THE GUIDE IN CONTROVERSIES, Or, A Rational Account Of the Doctrine of roman-catholics, Concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion.  
Reflecting on the later Writings of Protestants; particularly, of Archbishop Lawd, and Mr. Stillingfleet, on this Subject.  
By R. H.  1. Pet. 3.15. 
Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem.  2. Cor. 6.8. 
Per Infamiam & bonam Famam; ut Seductores, & Veraces.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXVII.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
AFter the sad effects of discord, and quarrels in Religion so long experienced, and End of such Controversies cannot but be by all pious Christians most passionately desired: And an end of them, if it may be, by an Infallible, or unerring decision, of those necessary. That a Writing also, if clear and free from any ambiguity in its sense, may decide these is confessed by all; (For if words written cannot, neither can words spoken, since nothing can be said, but what may be recorded): and granted also, that such Writing doth decide them infallibly, if it be the Holy Scripture. But it appears, that the sense of Holy Scripture is not, in all Controversies that are thought necessary to be determined, so clear, but that it is called in question, and disputed, by considerable Parties. For the ending of which, therefore, that God hath left another living Guide (his Church, or the Ecclesiastical Governors thereof), which is, in all Ages, in the exposition of Holy Scripture, and the decision of these Controversies, as to Necessaries, Infallible; from other Sects easily discerned; in its sentence easily Understood, is, in these Discourses, pretended to be proved: And learned Protestants also showed, to maintain those Principles, from which it seems rationally consequent.  
Any such living, Infallible, Guide Protestants strongly deny, and oppose. And, hereby, if indeed there be such a Guide, 1st. incur great peril, as to their Salvation, By denying a due obedience, and Submission of Judgement to its Authority and Definitions; And, by deserting its Communion, as not to be enjoyed on other terms. And 2ly. become unsettled, and of a various judgement, in several points of Religion of great concernment, and daily subdividing into more Sects.  
Their many objections, therefore, and difficulties, urged against the Being of any such Guide, are here considered, and replied to: Especially those occurring in the writings of their later Divines, Arch Bp. Lawd, Bp. Bramhall, Dr. Hammond, Dr Ferne, Mr. Chillingworth, Mr. Stillingfleet, and others. Whose Art and diligence hath been so great in fight against their own Happiness (if I may so say), and in hindering Themselves and others, with all imaginable arguments, from returning into the Unity of the Catholic Church, and Faith, that there seems nothing left out, or neglected by them, that can hereafter be said, new, in their in their Defence. Of which objections, whether any of moment, and pertinent to the matter in hand, are, here, concealed, or of those mentioned any not fully satisfied, is left to the equal Reader's Judgement.  
The Author, though conscious of his weakness, yet confident of the Cause, and presuming so necessary a Truth to have so much advantage over Error, as that it needeth not the very sharpest wit, and exactest Judgement, to vindicate and maintain it, hath taken in hand this task, (in the long silence of many other more able Workmen), that he might give satisfaction to some persons, who seem, with great indifferency, to desire it; and that the Adversary, in having the last Word, might not also, to some weaker judgements, seem to have the best Cause. And, to this end, He hath also wholly applied himself, herein, to the language and expressions of Protestants, used in this Controversy; and endeavoured to follow their Motion to the smallest Particulars, and last Retraits; and hath built a good part of his discourse on their own Concessions (as more prevalent with such Readers), and those materials, which their own writings afford, advantageous to Truth, and the present design.  
Recommending this most important affair to the Protestant Readers most serious consideration. As which, if what is promised here be made good, will possess Him of a much more true, and solid Satisfaction, and Tranquillity of mind, than his former Principles could possibly afford Him: 1 * Whilst now he discerns himself, (contrary to what he, before, imagined), guarded, in his way to heaven, with a double Guide unfailable: The Holy Scriptures, as what points they are clear: And next, the Holy Church, in what they seem obscure; into whose judgement, and sentence, he safely resolves all his former Scruples and anxieties concerning such Texts, wherein a mistake is any way dangerous. * Whilst now, by a new, and holier way, of mortifying his own judgement instead of confuting another's, and especially, that of Superiors; and, of subduing his passions 
† St. August. De Serm. Dom. in Monte, 1. l. 3 c. On Beati pavoeres spiritu— Oportet, animam se mitem praebere pietate, ne id, quod imperitis videtur absurdum, vituperare audeat; &. pervicacibus concertationibus, effi●iatur indocilis.  instead of enriching his intellect; and seeking the possession of Truth by humility, and obedience, instead of Science, and Argument, he becomes fixed, and settled in most of those Controversies (as already stated by this Guide), which still entangle, and perplex others; The light of his own Reason first serving him so far, as to the discovery of that Guide, (a discovery, wherein, the divine providence hath left so clear and evident, that a sincere, and unbiased quest cannot miscarry) to whom once found out, he is, afterward, for all other things, (I mean, that are prescribed by this Guide), to subject and resign, it. * Whilst now he renders himself one of those Babes, to whom God, by these Spiritual Fathers, in all simplicity believed by him, reveals what things are hid from the selfwise, and prudent; who are still standing upon their Guard, with Pythagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Jewe's Quomodo, (Jo. 6.52.), in their mouths; missing of Truth, (where Authority, and Tradition, teach it), out of too much wariness to be deceived. * Whilst now, as Mary at our Lords, so he meekly sits at his Church's feet, and heareth her words; when as those others, whom he hath left, full of learned cares from their youth, (like St. Austin, when a Manichee), how, and where to find Truth, taught to believe no side; to search, and rifle all; are stating, all their life long, every Controversy a new to themselves; one on this manner, another on that; examining all, pretended, Foundations, whether solidly laid, (For where, say they, may not an Humane Testimony deceive them?) even from the more principal: The essential Unity of the Trinity; The Divinity, and Eternity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; the Vhiquity of God's essence, and his Absolute Prescience; the number, and right use of the Sacraments; The Commission of the Church's Hierarchy, and Bishops; their just authority, and from whom they hold it; (for, in all these, they find acute Divines calling on their impartial, and unresigned, judgement for a review); to those lower points (yet these also of no small debate among persons strayed once from this Guide) of the lawfulness of bowing at the Communion Table; of being uncovered in Churches; of making the sign of the Cross in Baptism; of Baptising one yet an Infant; of wearing a Surplice, etc. Things (high, or low) that trouble none, who hath once undergone the mortification of dethroning his own judgement and captivated it to the unity of the Churches Faith.  
2. * Whilst now also, after such an humble obedience, and conformity first yielded, he passeth further; and comes to understand the doctrines of this Guide to be much other, than they were formerly represented unto him; and to be assented-to, on good reason, as well as submitted-to, on just Authority; saying with those new Converts in St. Austin 
† Ep. 48. — Nos falsis rumoribus terrebamur intrare; quos falsos este nesciremus, nifi intraremus— Gratias Deo, qui expertos docuit, quam vana, & inania de Ecclesiâ suâ mendax fama jactaverit: For the Church's Doctrines are seldom, by her adversaries, delivered favourably; and either the Sense of her Divines, not given with their words; or those Writers quoted, who affect extremes, and do afford more advantage to the Gain-sayer; and the most of men, whilst aliens from the Church, and obliged, by their secular interest, to dislike, and oppose her Tenants, taking no great care to inform themselves, what these are, save only from those, who disguise and misrelate them.  
3. But now, thus undeceived, in the last place he receives yet more contentment to see, that Church, spread over all Nations, and once the Spouse of Christ, not, since, to be (as he formerly fancied) for many Generations, miserably apostatised from her primitive faith, and purity, and stained with a manifold Idolatry, (whilst the Great Antichrist sitteth in her chief Chair, and giveth her laws); poisoning the Nations with her gross errors, and daily making more of them to drink of the wine of her Abominations, and herself also drunk with the blood of the Saints (for such things his Teachers once made him believe); 
2 Tim. 2.19. 1 Tim. 3.15. Apocal. 2.1.  But this Church to be a Foundation abiding sure, and the Pillar of Truth, for ever; Our Lord walking still amongst her Candlesticks, and holding her Stars in his hand; and by them from age to age enlightening the dark places of the world; Internal, and External Sanctity, Corporal, and Spiritual mortifications, accompanying one another, and growing together to an Angellike purity in her Saints, and those, who order their actions according to her most excellent Doctrines, and Councils of Perfection. In the lives of which Persons (found in all later ages a most exact pattern of the former) he now examines the Holiness of this Church, and not in those others (whose crimes in every age are by the Church's Adversaries curiously sought out, and divulged, to show, that most scandalous persons have professed the Roman Faith, (as, who was ever so wicked, as one of our Lord's Disciples) Whom he now discerns to have departed no further from Goodness, than they also did from her Rules and Lessons; and well perceives, that a continued purity of the Church's doctrine is, more rationally, collected from the Sanctity of the one, than a Corruption therein, from the viciousness of the other; because it may rather be presumed, that the wicked should transgress the Church's laws, than the virtuous transcend them; and because, both of Persons, and Ages, some may be observed to have been much more impious, than others (as perhaps the 9th, or 10th age, than the 11th, or 12th); where, yet, the Church's Doctrines or Laws are confessed to have suffered no mutation; and therefore such wickedness not to have proceeded from their influence; and where those holy men of the same times, who are produced to reprehend the faulty, yet are known to have continued still with them in the same Communion, and Faith.  
* Whilst now, he also discerns an uniform descent of the Church's faith, and a true concatenation between the doctrines of the former Fathers, and latter Schoolmen. and the sentences of the one constituting the Theology of the other; these later ascending indeed (by pursuing the necessary consequents of former Principles), into the highest subtleties of this divine Science, but without pretending a Reformation of any thing formerly delivered, or imposing their new discoveries on any ones Faith. And therefore no more now, doth he look into them, only as a Spy into the Camp of the Enemy, to discover the specious fallacies of these great Wits against truth, and to give intelligence to his own party to beware of their Sophisms; Or, at best, turns over their Volumes only to pick here, and there, a flower, as it were out of a Garden overrun with weeds: But, now, reads them, as a dutiful Son, or docible Scholar doth the lessons of his Master, or prescriptions of his Ancestors, to transcribe, and follow their Institutions, and rules, and propagate to posterity what he learns from them.  
Neither, on another hand, taketh he now any more disgust and scandal at her Moral Divines, and Casuists; considering them according to their proper employment; not as persons conversing with Saints, and drawing up Rules of perfection; but applying themselves to the Confessions of Sinners, and with as equal a balance, as Theology affords them, weighing the culpableness of such actions, as are brought before them, in order to exciting a due and proportionable Penitence and Contrition. Where he easily sees, that it were an equal injustice in them, to aggravate, as to lessen, faults: and to put men's Souls into false scruples, and terrors, as to leave them in false securities. Hence are they mostwhat busied in setting forth the utmost bounds, which an action, not, to be perfect, or praiseworthy, but lawful or sinless, is capable of: or also not this: but only, what bounds it must not pass to be not sinning mortally: or not mortally in such a particular species thereof: though perhaps in some other it is so. * Which Casuists he now discerns to be greatly wronged, when some sentences of theirs, commonly stripped also of some of the necessary circumstances, are produced, as recommending, or encouraging an action, that is only by them declared, no sin; or as countenancing or excusing a sin, that is only declared by them no such crime, as excludes from Grace, and the state of of Regeneration; or as calling Evil, good; when as that Circumstance is concealed by the Accuser, upon which supposed only, and not absolutely, they pronounce such action Good, or lawful.  
Again, * Whilst now, being thus established in a right understanding of the Church, and of her Doctors, He proceeds to look upon those Heterodox persons, who from time to time have gone out of this Church, not as departing out of Babylon, but out of the City of God; and that have all, till Luther's last defect on, after a short blaze, come to nothing. And again, looks on those Nations, who from time to time (even from the furthest East and West) have entered into this Church, not as, thus, reduced only from one Idolatry to another (which he formerly imagined) from the Heathen Idolatry, to the R●man; but, from Gentilism to that Faith, to which our Lord foretold, and promised, a conversion of all Nations, 
Matth. 24.14  before the last times; and that, not the Kingdom of Antichrist, but of Heaven, hath been truly preached unto them; the same Kingdom to other Heathen People by her indefatigable missioners now, which was, heretofore, to our Ancestors by St. Austin, that holy Monk. All these illuminations and consolations will he receive, and all these Divine Providences will he rejoice in, and praise God for, in this Church, if it shall once be discovered to him to be his true Guide; and if that which is asserted in these Discourses, shall (by the Grace and Benediction of God) appear to him Truth.  
In the proof and ev●dencing of which, the Author likewise hath reason to expect from him the more favourable audience, because those, who most vehemently dispute against any such infallible Director, yet cease not to wish, that there were such a one; as a thing acknowledged most highly beneficial to Christian●ty; and they maintain the Controversy, not without a professing, that they would most willingly be confuted in it,— If there be such an infallible Judge of Contraversies (saith Mr. Chillingworth 
† c 2. §. 136. ) it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church, and perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible, if in some Book of Scripture, which was to be undoubtedly received, this one proposition had been set down in terms etc. [Now, if it be not necessary, that there should be such an infallible Judge,; what great necessity, certainly to know him, in case there were one? yet, this a thing, he saith, infinitely beneficial to the Church, and perhaps as much, as all the rest of the Bible.] And, elsewhere,— If I knew (saith he) any one Church to be infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. Behold this, by Protestants so earnestly wished for, R. Catholics show unto them, with proofs sufficient to satisfy the rational, but not force the obstinate: It faring no better with this Church, than with its Lord: Of whom many of the Pharisees, and selfwise, though desiring nothing so much as the happiness, once to see their Messiah, or live in his days, yet, (even whilst they conversed familiarly with him, and received all Salutary doctrine from him, confirmed with Miracles) being blinded with many other prejudices, and mistaken fancies concerning Him, and also wanting that humility of the Common people, to Learn this Truth, amongst others, from Him, that He was their Messiah, could never persuade themselves, that He was indeed such a Person, and so perished in their unbelief.  
But Blessed be our Lord, who mean while both, then, clearly manifested Himself to those, who were Babes, i. e. humble, 
Matt. 11.25. Rom. 12.16.  and not wise in themselves: And, since, upon his necessary departure, hath not left his Children here, Orphans, and destitute, either of Spiritual Fathers, of whom he hath said; that He that heareth them, 
Luk. 10.16.  heareth Him: [therefore these not misguiding in necessaries]: or of a Spiritual Mother, of whom he hath said: that He that Heareth Her not, shall be esteemed as an Heathen: Nor yet left his Little ones destitute of sufficient Evidences, and marks, by which, for ever to discern true Parents, and Guides, from other Pretenders, and Impostors; so that they know their Voice; and do not follow the voice of strangers. 
Jo. 10.4, 5.  Which Evidences the Author presents to the serious Inquirer in these following Discourses, and commits him to the powerful Teacher of hearts, and the illuminations of his Holy Spirit.   

