viz. that they return to and remain in the bosom of the former Church so long till they become certain of its errors and not follow strangers that have not entered by the dore into Christ's Fold and I hope they will consider it As for the settling of our Conscience this person speaks of by resting our Faith immediately on Gods Word I see not where the sence of the Scriptures is supposed the thing controverted how any one rests his Faith more immediately on God's word by following his own Exposition or Sence thereof or the Exposition of a Minister c. for some person's exposition he must follow than he that follows that of the Church If we are then for a total application to the Scriptures and for searching things to the bottom Let us search there first this main Point that decides all other concerning our Lord's establishing a just Church-Authority for ending contentions Where we shall find also that he is not a God of dissention or Confusion 1 Cor. 14.33 Eph. 4.11 14 1 Cor. 12.28 in his House the Church but of Peace And That he hath given his Clergy in a certain Subordination that we should not be carryed about with every wind of Doctrine as we must be when ever these disagree in expounding Scripture to us if we have no Rule which of them to follow The truth of this once found out by our search will save many other searches of which without it I see no end In vain do we endeavour with whatever pains so discern Gods Truth without the illumination of his Holy Spirit and Grace and since revelat parvalis in vain expect this without great Humility and self-dâ—s-esteem and a reverent preference of and pious Credulity toward our just and lawful Spiritual Superiours Credendo first i. e. Ecclesiae saith S. Austin in his Tract De utilitate Credendi †c. 1. praemunimâ—r illuminaturo praeparamur Deo To resume then here the matter we were speaking of before § 321. n 27. § 321. n. 1. from which we have so long digressed For such Persons as are self-confident despisers of Superiors much pre-engaged whatever evident Testimony Truth may have on its side I can affirm nothing For Pride and thinking they see utterly puts out their eyes But I think so many as are no way thus intangled and are humble and well affected to Authority will by reading the pieces aforesaid be reduced either to a full perswasion on the Churches side in this great Point or to a Dubitancy and uncertainty of that which is maintained against it And then this later only as hath been shewed †§. 291. c. is a sufficient Ground and Inductive of their conformity to it I mean to the authority of the present Church In this point then the main Trial seems to be 1. Whether Antiquity indeed so understood and Councils declared the sense of these Scriptures as is pretended Since as Mr. Thorndike hath it in his Rule of Reformation †Forbea and Penalties c. 8. this is to be taken for granted That nothing can be the true sence of Scripture which the consent of the whole Church contradicteth 2. If this found so whether this Authority ought not to prescribe to any particular judgment especially when he perceives the new pretended Demonstrations to the contrary no way to perswade this present Church-Authority as any true Demonstration in the Protestants Definition of it necessarily must For the Second Point Invocation of Saints 1. It is granted by Protestants §. 322. n. 1. that if the Saints deceased hear or otherwise know our requests made to them it is lawful to invocate them or desire their prayers for us as we do those of Saints here and the invocation of them in any other manner Catholicks disclaim 2. It sufficiently appears from the knowledge of things done ‖ or said †2 King 6.8 9 12 31.32 in absence that several Prophets †King 5 25. Act. 5.3 Col. 2.5 and other Saints of God by Revelation or Vision have had here in this life that it is possible that the Saints glorified without imagining any their omni-presence or omni-science may know by the like Revelation Representation or Vision or by some other way as God pleaseth for the particular manner thereof is no way stated by the Church may thus know I say either all or so many of those prayers that are made to them though at the same time by several persons in the most distant places as it may concern their Petitioners touching any benefit to be received by their Intercessions that they should know them Lastly possible that the Saints Glorified may know these or some other instrument of God's mercy viz. Angels know these for them or in their stead for this clause also is put in by St. Austin proceeding most cautiously in this matter These things I say are possible And if any of these be put it is abundantly sufficient to render Invocation of Saints glorified not vain For to frustrate the benefit here of the Saints must neither know nor others for them who only upon their general Intercessions offered may be as God pleaseth made his instruments in relieving the necessities of such Supplicants They must neither know all nor any of our affairs or prayers For if they or others for them only know and relieve some it will be lawful at any time in any thing to implore their help who we know not but in that time and thing they may assist us Again suppose neither the Saints nor others for them save God only to know at all our particular prayers or wants but the Saints only in grosse to intercede for all those that implore their help or yet more generally only for all their fellow-members here that are in distress whether imploring or not imploring their help yet if God at least apply the benefit of any Saints general Intercessions more particularly to those who more particularly honour and with their addresses sollicite such a Saint Such Invocation and Honour still remains profitable and advantageous to the Supplicant Where note §. 322. n. 2. that neither those who make nor yet God who reveales their prayers to the Saints do it at all for this end that so the Saints may make known such their prayers to God a thing in which Protestants please themselves to find absurdities and