Errata.  

Disc. 1.  
Page 1. lin. 12 read. belong  
Page 6. l. 15. r. 3. And.  
Page 10. l. 32 deal If.  
Page 11. l. 14. r. are.  
Page 20. l. 27. r. render.  
Page 25. l. 1. r. Bishop's  
Page 26. marg. r. 398.  
Page 29. l. 22. r. 176.  
Page 30. l. 14. r. which Councils. marg r. 10. and 14.  
Page 33. l. 21. r. Contrasts  
Page 36. l. r. them].  
Page 38. 21. r. Consequently  
Page 39 l. 33. r. Melchites.  
l. 42. r. is necessary  
Page 42. l. 10. r. 1st. These  
Page 44. 19 r. 37.  
Page 45. l. 7. r. men [professing.  
Page 50. 23. r. and Transubstantiation, in five  
l. 41. r. Nice].  
Page 56. 3. r. religion (for so none would be Schsmaticks, but Arch Heretics.  
Page 73. ult. r command.   

Disc. 2.  
Page 79. 4. r. these.  
Page 80. 33. r. sufficient for deciding Controversies  
Page 83. 8 r. there is (considering the times)  
Page 87. l. 15. r. colour. see 4 Disc. §. 11.12.  
Page 96. 22. r. rendering  
Page 103. 15. r. Sabellianism  
Page 104 27. r wherein  
Ib. Deal  
28. r. (But  
Page 105. 29. r. Valens  
33 r. Essence  
Page 122. marg. r. 104.172  
— Stillingf. p. 241.  
Page 123. 19 r. Quonam.   

Disc. 3.  
Page 143. 33. marg. r. Chillingw. p. 140. 118. 166  
Page 145. 8. r. that part.  
Page 17. r. subordinate  
Page 150 9 r. oppose or deny the truth of  
Page 153. 14. r. follows  
Page 156. 3. r. clearing  
Page 157. 7. r. limitation.  
Page 169. 14. r. Corporal presence in the Eucharist.  
Page 170. 11. r. to be generally condemned.  
Page 186. 10. r. to  
Page 194. 27. r. thereof under one.  
Page 199. marg. r. Churches  
Page 203. 30. r. Monachi.  
Page 204. 10. r. probate  
Page 205. 22. r. confession)  
26. r. veterum  
Page 213. 9 r. Testimony  
21. r. plures, an paucos?  
22. deal. paucos:  
Page 223. 1. r. is so evident  
17. r. hoped?]  
Page 224. 3. r. reflections.  
10. r. quos  
15. r. Faith only.  
32. r. the contrary doctrines  
Page 234. 6. r. Anathema  
Page 247. 26. subjacete.  
Page 254. 40. r. the last  
Page 259. 19 r. upon  
Page 267. 21. deal authority  
Page 269. 8. r. fide.  
Page 271. 23. r. fidei.  
Page 275. 38. marg. r. † p. 137  
Page 286. 38. r. on.  
Page 301. 36. r. honoratis  
Page 305 Chrisma  
Page 307. 3. r. regimine  
Page 311. marg. Aethiopum  
Page 321. 3. r. Church,   

Disc. 4  
Page 332. 23. r. Carpocratos  
Page 338. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Page 342. 39 deal, as.  
Page 365. 30. r. fides.  
Preface. p. 4. l. 1. r. 2.    


THE FIRST DISCOURSE.  
Relating and considering the varying Judgements of learned Protestants, concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide.  

The CONTENTS.  
Chap. 1. 

THE Church Catholic granted by all, in some sense, unerrable in Fundamentals, for ever. §. 1.  
I. Some Protestant Divines granting the Church Catholic unerrable in Fundamentals, or Necessaries, but not as a Guide.— §. 3.  
Reply.— §. 6.  
That the divine promises of indefectibility, or not erring in Necessaries, belong to the Church Catholic, as a Guide; or to the Guides of the Church Catholic— §. 6.    
Chap. 2. 

Several limitations of Protestants concerning these promises.  
1. That they were made only to the Apostles.— §. 8.  
Reply. §. 9  
2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides, but conditional. §. 12.  
Reply.  
That our Lords promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries, made to the Clergy, is absolute.— §. 14.  
And this Indeficiency, most rationally, placed in the General Councils; or other accord, or consent of the Clergy equivalent to such Council.— §. 15.    
Chap. 3. 

Some Protestant objections.— §. 17.  
Answered. §. 18.    
Chap. 4. 

II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy (some, or other of them) always unerring in Necessaries: but this not necessarily, the superior, or Major, part of them.— §. 25.  
Reply.  
That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians, when opposing the superior: nor a few, opposing a much Major part.— §. 30.    
Chap. 5. 

III. Other Expressions of Protestant Divines, granting the Churches Prelatic Clergy, as defining her doctrines, or the General Councils of them, to be unerrable in necessaries; when these Councils accepted by the Church universal.— §. 32.  
Expressions to this purpose, 

* Of Dr. Potter.— §. 33.  
* Of Bp. Bramhal §. 34. 

Where Concerning what judgement of the Church sufficiently obligeth; In respect, 

1. Of the Church Catholic diffusive. §. 36 n. 1.  
2. Of Councils General. §. Ib. n. 8.    
Where Of the Freedom of the Council of Trent. §. Ib. n. 9    
* Of Bp. Lawd. §. 37. 

Where Concerning what acceptation of Councils, by the Church Diffusive, is only necessary.— §. 38.    
* Of Dr, Field. §. 40.      
Chap. 6. 

IU. Learned Protestants conceding, the former Church's Clergy, preceding the Reformation, never so to have erred in defining Necessaries, as that the Church Governed by them, did not remain still True, Holy, and Catholic.— §. 41.    
Chap. 7. 

V: That, according to this last Concession (§. 41.) there seems to be * a great security to those continuing still in the ancient Communion.— §. 48  
As to avoiding Heresy, or Schism. Ibid.  
As, to other gross Errors.— §. 51.  
And * danger to those deserting it.— §. 54. 

Where There Protestant's Defence for it— §. 55. n. 1.  
And the Catholic Remonstrance.— Ib. n. 2.      
Chap. 8. 

VI That, according to the former Concession §. 32. (if so enlarged, as ancient Church-practise, and reason requires), all or most of the Protestant Controversies are, by former obliging Councils, already decided,— §. 56. n. 1. etc.  
An Instance hereof in the Controversy of the Corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, or Transubstantiation.— §. 57      

THE SECOND DISCOURSE.  
Proceeding (upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants; That the Pastors of the Church, some or other, in all Ages, do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries) to search, which, in any Division of these Pastors, are those, to whom Christians ought to adhere, and yield their Obedience.  

The CONTENTS.  
Chap. 1. Protestant's grant, 

1. That there is, at this present, an One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Church. §. 1.  
2. That the present Pastors, and Governors thereof have authority to decide Controversies. §: 2.  
3. That these Governors (some, or other of them) shall never err, or miss-guide Christians, at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation. §. 3.  
4. That they, and the Churches governed by them, stand always distinct from Heretical, or Schismatical, Congregations. §. 5.    
Chap. 2. Catholics further affirm, 

5. That if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries, the people are to learn from them, what, or how many, points are necessary, so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them. §. 6.  
6. Again; That the Necessaries, wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides, ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary, but extended to all such points of Faith, as are very beneficial to Salvation. §. 9  
7. Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries. 

1. That there seems no necessity, that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them. §. 12.  
2. That they may infallibly guide in them, though not infallibly distinguish them. §. 14.  
3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries (and no distinction of these made) ought to be believed in all points they propose (except an infallible certainty can be showed to the contrary.) §. 15.  
4. That these Governors do distinguish, and do propose as such, all those more necessary points, which it is requisite for Christians, with a more particular explicit Faith, to believe. §. 17.    
8 That Christians, submitting their judgement to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith, ought also to submit it to them, in declaring the sense of the Fathers, or of the Definitions of Councils, and former Church, concerning the same Matters. §. 19  
9 That, supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions, yet their Subjects, (by the concession of Learned Protestants) ought to yield the Obedience either of silence, or also of assent, to them in all such points, whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary. §. 20.  
10. From whence it follows, that none may adhere to any new Guides; but only so many, as can demonstrate the Errors of the former. §. 21.    
Chap. 3. 

11. Granted by all; that these Church Governors may teach diversely; and some of them (more, or fewer) may become erroneous in Necessaries; and misguide Christians in them. §. 22.  
12. In such dissenting, therefore, That there must be some Rule, for Christians, which Guides they ought to follow: and that this is, and rationally can be, no other, than, in these Judges subordinate dissenting, to adhere to the Superior, in those of the same Order, and Dignity dissenting, to the major, part. §. 23. 

Where, Of the Major part concluding the Whole, in the ancient Councils. §. 25. n. 2. And,  
Of the Magnitude of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianism. § 26. n. 2.    
13. That, accordingly, both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion, and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees, the much Major part must conclude the Whole, and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresy; and separation from their Communion, Schism; if an Opposition, or separation from the Whole, be so. § 27. n. 4.  
14. As for the Protestant Marks, whereby, in any Division, to know these true Guides; [viz. A right teaching of God's Word, and a right Administration of the Sacraments;] that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first, known. § 28.    
Chap. 4. 

An Application of the former Propositions in a search, which of the opposite present Churches (or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof) is our true Guide. § 30.  
Motives persuading, that the Roman, and the other Western Churches united with it, and with the Head thereof, St. Peter's Successor, are this true Guide. 

1. Their being the very same Body with that, which, Protestants grant, was 150 years ago the Christian's true Guide: and the other Body, confessing themselves, in external Communion, departed from it. § 33.  
2. Their being that Body, to which (if we follow the former Rule recited, Prop. 12.) we ought to submit. § 35.  
3. Their being that Body, that owns, and adheres to, the Definitions, and Decrees of all the former Councils, such as the Church of preceding Ages, hath received as General, or obliging; as well those Councils since, as those before the Sixth, or Seventh Century: which later, the other Party rejects, § 37.      
Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain, living, or Personal Guide, infallible in Necessaries; affirming, 

1. That, all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned, clear in the Scriptures; and the Controversies, in non-necessaries, needless to be decided. § 38.  
2. That all Necessaries are clear in Scripture; because God hath left no other certain, Means, Rule, or Guide, for the knowledge of them, save the Scriptures; § 39 n. 1. 

Not any certain living Guide. 

1. Which is infallible; as their Guide, the Scriptures are. § 39 n. 2.  
2. Which the unlearned, in any Division, can discern from the false Guides; or know their Decrees better, than the Scriptures.  
3. From whom, the Scriptures direct them, to learn Necessaries; or tell them, what Church, or Party they are to adhere to, in any Schism made; In which infallible Guide, if there were any such, as being a thing of the greatest concernment, the Scriptures would not have been silent. Ibid.    
Reply. 

1. That, Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Heretics, in their dissenting from the Church, §. 40. n. 1.  
2. That, as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith, the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholics; but only the clearness thereof, as to all men's capacities, questioned, And another Guide held necessary. §. 40. n. 2.    
It is replied then. 

1. Concerning the clearness of Scripture. 

1, That some Controversies in Religion, since the writing of the Scriptures, have been concerning points necessary; As those Controversies concerning the Trinity; the Deity, and Humanity of our Lord, the necessity of God's Grace, etc. §. 41.  
2. That, the more clear all necessaries are in Scripture, still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgement; from which also they receive these Scriptures, §. 42.  
3. That, there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures, as to all men, clearly. 

1. Because it is sufficient, if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures, that we should, in all difficulties, and Obscurities of them, follow the Directions, and adhere to the Expositions, and Doctrines, of these Guides. §. 43.  
2. Sufficient; if God hath, by other Apostolical Tradition at least, clearly revealed, to these Church-Guides, all such necessary Truths, to be (successively) communicated by them to his people, §. 44.  
3. Sufficient, if God hath, by Tradition at least, clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sense of such Scriptures as are, in points necessary, any way obscure, Ibid.  
4. Sufficient, if God, in the Scripture, hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church-Guides, using due means, though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned; for from those, these may learn them §. 45.      
II. Concerning a living Guide. 

1. That, where the Scripture, (especially, several Texts compared) is ambiguous, and in Controversy, the Christians Guide, to know the true sense, cannot be the Scripture, but either the Church's, or their own, judgement. § 46. n. 1.  
2. That it is not necessary, that God, in the Scriptures, should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair. § 46. n. 2. 

Or to what Church Prelates, or Party, in any Schism, Christians for ever ought to adhere. § 47. n. 2.    
3. Yet, that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein, in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior, and a par● unto the whole. § 47. n. 3. 

And, that Christians may more clearly know the sense of their Definitions in matters controverted, than the sense of the Scriptures. § 48.              

THE THIRD DISCOURSE.  
Examining, What measure of obedience is due to these Guides, and to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge of Controversies.  

The CONTENTS.  
Chap. 1. ROman Catholics and Protestants do agree. 

1. That the Scriptures (speaking of those books, by the Protestants styled Canonical) are the Word of God. §. 1.  
2. That in these Scriptures, agreed on, it is clearly declared; that the Church Catholic of no age shall err in Necessaries. §. 2.  
3. That the Church Catholic is contradistinct to Heretical and Schismatical Churches. §. 4.  
4. That Christ hath left in his Church Pastors, and Teachers, to keep it from being tossed to, and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine. §. 5.    
Chap. 2. Catholics go on, and affirm 

5. That the Church Guides; at least assembled in Lawful General Councils, shall never err in their determining things of necessary Faith. §. 6.  
6. Shall never err in necessaries; not taken for those that are absolutely required, but for all that are very beneficial, to Salvation. §. 9  
7. Shall never err in them, not as infalliblly inspired to teach any new, but as divinely assisted, in delivering of the former, revelations, and Traditions; wherein, they affirm, that the Church of all ages since the Apostles is for ever preserved equally infallible. §. 10.  
8. That, for knowing, what, or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General, and obliging, a Christian may safely rely on the General judgement of the Church, since the sitting of such Councils. §. 11.  
9 That, in the absence of a considerable part of the Church-Governors from some Councils, yet their acceptance of its decrees, or concurrence with its doctrines, renders it equivalent to a Council General. §. 13.  
10. That particular, persons, or Churches, parts of the whole, are obliged to submit their judgement, and yield their assent to the Definitions of the whole. §. 14.     

Chap. 3 

11. That whatever particular person, or Church, holds the contrary to any known definition (passed in a matter of Faith) of any lawful General Council, is Heretical. §. 16.  
12. That any particular person, or Church, which, for any cause whatever, doth actually relinquish, and separate from the external communion of the present Church Catholic, is Schismatical. § 20.  
13. But yet; That several persons, or Churches coordinate, may without Schism, differ in any thing, opinion, or practise, wherein they are not obliged to accord, by their Common Superiors, or by the whole. §. 23.    
Chap. 4. 

But Protestants, after the four first propositions conceded in some sense, do thus endeavour to qualify, and restrain them.  
5. In granting the Catholic Church, in all ages, unerrable in necessaries, they understand only such few Necessaries, without the explicit belief of which Salvation cannot be attained. §. 24.  
6. Therefore also they affirm; that though the Church Catholic cannot err in such points absolutely necessary to Salvation, yet it (or all particular Churches, in some one age, or ages,) may in others, the errors wherein are dangerous to salvation, gross, damnable, etc. §. 25. 

Because it appears, that many of the chief points, from which Protestants descent, were General Tenants and practices, at the coming of Luther. §. 36.    
7. They affirm, That though the Church Catholic cannot, yet General Councils, such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive, may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation; and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in nonfundamentals, or non-necessaries. §. 34.  
8. Yet, that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive, to be either lawfully General, or equivalent thereto; and also to be infallible in necessaries. § 35. 