enjoyed Of which persons thus S. Austin †De vera Relig. c. 6. Saepe sinit divina Providentia expelli de congregatione Chrstianâ etiam bonos virâ—s quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum paticuâ—â—ssime pro ecclâ—siae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis i. e. segregationis conventiculorum as he explains it afterward vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And De Baptism l. 1. c. 17. of such persons he saith Ibi magis probantur quum si intus permaneant only with this exception Cum adversus ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solidâ unitatis petrâ fortissimae charitatis robore radicantur Thus he in the defence of such § 334 But If an unjust Excommunication should further warrant any to erect Anti-communions and then a private person may also pass sentence of such injastice against the Church who sees not that this pulls down the whole structure of Church-Government and fills it full of schisms and is the same in the Church as this would be in the Civil State if a Subject unjustly condemned to some mulct or imprisonment should presently raise and head an Army against the Prince and with it detain from him some part of his Dominions No man is authorized by suffering injustice to do it § 335 See Christian Reader how many bars are set to keep us within such a degree of subjection to the Church as prevents Schism 1 If we are of those that do not profess certainty of the contrary to that which the Church teacheth as the most of Christans are such here Protestants †See §. 295 agree that we owe the obedience of assent and submission of judgment to the supremest known Church-Authority that presides over us 2 But next suppose we pretend certainty of a Truth against this Authority yet in case this truth be not of much concernment Here Protestants ‖ See §. 331. consent that we are to yield the obedience of silence and non-contradiction to it 3 But if the Truth be of moment and so supposed that neither silence may be used herein yet are we still tied at least to yield a third sort of obedience a passive one to the Churches censures even to that of Excommunication though supposed unjust without erecting or resorting to any Anti-Communion to that of our Superiors and of the whole i. e. the Communion Catholick 4 And then whatever degree of obedience a Person well considering these things shall judge due to be yielded to Church-Authority in General I hope the former Discourse by clearing the Legality of it hath justly vindicated to the Council of Trent 5 And this Council once submitted to infers as to all the principal modern Controversies an universal Settlement and Peace Now the great Pastor and Bishop of Souls in an accptable time â— Pet. 2.25 bring home all those Sheep that are yet going astray and hearken to the voice of Strangers into the happy Communion of all his Saints That there may be one Fould and one Shepherd unus Dominus una Fides unum Corpus Jo. 10.16 Eph. 4 â— 5 To Him Allpowerful and Good and the constant lover of his Spouse the Church be given all Glory and Praise in the same his Church forever Amen FINIS ERRATA Page 8. line 19 dele 9. 2. read formed 16. marg r Milevit 28.40 r Catholick 41. r. National 36 marg r. § 34. c. 37 marg r. § 37. 38 marg r. § 38. 39 marg r. § 40. 47 marg r. 667. 79 marg r n. 102. â—6 23 r. Trent 128.3 r. would 136.20.1 obstructions 137.6 r. fifth 149.29 r. Politician 153.25 r. Olaus 26. r. Vpsal 160.23 r. which was established 171.26 r. Hebraei 198.5 r. testimonialibus decimam tantum unius aures Ib. 8. r. Emolumentum ex eisdem ordinum 200. marg r. Agathens 216.13 r so both a 220.40 r. To aâ— 1 see 221. 6. r. To â— 2 § 164. 239.9 r. Rusticks those p. 240. 33. r. Ceriuthus 241.22 r. Caput unum 242.31 dele if we are 245.40 r. it is 246.31 r. to divine 246.19 t schismatis 249.34.34 r. 1st That 251.4 r. Terentianum Maurum 257. marg r Bezam 258.1 r. summi 259. marg r. guarded Ib. marg r. Answ to 264.29 r. in the 164.41 r. iis me 265.23 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instar nasi cerei 265.26 r. proferam 266.21 r. consultius 268. marg dele § 207 and § 297. Ib. 19. dele Praestantium virorum Epistolae 273.32 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 281.40 r. Censurer 283. marg Forbearance 284.42 r. them As 287.26 r. or Divine l. 32. r. we kneel before and embrace kiss c. 288.32 r. and there the Churches doctrine The Reader is desired to correct with his pen the Errata page 128-287 line 32-and -288.