Where, That necessaries in their sense, restrained only to a very few points of the Faith, and universal acceptation, extended to all sects of Christians, do free them from any obligation to all, or most, Councils formerly held in the Church. § 36.    
9 And, that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Counsels from all inferior, persons, or Churches. § 38.  
10. But, this obedience, not necessarily that of assent to their decrees, (unless such decrees be in, and known to be in, necessaries) but only of silence, and non-publick contradiction. § 39 

Where, Concerning the quality of the obedience, that is yielded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils. § 40.    
11. Nor this silence, or noncontradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils; but only to such decrees, wherein the error of the Council is not manifest, or intolerable. § 43. 

Nor this breach of silence, or contradiction of such decrees, allowed only so far, as to make complaint to Superiors: who not allowing their complaint, they are to acquiesce; but allowed so far, as that they may proceed, upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress, to a reformation. § 44.    
12. And the Judgement, when such errors are, manifest, and intolerable, and to be reform, left to every particular, person, or Church, for themselves. § 47.    
Chap. 5. 

13. Accordingly, they declare, and confine, Heresy to be an error obstinately maintained (not against some Church-Definition, but) some fundamental Article, of the Faith; without allowing any certain Judge, what, or how many Articles are fundamental; and so, what is Heresy § 51.  
14. Concerning Schism: 1st, In respect of inferiors; they declare it to be, not any separation whatever, but a separation causeless (§ 55.) or also (as some more straiten it) a separation in essentials (§ 57) from the Communion of other Churches, or of the Church Catholic: here again, without leaving us, any certain Judge, what points are essentials; or, when the separation causeless; and consequently, when Schism: (unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge). 

2. Again: In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism; and declare them also guilty of it, so often, as, by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors, they give the cause of separation: whereby the chief, and governing, Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholic Church, at Luther's appearance, seems by them charged with Schism; and that from the Catholic Church. § 61.  
Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors, when departing from no other their Superiors, can become, in respect of their subjects, guilty of Schism. § 63. n. 1.      
Chap. 6. 

A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties, concerning Church-authority, and the obedience due thereto. § 64. And,  
A Review of the two present opposite Churches; which of them most resembles the ancient Catholic Church. § 67. 

The face * of the ancient Catholic Church. Ib.  
* Of the present Roman Church. § 72.  
* Of the present Protestant Churches. § 76.    
An Enquiry,    
Chap. 7. 

Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent, or Belief, to her Articles of Religion. 

Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it. § 83. n. 1  
The complaint of the Presbyterians, conc. it. § 83. n. 4.  
The Doctrine of her Divines, conc. it. § 84. n. 1. 

Where, Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles. § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And  
Conc. conditional assent. § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10.    
That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due, and aught to be required by the Church of England from her subjects. § 85. n. 1.  
That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils, as to points Fundamental; i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient, cannot be saved. § 85. n. 4.  
That the requiring of obedience, either of Assent, or Noncontradiction, by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles, seems contrary to the laws of the Church, and to the Protestant Principles. § 85. n. 11.      
Chap. 8. 

Solutions of several Protestant Questions, concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide, or Judge of Controversies. § 86.  
1. Q. From what we can be assured, That Councils are infallible, since neither the Texts of Scripture, the sense whereof is disputed; nor the decree of any Council, whose erring is the thing questioned, can give such assurance? Ib.  
2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility: such promise, if made, being made only to the Church diffusive; and not delegable by this Church to others; or if so; no such delegation from the universal Church appearing, before hand, to have been made to all or any General Council? § 91.  
3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils, is necessary, or serviceable to the Church? without which Councils the Church subsisted, for several ages, most Orthodox. § 98.  
4. Q. How lawful General Councils, which experience hath showed to have contradicted one another, can be all infallible? § 100  
5. Q. Lawful General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things: How Christians can be assured, concerning any particular point, that these Councils do not err? § 101.  
6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible, How, if they should not be so, can any error of theirs be rectified? § 102.  
7. Q. Whether such Councils, only when confirmed by the Pope, or also, unconfirmed by him, be infallible? § 104.  
8. Q. How the Pope's confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring, since if It erred, it doth so still, though he approve it; if orthodox, it is so still, he not approving it. § 105.  
9 Q. In which, the Pope or the Council, this infallibility lies; if in one of them, the other needless. If in both, then either of them sufficient: such qualities being (where they are) indivisible, and without integral parts? § 106.    
Chap. 9 

10. Q. If general Councils infallible; whether they are so in their conclusions only, which will infer Enthusiasm, or new Revelation, or also in their premises, and proofs? upon which, assent will be due also to all their arguments. § 107.  
11. Q. Why, being infallible in their Conclusions, or Definitions, They do not end all Controversies, but leave so many unresolved? § 108.  
12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles; and that, of their decrees, from that of Scripture? § 109.  
13. Q. How, many persons, or guides, all fallible, can make one infallible? § 112.  
14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible, yet how can any know infallibly which are lawful General Councils? because of the many conditions required to make them such: in some one of which he can never be infallibly certain, that any one of them hat not failed. § 114.    
Chap. 10. 

15. Q. Lastly, Catholics pretending, a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to Salvation; and all Divine Faith, necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation; It is asked, upon what ground, a Christian, by a Divine Faith, believes all those Articles of his Faith, that are defined by particular Councils? Where if said; from the Testimony of the present Church, which is in the former manner, (i. e. by divine Revelation,) infallible; The question returns, whence this Testimony can be proved to be in such a manner infallible, without making a Circle: in proving, this present Church to be so infallible from God's Word (written, or unwritten:) and then again, proving infallibly such to have been God's Word from the infallible testimony of the present Church? Nor can the testimony of the Church be proved to be infallible, in such a manner as to ground divine Faith upon it, from the Motives of credibility, or from any thing else, but only from a divine Revelation, i. e. from God's Word; because divine Faith can never resolve itself into any ground, that is not divine Revelation, § 120.  
To which is answered. 

1. That the object of a divine Faith is always in itself infallible, § 123.  
2. That divine Faith always ultimately resolveth itself into divine Revelation, and that into some one wherein it ultimately resteth, without a process in infinitum, or turning in a Circle. § 124. n. 1.— 132.— 143,— 144.  
3. That divine Faith is always wrought in Christians, by the operation of God's Spirit. § 124. n. 2.  
4. That from the operation of this H. Spirit may be produced in Christians a sufficient certainty of divine Faith, whatever uncertainty be in the  proponent thereof. § 125.  
5. That Church-Tradition, in delivering unto us the divine Revelation, is only the Introductive, not the object, of a divine Faith. § 126.  
6. That there in no absolute need, either of it, or any other  infallible Introductive, or proponent, for a Christian's attaining a divine Faith. § 127.  
7. Yet that there are those morally-certain grounds produceable for this Faith, and all the Articles thereof, as they are believed in the Catholic Church, which no other Religion besides the Christian; nor, in Christianity, no other Sect, or seducing private Spirit, can pretend to. § 135. 

That a rational certainty, or morally-infallible ground, of a Christians Faith thus far at least, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and consequently whatever is contained therein, infallible, is affirmed by all. § 136.    
8. But further: that an infallibility in the Guides of the Church (as perpetually assisted by the H. Ghost for all necessaries, wherein the true sense of Scriptures, or verity of Tradition Apostolical, is questioned, and disputed) is believed by Catholics. From which infallibility of these Church-Guides, clearly revealed to them in Scripture, and by Tradition Apostolical, they retain a firm Faith of all those points, which are not in Scripture, or Tradition, as to all men, so clearly revealed: Whilst others, denying the infallibility of these Church-Guides, and only allowing that of Scripture, miscarry in their Faith concerning some of the other points; or can have no firm ground of their believing them. § 140. 

showed from the Precedents, That no Circle is made in the Roman Catholick's resolving either of a divine and infused, or acquisite, and humane, Faith. § 143. etc.        
Chap. 11. A Supplement to the 4th Chap. 26th §. Wherein is showed a Consent of the Doctrine and practice of the modern Eastern Churches with the Occidental, in the chief points of present Controversy. 

[1. Transubstantiation. §. 158. n. 2.— 177.  
2. Adoration of the Eucharist. §. 159.— 177.  
3. Sacrifice of the Mass. §. 160. n. 1.— 177.  
4. Invocation of Saints. §. 161.  
5. Prayer for the Souls of the Faithful departed, as betterable, thereby, in their present Condition. §. 162.  
6. Communion in one kind; or, of the Symbol of our Lord's Body only intinct. §. 163.178.  
7. A Relative Veneration of Images, or Pictures. §. Ibid.  
8. Monastic Vows: And Marriage denied the Clergy after the taking of Holy orders. §. 164. and, §. 179. n. 1.  
9 Auricular, or Sacramental, Confession. §. 165.179. n. 2.]  
The Replies made hereto by Protestants, considered. §. 182. etc.      

THE FOURTH DISCOURSE.  
Containing the Socinians Apology for the be believing and teaching his Doctrine against former Church-Definitions, and present Church-Authority, upon the Protestant-Grounds.  

Divided into Five Conferences. 

The first Conf. OF his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture §. 2.  
The second Conf. Of his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sense of the Catholic Church, so far as this can justly oblige §. 13  
The third Conf. Nor, contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils, the just conditions thereof observed. §. 18.  
The fourth Conf. Of his not being guilty of Heresy. §. 23.  
The fifth Conf. Nor, of Schism. §. 28.       

THE FIRST DISCOURSE: Relating and Considering the Varying Judgements of Learned Protestants concerning the ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDE.  

CHAP. I.  
The Church Catholic granted by all, in some sense; unerrable in Fundamentals, for ever. §. 1. Of Protestant Divines, I. Some granting the Church Catholic unerrable in Fundamentals, or Necessaries; but, not as a Guide, §. 3. R. Thatthe Divine Promises of Indefectibility, or not erring in Necessaries, belongs to the Church Catholic, as a Guide; or, to the Guides of the Church Catholic §. 6.  
§. 1 FIrst, that the Church Catholic of any Age whatever is unerrable in Fundamentals, 
The Church Catholic, granted by all, in some sense, unerrable for ever in Fundamentals.  or absolute Necessaries to Salvation, both by roman-catholics and Protestants is granted; for otherwise, in some Age, there would be no Church Catholic; Error in such Fundamentals destroying the very Being of a Church.  
§. 2 But when, from the Church Catholic, it is by Catholics ascended to the Governors or Guides thereof. (to whom this Church is committed by our Lord, departed hence); That they are also, by our Lords promise, and assistance, unerrable in their Decrees; They, at least in a lawful General Council of them (such as the times, wherein such Councils are assembled, do permit); unerrable,] §. 3 at least so far, as to Necessaries; Here the Protestants make a stop; 
1. 1. Some Protestant-Divines granting the Church Catholic unerrable in Fundamentals▪ or Necessaries, but not as a Guide.  and seem to differ, one from another, in 12 their Judgements.  
Mr. Changed llingworth, in his Answer to F. Knot; and after him Dr. Hammond, in his Answer to the Exceptions made against the Lord falkland's Discourse of Infallibility, with their followers in this point, (among whom I number the two late Repliers 
‖ See Mr. Stillingf. p. 154, 251, 252, 514, 517.55.— Whitby c. 9 and 20. ) affirm indeed, the Church Catholic (according to the former Proposition) to be always unerrable in Fundamentals, or Necessaries But then; by Church Catholic, they mean such a Church, as neither is, nor can be any Guide to us; carefully distinguishing between the Church Catholic, and her General Councils; and holding, that, even in Fundamentals, all her Councils whatever (except such, as are, in their way, universally accepted 
‖ See below § 36, 38— Disc. 3 §. 36. ) may err, thought she cannot.  
To this purpose; See Mr. Chillingw. (cap. 3. §, 39) discoursing on this manner,— I must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you; that the Church Catholic is an infallible Director in Fundamentals. §. 4 For if she were so, then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but also learn of her what is Fundamental, and take all for Fundamental, which she delivers to be such. In the performance whereof, if I knew any one Church to be infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. But good Sir, you must needs do us this favour, to be so acute; as to distinguish between, being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals. That she shall be always a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant; for it comes to no more but this: that there shall be always a Church. But that there shall be always such a Church, which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, this we deny, For this cannot be without settling a known infallibility in some one known Society of Christians, (as the Greek, or the Roman, or some other Church) by adhering to which Guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals. Much what the same he saith cap. 2. §. 139.— You must know, there is a wide difference between, being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible Guide even in fundamentals. Dr. Potter saith, That the Church is the former: That is, there shall be some men in the world whilst the world lasts, which err not in fundamentals: for otherwise there would be no Church. But we utterly deny the Church to be the later: for to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain Society of men, of whom we may be certain that they neither do, nor can err in Fundamentals, nor in declaring what is Fundamental, what is not Fundamental: and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposeth, and requires to be believed. And cap. 5. §. 60.— You suppose untruly, that there is any that visible Church, I mean any visible Church of one Denomination, which cannot err in Points Fundamental.  
§. 5 [Where you may observe: that Mr. Chillingworthtaketh the Church-Catholick, that is infallible, only for some certain persons, in some place, or other, professing Christianity, who, whilst the world lasts, de facto do not err in Fundamentals; and that, as he affirms, no Church of one Denomination to be infallible in Fundamentals; so he holds, neither any Council, nor any visible Body of Ecclesiastical Magistrates whatsoever, or how far soever extended, that proposeth to Christians matters of Religion, to be in fallible in Fundamentals; as you may see quite through the third chap. of his Book; and as is manifest also from his reasons against the one, which are of like force against the other. Therefore though he frequently names Church of one Denomination, and not Councils, yet you shall find that to [this Church of one Denomination errable] he opposeth not [Councils un-erring] but only [some men in the world, whiles the world lasts, de facto not erring]: and to these; it is, and not to Councils, or any Ecclesiastical Governors, that he applieth our Saviour's promise. Yet, what hinders, but that the Church-Catholick, in some times, as it stands contradistinct to Heretical, and Schismatical Churches, may be in his sense a Church of one Denomination? nay, any Church, that is so united, as to give Laws, and to have all its members involved in one external Communion, though it be an aggregate of many particular Churches, and those in several Nations, truly is so: and the Church-Catholick always is but One, as we confess it in our Creed: But one Body it is, and therefore not uncapable of one name, or denomination; and hence, all the Western Churches, in the times of Luther, having only one external Communion, may be said to be a Church of one Denomination, and so were for a long time both the Eastern, and Western. This Caution I thought meet to give you, that his seeming limitation [of one Denomination] may not deceive you.]  
§. 6 After him, thus also Dr. Hammond, in defence of the Lord Falkland's Discourse against the Exceptions 
‖ c. 1. §. 5, 6. p. 23. ;— I shall (saith he) thus far consent with you. First; That the universal Church is in Fundamentals infallible,— But then; this Infallibility must signify no more, or is to be no farther extended, than that Christ doth, and will so defend his Church, that there shall be for ever, till the end of the world, a Church Christian on the earth; i. e. that the whole Church shall not, at once, make an universal defection, err from the foundation, or do any thing, by which there shall cease to be a Church on the earth. But then 2ly. I say, that this very universal Church, though it be in this sense infallible in Fundamentals, is not yet a Rule, or Canon, or Guide, or Judge infallible, even in Fundamentals; visible it is, infallible it is, but it is not a visible Judge, or Rule infallible. Thus Dr. Hammond. Here you see, these Authors make a distinction between the Church Catholic, and the Body of her Governors, or her General Council giving Laws: and in allowing Infallibility in Necessaries to the Church Catholic; remove it from the General Council, because they think it not safe to allow the Church Catholic unerrable, as a Guide.  
§. 7 But this their denying, the Church Catholic to be unerrable as she is a Guide, 
Reply.  seems utterly contrary both to our Saviour's Promises, made to her in the Scriptures; and also to the Concessions of other Modern Learned Protestants. (which see below §. 25 etc. 32, etc.  
First, As concerning our Saviour's Promises (from which is collected the Church's Indefectibility) all, 
Where. That the divine Promises of Indefectibility, or, not erring in necessaries, belong to the Church Catholic as a Guide, or to the Guides of the Church Catholic.  or most of them are expressly made to the Guides of the Church; and therefore to the Church, as a Guide; that so these might be fet for ever, to all Nations, as a City on a Hill; and as a Candle on a Candlestick 
‖ Mat. 5.14, 15. . * See (Mat. 28.19, 20.) Upon our Saviour's sending his Successors abroad to teach the Nations, his promising to be with them. [i. e. with the Teachers of these Nations] to the end of the world. * See (John 14.16, 26.— 16.15. Compared with Acts 15.28.— (Joh. 5.20, 27.— 1 Cor. 12.7, 8.) his promising them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [i. e. an Assista that should abide with them for ever; to teach them all things; and to bring all things to their remembrance. For ever: i. e. Not with the Apostles only: For then what would become of the Nations, that, after their times, were still to be instructed? (especially, when any Controversies should arise concerning the understanding of the Apostles Writings: which Writings are miss-understandable in things necessary; and which S. Peter saith, in his time, the unlearned wrested to their own destruction 
‖ 2 Pet. 3.16. ); but with their Successors also. * See (Mat. 18.20. compared with 17, 18.) his promising, that when they were gathered together in his name [to hear the Causes brought to the Church: brought to her still daily, notwithstanding the Scriptures,] he himself would be in the midst of them; and would ratify in heaven, what they should, upon earth; which implieth also, that he would assist them on earth, (at least when this is a supreme, and unappealable, Church-authority), to do, as to the main, both what was meet to be submitted to by those, whom he sent to their Tribunal; and what was meet to be ratified by the heavenly Tribunal. But if, after the Rule of Scripture, the necessity of such Tribunals ceased, why are these afterward continued, and, in Controversies of Faith, appealed, repaired to? * See (Mat. 16.18, 19) his promising that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against those, to whom he gave the Keys [i. e. against the Clergy]; nor against the Church built by, and upon, them. And * see (Luk. 23.31.) the not failing of S. Peter's Faith prayed for, by our Lord, in order to establishing his Brethren. * See (1 Tim. 3.15.) the Church (unlimited to the Apostles days) said to be the Pillar, and ground of Truth; surely this from its Teachers being so, For so the Apostle elsewhere, using the same Metaphor, frequently calls these Teachers (Gal. 2.9.) Pillars; (Eph. 2.20.) Foundations, and Grounds: amongst which Teachers Timothy being admitted, is warned here to be very circumspect, and careful of his behaviour: And * see (2 Tim. 2.19. compared with 16, 17, 20.) the Foundation of God, the Church standing sure: notwithstanding that Hymeneus, and some others (as Vessels in this great house of God, not of Gold, and Honour, but of Earth, add Dishonour) had erred from the Truth of God.  
* See (Eph. 4.11, 13.) his giving these Teachers, that the world should not be tossed to, and fro with every wind of Doctrine. In whose Doctrine therefore, in order to this end, this Donor hath fixed some stability; neither can it be applied only to the Apostles, or their times; seeing that the experience of so many various winds of Doctrines, even since all their Write, and concerning the sense of their Write (see 2 Pet. 3.16.) Blowing in the Church, and carrying the unstable to and fro, argues the same necessity of such Doctors still. And * see Rev. 1.13, 16. Where our Saviour (to denote his perpetual presence to these succeeding Teachers, and Governors of his Church) after all the times of all the Apostles, save St. John, is described, though in Glory, yet walking in the midst of the seven Mother-Churches of Asia, and holding their Bishops in his hands. And therefore he hath commanded an Obedience to these Governors proportionable to his assistance; that those, who will not hear them, should be reckoned as Heathens, or Publicans, he being in the midst of their Assemblies; and ratifying in heaven, what their Sentence binds, or looseth on Earth. (* See Mat. 18.17, 18, 20.)— And hath said concerning them 
‖ Luke 10.16. ; that he that heareth them, heareth him: From which may be gathered; that that Clergy, who have still the same mission from him, may require the same audience, in his stead.   

CHAP. II.  
Several Limitations of Protestants, concerning these Promises. 1. That they were made only to the Apostles, §. 8. 2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides, but conditional, §. 12. R. That our Lord's Promise of Indeficiency in Necessaries was not made to the Apostles only, but to their Successors, §. 9 And to their Successors, not conditional, but absolute, §. 14. And that this Indeficiency in Necessaries is most rationally placed, by the Church, §. 8 in her General Councils; or such accord and consent of the Clergy, as is equivalent to such Councils, §. 15.  
IN Answer to these Texts: some of the Reformed 
‖ Chillingw. p. 92. 115. 19— Stillingf. p. 256, 2, 8, 259, 519. Several Limitations of Protestants concerning these Promises. 1. That they were made only to the Apostles.  would restrain these absolute Promises only to the Apostles, or first Promulgators of the Gospel, for this reason: because no need, that they should be extended to any more. For by these first, for all succeeding times, was a written Rule left; clear, and plain, even to the unlearned, and to all that use common reason, in all necessary points of Faith; and therefore, that all Controversies, which these plain, and clear Scriptures, intelligible to every one, decide not, are not Controversies in any point necessary; and need not to be decided; nor do Christians, now having an infallible, and plain Rule for Necessaries, need afterwards, besides this, another living, unerrable Guide in them.  
But such an Answer, 1st. Seems neither any way sufficient to satisfy the Texts (as hath been partly showed already, in the Explication of them), §. 9 which do promise to the world's end not a Rule only, but Persons, 
Reply. 1.  sent to preserve us from every wind of Doctrine; and which command Obedience, not to a Rule only, but to Persons expounding it, under pain of being ejected, as Heathens, and Publicans; and under pain of being bound in Heaven, when they bind us upon Earth; (an authority exercised, not only by the Apostles; but, upon the strength of these, and the like Texts extended beyond the former Limitation, by their Successors also;) Only, this Order is required to be observed in our Obedience; that we perform it in the first place to the supreme Church-authority; and, then also, to particular persons, or Churches, only as they are conformable to, and united with the whole; who otherwise (as experience shows) may err even in Fundamentals; and so our obedience to them ruin us.  
Nor 2ly, seems such answer sufficient to satisfy the Necessities of the times following the Apostles; wherein, §. 10 whether there have not risen controversies, notwithstanding the clearness of the rule left us, some of which have been in matters necessary, and wherein the people greatly needed the directions of their spiritual Guides, I leave to your Judgement, if you please to reflect on either the old Arrian, Nestorian, Pelagian: or the new Socinian, Solifidian, Church-Anarchical, (both anti-episcopal, and also anti-presbyteral), errors; all maintained by such, who have presumed, as much as any, that they have common reason to understand plain Scriptures; Nay; who account these so clear on their own side, as to decline a trial by any other way, save by the Scriptures only. Add to this, that several such strange, and damnable Opinions arose, after this Rule written, even in the Apostolical times: From which Errors, and Heresies, from time to time, by the intervening definitions, and diligent search of the Rule, and traditive Exposition thereof, made in those supremest Ecclesiastical Courts that the times afforded, the Church hath been hitherto preserved.  
Meanwhile, what satisfaction, or comfort can a Christian; §. 11 in these present distractions of the Church, receive from such persons: who, when asked whom we shall have to end our controversies? 1st. tell us 
‖ Chillingw. p. 115. and ●92— Whitby p. 104. 98. — * That these, if clear Scripture, intelligible to every one, decide them not, are not controversies in any thing necessary, and so needless to be ended; [and therefore one would think it not much material also, on what side they are held]. Again;— * That the Plea for an infallible Guide, to secure us from wand'ring out of the way to Heaven, is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way; which we cannot miss, unless we will. And we now secure; then 2ly, changing their former note, tell us: That some of the present Controversies are such, (For example the Controversy of Transubstantiation, St. Invocation, and Images;) as that, unless we believe them on that side as the Protestants state them, we become, if we practise according to our belief, guilty of most gross idolatry: (and, if it be idolatry, surely than it destroys the very essentials, or being of a Church) 1 And then again (that, we in such a danger, may not think of retiring to, and relying upon, our Guides), in the third place tells us; that, in the not seeing this Rule of Scripture to be clear, and manifest in these Controversies, on the Protestant side; and in the not perceiving the Protestant Reasons brought for it, to be Demonstrations thereof; both those great Councils, that have defined the contrary to them, and the greatest part of Christianity that now follows these Councils, all (Scripture being, in these, supposed for a Rule) want, or use not, common Reason.  
§. 12 This of their first Answer; restraining these Texts, 
2. Or made to all the succeeding Church-Guides, but condition.  and our Lord's Promises of Infallibility only to the Apostles, and committing the succeeding times only to the Infallibility of the Apostles Writings. But yet, these not being secure here, whilst some of the Texts (as hath been showed) clearly enough, promise Divine assistance also to the Apostles Successors; (which assistance can be none, or nothing worth, if not extended so far; as to preserve them unerring in Necessaries); they yet further allow, from these Texts, a Promise of Indefectibility in Necessaries to be made to the Catholic Church of all Ages after the Apostles, taken in general, (as it is set down in the first Proposition 
‖ §. 1. ); And not only to her, but to her Guides also, and Clergy; But then, they state these Promises, as made to the Guides, not to be absolute (as they are to the Church) but conditional only 
‖ Chilling. p. 176 Stilling. p. 511 519, 520. : which condition they endeavour to show also out of these Texts, where such Promises are made. As * in that, John 14.16.— And 16.23.— The Comforter shall abide with you for ever,— and lead you into all truth: True, say they; if you love me, and keep my Commandments, John 14.15.— And * in that, Mat. 28.20.— I will be with you unto the end of the world; True; If you teach what I have commanded you— * In that, Luke 10.16.— He that heareth you, heareth me; True; so often as ye speak my words, not your own. Therefore thus Mr. Chillingworth, where he sets down several irrational ways (as he calls them) of ending a Controversy 
‖ p. 130. § 7, 8. , descants on these, and such like Scriptures;— We could (saith he) refer the matter to any Assembly of Christians assembled in the name of Christ, seeing it is written: Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. We may refer it to any Priest, because it is written, The Priest's lips shall preserve knowledge. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' Chair, etc. To any Preacher of the Gospel, to any Pastor, or Doctor: for to every one of them Christ hath promised, he will be with them always, even unto the end of the world; and of every one of them it is said; he that heareth you, heareth me, etc. To any Bishop, or Prelate; for it is written, Obey your Prelates; and again; He hath given Pastors, and Doctors, etc. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine. To any particular Church of Christians, seeing it is a particular Church which is called, The House of God, a Pillar, and Ground of Truth: and seeing of any particular Church it is written— He that heareth not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen, and a Publican. But these Means Mr. Chillingworth disallows, because (saith he) they would fail us, and contradict themselves.  
This than they say; that, as these Scripture-promises are applied to the Catholic Church in general of all, or any Age after the Apostles, they grant them absolute; But, §. 13 as applied to any particular Churches, or their Guides, since it is certain, that such particular, Persons, and Churches may err even in Fundamentals, and do sometimes contradict one another, the Promises made to them, must be understood to be only conditional; and that, before that any yield, from these Texts, any Obedience to them, either of assent, or also (if in a matter of great moment) of noncontradiction, he must first look to it, whether they have performed the condition of the promised assistance (kept themselves to Christ's words: kept his Commandments, etc.): wherein also he cannot take theirs, but must use his own, Judgement; and thus are these promises voided, as to any certain benefit that the Subjects of the Church may expect by them; and as to any certain Obedience, which the Clergy can require, for them.  
§. 14 To this way of expounding these Texts; whereby in making the promises to belong conditionally to every man of the Clergy they would make them belong, 
Reply. That our Lord's promise of indeficiency in necessaries, made to the Clergy, is absolute.  absolutely, to none of them, I return this Answer. 1st. That, by their representing Christ's promises only conditional in the manner  
‖ § 12. , they seem to unsettle the very Foundations of Christianity; whilst, from these Texts so expounded, we can have no certainty of the Infallibility of the Apostles themselves (to whom these things were said) unless we be first assured of their performance of the Condition. 2ly. Seeing that themselves collect from these Texts an absolute promise of an indefectibility, as to the knowledge, and belief of all Necessaries (which is the same, as an Infallibility, or actual security of never erring, in Necessaries) made to the Church Catholic in general; and seeing they do gather this from those Texts, where (as I have showed) the promises are directed to the Clergy: Therefore, first, hence it seems most rationally conclusive; that though there be not a disjúnctive indeficiency, so that no single Clergyman is unerrable (which shall be granted them); yet there is at least a conjunctive absolute non-failing, as to all Necessaries, in the Clergy, some way, or other. Especially if we consider, that the Church is a Body constituted in a regular Government, and doth, and must always consist of Pastors, and People; Of Pastors preaching the Word, and administering the Sacraments unto the People; and celebrating a public Service of God in their Congregations; and, in such a constitution thereof, who can conceive a People, orthodox in Necessaries, governed at the same time by an apostatised Clergy? From a Church, then, granted never failing, or erring (and that is, infallible) in necessaries, I say, it follows most rationally, that there must be always a Clergy so too. Nor can any justify their drawing from the same words (directed chief to the Clergy) a certain, and absolute indefectibility of the Church; and yet only a conditional one of the Clergy; as neither can they, with reason, where the same duty (as that, Mat. 28.20. The Baptising, and Teaching of all Nations) is charged upon the future Clergy, as well as on the Apostles, make the Promise of assistance of the discharge of such duty (the least of which assistances imaginable is, that they shall not miss-instruct these Nations in Necessaries) absolute to the Apostles; conditional to their followers; and yet absolute again to the following Church, taken in General.  
§. 15 To go on then. If some Clergy there shall always be, that shall not err; 2. Then from this it seems most rationally deduced again; * That a General Council especially, 
And this Indeficiency most rationally placed by the Church in the General Councils, or other accord, or consent of the Clergy, equivalent to such Councils.  assembled of all the chief Prelates of this Clergy, (or, if such cannot be, then at least the most general, that the times permit); Or, * That the whole Clergy, or, where some dissent, the much greater part thereof, manifesting by any other way their concurrence in one and the same doctrine (which is equivalent to the Act of a General Council) shall not err. For it is more likely, that a particular person should err so, than a Synod; and a smaller Synod than a more General; and so, of persons subordinate likewise, that those elected, and advanced to higher place of Judicature, are, both persons of greater knowledge and merit; and, according to the necessity of their place, divinely, more assisted; else why such a subordination, and appeal from lower to higher Courts; unless these be of the two the less liable to Error, both from humane and divine help, where people can ascend to no further Director? Therefore was such a subor dination instituted by God under the Law, Deut. 17.8.— And such a Practice, upon the first difference, repaired to by the Apostles (rather for an Example to Posterity, than for any absolute necessity thereof) Act. 15. And the Name of the Holy Ghost 
‖ Act. 15.18. , used in that Sovereign Court, the more to authentize their Decrees. Therefore also our Saviour (Mat. 18.) appoints such a Gradation; in conventing the offender, first before two or three, and then, before the whole Church; and here promiseth his more special Presence in an Assembly of Churchmen, though it be but of a few 
‖ Mat 18.19, 20 . And so, for persons under the Law, the Vrim and Thummim at first, as an infallible Director, was committed to the Highest Priest alone, not to the rest; and after Urim taken away, yet an assistance still that person seems to have had, according as necessity required, more than the rest. See Deut. 17.12. and Joh. 11.31. where he saith, That Caiaphas, being High Priest that year, prophesied in the Council, that Jesus should die, etc. And so St. Paul (1 Cor. 12.28. Eph 4.11, 24.) among those Governors, that Christ had appointed for guiding the people for ever in the same steady doctrine, makes a subordination, ranking Pastors and Doctors in the lowest place, and in the highest, Apostles: in whose place (we may presume, furnished with all necessary infallibility) succeed Bishops: Bishops, at least in their conjoint Body, and supreme Consults.  
§. 16 Here then; in a General Council, or in such a joint Consent of Clergy, as is equivalent to it, the Church most justly stateth and placeth that not failing in necessary Truth, which, it seems must be allowed (and that absolute) in some Clergy 
‖ §. 14.  for ever. God indeed could have infallibly assisted every particular person of the Clergy, as he did also the twelve Apostles; as also he, who then foresaw all the modern Controversies, could have set down as clear a decision, and much clearer, of them in the Apostles Writings, than is had in the Council of Trent: yet to his eternal Wisdom it seemed good otherwise, as he permitted evil in the World the more powerfully to bring good out of it, and to try, and more highly reward those who adhere to virtue, so to permit Error and Heresies in the world (Oportet esse Haereses, saith the Apostle 
‖ 1 Cor. 11.19. ) to gain a nobler triumph afterward to the Truth, through the opposition of Error; and to try, and more highly reward those, who, not without some contrary verisimilities, do follow it. Meanwhile, this seems sufficient, in all Oppositions, for securing all necessary Truths, and preserving his Church indefective therein, if the supremest Body in the Clergy should not fail in their Determinations thereof; nor any other Persons or Synods fail therein, so long as they adhere to the doctrine of these Supreme; which if any of the inferior Guides do not, the Church, upon any discovery is very vigilant to suspend, or cut them off from her Body. And here you may observe, that the Subjects of the Catholic Church, in their obedience also of their particular Pastors, though these be not free from Error even in Necessaries, yet have much more security of not being misled by them, than other Sects by theirs; in as much as these Pastors, whose judgement the people depend on, and follow, do also generally hold, and maintain themselves obliged to follow, and obey the Judgement of these Supreme Guides, whom they firmly believe, assisted in all Necessaries by Christ: whilst this is such a submission, as the Leaders of Sectaries renounce and protest against.   

CHAP. III.  
Some Protestant-Objections §. 17. Answered §. 18.  
§. 17 
Some Protestant Objections.  I Know it is urged here 
‖ See Mr. Stillings. p. 258. ; [α] If 1st, 
α  That, Supposing such inerrability of the Clergy to be only in a General Assembly, or Council of them, no such infallibility can be said to be necessary at all to the preservation of the Church, which subsisted well without it for the first three hundred years, (having had for that space no General Councils,) and therefore it is vainly put. Or 2ly, 
 [.] If such unerring Guide necessary; yet that Christians have no such Guide to repair to in the Intervals of these Councils. 
‖ Dr. Pierce his Answ. to Cressy p. 6. etc.  3ly [γ] as for these Supreme Councils, 
γ  it is urged, that Experience hath showed them not unerrable in deciding Controversies; since they are found, as well as particular persons and Churches, sometimes to contradict one another. See Chillingw. p. 131. arguing in this manner— If you say, that these [particular Clergymen, or Churches] would fail us, and contradict themselves; so, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes against Popes; Councils against Councils: Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes; Lastly, the Church, (i.e. Catholic) of some Ages, against the Church of other Ages. 4. Lastly, If such Councils granted unerring: 
‖ Chillingw. p. 93. Stillingf p. 538, etc. Whitby p. 432.  
δ.  [δ] yet that no certain knowledge can be attained by private Christians, which Councils is general and lawful, which otherwise: 
ε.  [ε] what be their definitions, and how many: and what the true sense of their definitions: (which, and many more like Objections see more fully solved. Disc. 3. §. 86. etc.  
To the first of these, 
α.  [α,] I answer That this Inerrability in Necessaries accompanies the Clergy, and preserves the Church in all times; and did so in the three first Centuries; §. 18 
Answererd. R. to  being annexed to the whole Body, or much major part of this Clergy, not only when met in a General Council, (which supposition the Objection proceeds upon,) but out of it also, whenever, and however, they shall manifest a concurrence in their Judgement, and Agreement in their doctrine; whether it be, by several Provincial Councils assembled; or perhaps only by some one convened in the place more infested with some new and dangerous error, which Council afterward hath the ratification of the chief Pastor of the Church, together with his Council, and hath the tacit approbation, or noncontradiction of other  Churches. Or whether by their Communicatory and Synodical Letters. Or whether in their public Liturgies and Offices; Or in a General Consent in their public Writings, Catechisms and Explications of Christian-Doctrine. In none of which, as to Doctrine Necessary, the whole Body of the Clergy, or that which, in any dissent, is to he accepted for the whole, shall ever err.  
§. 19 To the second [] I answer, That this Body of the Clergy, remaining in all times, if, in the Interval of Councils, any new Error, dangerous to the faith, and not formerly condemned by any such Council, 
To β.  doth afflict the Church, is vigilant, by some of those ways aforenamed, (wherein it is unerrable) as the times afford convenience, to suppress it. So was Pelagianism crushed, without a General Council, by several Provincial ones, and the joint Declarations of the Chief Prelates of the Catholic Church. But if such Error trouble the Church, as hath been condemned by such former Councils, here the same Governors, within their several Circuits, take care to put in execution the former unerring Decrees. In both therefore the present Church-Guides are secure from Error in any Necessaries; whilst, in respect of Errors fore-condemned, they adhere to, and follow, the definitions of former Councils: in new ones raised, which are thought any way to hazard the Christian faith, they unite afresh their common Judgement in some of the foresaid ways, as times permit; either in one General, or several inferior, Synods, or other Intelligence, or Correspondences of Churches, such, as may be equivalent to those Assemblies, which are more Ecumenical.  
§. 20 To the third [γ.] 
To γ.  It is denied; That experience hath at any time showed, the latter Church, or Council, to have varied from, or contradicted, the precedent. As for those points which are frequently alleged by Protestants to prove some such difference; they are either Decrees of some Council, that is declared by the Church Catholic unlawful; or Tenants held indeed by a considerable part of the Church in several ages diversely, but in none defined by her, in the manner .  
§. 21 To the fourth [δ.] 
To δ.  I answer; That, what, or how many of former Councils are lawful and obligatory, a Christian ought to rely upon, and is sufficiently secure in, the judgement of the Catholic Church, taken in the sense explained before, § 18. and below, § 36, 38,  
§. 22 To [ε.] 
To ε.  A Christians certain knowing all the Decrees of Councils and their sense, 1. That, though all the definitions of such lawful Councils are supposed in some kind necessary to some, or other, yet some are necessary to be explicitly known to one, that are not so to another: and that there lies no obligation on every one, or on most, to know them all; but only, when sufficiently proposed to him, not to descent from them. 2. Next, That experience shows, that in all Churches the subjects thereof do or may sufficiently learn, from the common Tradition therein, those public Doctrines and Articles, the confession and practice of which is required from them. At least, a Christian, using a diligence suitable to his calling, may receive sufficient instruction from his particular spiritual Guides (if these are members of the Church Catholic) both concerning them, and the true sense of them, so far as these are necessary to be known. Which particular Guides also are the less liable to mistake, or to deceive him, because (as hath been faid) they do (no more, than he) proceed upon their own judgement; but do hold themselves obliged to submit this to the common one of the Church, (a way of security, of not erring themselves, in what they teach others, which the Guides of all other Sects disclaim.) 3. But yet, when any hath suspicion of misinformation from these, he hath other superior Guides, (subordinate in authority one to another,) whom to consult, and is obliged only to acquiesce in the supremest, which is secure from erring in any necessaries, as is explained in the answer to the first. In which obeying of his Guides, God, who hath enjoined it to them, will never suffer him, in necessaries, to be misled by them. This then is the Catholic course.  
§. 23 As for the greater security, which Protestants pretend to be in their way of directing Christians for the knowledge of necessaries 
‖ See Chillingw. p. 376. 377. ; because the Rule, which they refer men to for their Guidance, the Bible, or holy Scriptures, are all true, certain, infallible; but these Guides, the Roman Party directs men to, especially those particular Pastors, beyond whom few go, are not so; they mis-relate the matter, For, 1st, The Bible or Holy Scriptures are equally acknowledged an all-true, certain, and infallible Rule for the guidance of Christians by both parties; and the sense thereof, where evident and not controverted, (as in many points it is clear,) by both sides, as holding it infallible, equally acquiesced in. And 2ly, Where the true sense of this common Rule happens to be disputed and brought into question; and so there is need of some other guide to show which sense is the right, here the guide, which Protestants direct men to, is not the certain and infallible Scripture, but, indeed, in the last place, every man's own judgement or Reason; and the guide, which the Roman doctrine directs men to, is their Spiritual Superiors, and in the last place, the most supreme Council of them. Where also; 1st, that supreme Guide, whom the particular Guides of Catholics hold themselves obliged to follow, is affirmed in all their Definitions concerning necessaries to be infallible; and 2ly, Since such their Definitions are only in things, in which the sense of the Scriptures is controverted, it may be presumed, that the sense of the same Definitions is to private persons much more intelligible, and plain, than those Scriptures that are explained by them: And 3ly, this living Guide, from time to time, as any doubt ariseth, can render itself still more intelligible; which the Rule of Scriptures cannot.  
§. 24, This (from §. 3.) is spoken to those Protestant-Divines, who though they make a Promise of Indefectibility (or Infallibility in Necessaries,) absolute to the Church-Catholick; yet affirm it to be, to the Church's Clergy, even taken in the Supremest Consultations and meetings of it, only conditional; which Promise of absolute Indefectibility, being thus extended to the Church, but withheld from the Clergy, though it implies still an infinite benefit, and favour to some particulars, yet seems to afford very little consolation to Christianity in General, being a promising no more than this; That, in all Ages to the end of the World, there shall be some men in it, that shall, (not teach, but only) retain so much faith, or divine truth, as thereby to be saved: which thing may be, where is no preaching; no Administration of the Sacraments; and indeed no external visible Church at all: which thing may be, though all the Clergy do Apostatise, if at least some few Laics continue Orthodox.   

CHAP. IU.  
II. Other Protestant Divines granting the Clergy, (some or other of them) always unerring in Necessaries: but this not necessarily the Superior, or major, part of them, §. 25. That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians, when opposing the Superior, nor a few, opposing a much major, part, §. 30.  
§. 25 TWO OTher Reformed Divines there are, who allow not a conditional, but absolute, Promise, made to the Clergy, some or other, 
II.  in a greater, or in a smaller number, in all times: Nay, yet further; 
Other Protestant. Divines granting the Clergy, and Church-Guides (some, or other of them) always unerring in Necessaries: but not necessarily, the Superior, or major part of them.  made also to some visible distinct Body, and Society, or external Communion of them, together with the Congregation of faithful adhering to them; so that all the Clergy shall never, in no Age, universally apostatise; but some of them still remain Orthodox, or also some body of them; and there shall always be a visible Orthodox Church, or Churches, such as hath a right public profession of Christianity, and a true Ministry in it of the Word and Sacraments: so that, according to these Divines, the  Promises 
‖ §. 12.  advance somewhat higher. * That Promise, Mat. 28. signifying, That Christ will be with some or other of his Clergy, in some place or other, for ever, so, as that they shall certainly teach what he hath commanded them— And * that Jo. 14. That they shall so love him, & keep his Commandments, as that his Spirit shall abide with them for ever, & lead them into all Truth [Necessary]— And * that Luk 10. That they shall so faithfully recite the Truths, he committed to them, as that those who hear them, hear him.  
§. 26 Of this Church and Clergy so assisted, thus Dr. Ferne, 
‖ Division of Engl and Rome. — It cannot be imagined (saith he), that God, who promised to be with them, and guide them, should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church, and preserve it by the Judgement and Conscience of Lay-people: but that some Guides and Pastors, (though of less number and place) still be they, that shall detect prevailing Errors, and preserve the Truth.  
§. 27 To the same purpose is that Testimony of Mr. Hooker, 
‖ 3 l. p. 124 — That God's Clergy are a state, which have been, and will be, as long as there is a Church upon Earth, necessary, by the plain Word of God Himself; a State, whereunto the rest of God's people must be subject, as touching things that appertain to their Soul's health. For where Policy is, it cannot but approve some to be leaders of others, and some to be led by others. [This Clergy then, to have thus a perpetual Being, must never err in Fundamentals; and therefore it will be irrational to deny them, in these, to be a perpetual, secure, and unerring Guide.]  
§. 28 To the same purpose speaks Archbishop Lawd, 
‖ §. 37. p. 318 — There must be (saith he) some one Church or other continually visible.— For if this be not so, then there may be a time, in which there shall not any any where be a visible Profession of the Name of Christ, which is contrary to the whole scope and profession of the Gospel.— And this (saith he) such a visible Church, as hath in all Ages taught the unchanged Faith of Christ, in all Points fundamental 
‖ Numb. 3, 5 — And thus Dr. Field also 
‖ 1 l. 10. c. p. 14. 15.  affirms; That the Church is always visible in respect of the Order of Ministry; and due obedience yielded thereunto; and them discernible, that do communicate therein— and below— That always an open, known, and constant Profession of saving Truth is preserved and found among Men, and the Ministry of Salvation continued and known in the World: for how (saith he) should there be a Church gathered without a Ministry 
‖ See 2 l. 6 c. . And in the Preface to his whole Book of the Church, he discourseth on this manner.— Seeing the Controversies of Religion, in our times, are grown in number so many, and in matter so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them, what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which, amongst all the Societies of the World, is that blessed Company of Holy ones, that Household 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 Judgement. Thus he.  
§. 29 And thus far went Mr. Calvin long ago; holding, that there is a visible Society, consisting of Clergy and Laity, which is the only Church Catholic; the Pillar and Ground of Truth; and the visible external Communion thereof to be continued in. See his Instit. 4, l. 1. c. 2. §. upon the Article [Credo sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam]— ' Ecclesia (saith he) ideò Catholica dicitur, seu universalis; quia non duas, aut tres invenire liceat, quin discerpatur Christus, quod fieri non potest— 4 §.— In Symbolo, ubi profitemur nos credere Ecclesiam, id non solùm ad visibilem, de quâ nunc agimus, refertur, sed ad omnes quoque electos Dei [therefore this Article relateth to a Church visible, and visible in all Ages]— Quia nunc de visibili Ecclesiâ disserere propositum est, discamus vel uno Matris [that it is termed a Mother] Elogio; quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio, immo necessaria: quando non alius est in vitam ingressus, nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero, nisi pariat, etc. Add quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio, etc. [such a visible Mother-Church than it seems there is in all Ages, some where or other, as that none can enter into life, that are not numbered among her children, and enclosed within her bosom]— 7. §.— Quemadmodum ergo nobis invisibilem solius Dei oculis conspicuam— Ecclesiam credere necesse est; ita hanc, quae respectu hominum, Ecclesia dicitur, observare, ejusque communionem colere jubemur [i.e. Communionem externam, visibilem, Ecclesiae visibilis]— 10. §.— Cujus authoritatem spernere,— vel castigationes ludere, nemini impunè licet; & multo minus— ejus abrumpere unitatem [authoritatem, castigationes; he must mean of the Clergy, and the spiritual Governors, thereof]— Sic enim [Dominus] ejus authoritatem commendat, ut dum illa violatur; suam ipsius imminutam censeat. Neque enim parvi momenti est, quod vocatur columna, & firmamentum, veritatis, & domus Dei. Quibus verbis significat Paulus, ne intercidat Veritas Dei in mundo, Ecclesiam [visibilem] esse fidam ejus custodem [and that in all Ages, else intercideret veritas]; quia ejus ministerio, & operâ voluit Deus puram verbi sui praedicationem conservari.— Vnde sequitur discessionem ab Ecclesia Dei, & Christi abnegationem esse.— 8. §.— Proinde, quatenus eam agnoscere nostrâ intererat, Dominus certis notis, & quasi Symbolis nobis designavit— 10. §.— Symbola Ecclesiae dignoscendae, verbi praedicationem [sinceram,] Sacramentorumque observationem [ex Christi Instituto. See § 9] posuimus— 11. §— Ne sub Ecclesiae titulo impostura nobis fiat, ad illam probationem, seu ad Lydium lapidem, exigenda est omnis Congregatio, quae Ecclesiae nomen obtendit— 2. l. 4. §.— Minimè permovere nos debet inanis hic fulgor [Romanensium], ut Ecclesiam esse recipiamus, ubi verbum Dei non apparet.— 7. §.— Quis ausit eum coetum, nullâ cum exceptione, Ecclesiam appellare, ubi verbum Domini palàm, & impunè conculcatur? etc.— [Thus Calvin, in this place, (but how constant elsewhere to this doctrine, I say not) of the authority of, and the obedience due to, a permanent visible Church, which is Columna, & Firmamentum veritatis, and which is Governed by Christ's Orthodox Ministers of the Word and Sacraments: which Church he affirmeth to be the Reformed, and not the Roman. Concerning the Church then, Which is It, he, and the Roman Catholics differ; but not in the Obedience due to the Church, if he may name it.] Lastly, were Protestants in this matter altogether silent, yet those essential Notes or Marks they give of the true Church, The true preaching of God's Word, and right Administration of the Sacraments, always to be found in the Church, do infer a Clergy, (to whom only both these Offices do belong) as well as a people, always Orthodox.  
§. 30 But here again; so long as these Divines do still, together with the former, deny the promise of such a perpetual divine assistance to Superior persons, 
Reply. Where. That the subordinate Clergy can be no Guide to Christians, when opposing the Superior; nor a few opposing a much major part.  or Synods of the Clergy in respect of Inferiors, or to a major part of a Synod in respect of a lesser, that holdeth or teacheth contrary, (which Superiors, and major part only, in such cases, must be the Christians Guide) a thing warranted by as universal a Tradition and Practice, as any Fundamental whatever of Church-Government; and whilst they do affirm this assistance, continued only to some Clergy or other always, but how inconsiderable a party for number, or dignity, in respect of the rest, they know, nor matter not; In saying this, they in effect say no more than the former; This Clergy, which they affirm unfailing in necessaries, being, in such a case, only private persons, not Guides to others, no not to their own Flocks: who (according to the Traditive Constitution of Church-Government) are not to hear their own private Pastors, teaching contrary to the definitions of Superior Prelates, or Councils, or in a Council, a lesser part voting contrary to a major; not to hear an Arrian Bishop teaching contrary to the Council of Nice; nor the Patriarch Nestorius and Dioscorus, and their Adherents, voting contrary to the Council of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, (of this see what is said more at large in the second Discourse §. 23. etc.) And therefore, if the Promises are interpreted in this their manner, the people, in following the Superior, the major part, (the Traditive Rule of Obedience always observed in the Church) sometimes will be tied to obey only those of the Clergy, to whom Christ denies such assistance, and to disobey those, who have it.  
§. 31 Neither matters it much (as to constitute them a Guide any more for this) though this supposed Orthodox Clergy, in whom our Saviour's promise is said to be preserved, be all too of one distinct Communion, and one particular Church, or Nation; and these too the whole Clergy of that Church. Because the whole Church, through the whole world, is but one body governed by one Law of Christ; neither hath any, against the whole, more reason to adhere to his own particular Church, (when separating) as to a Guide, because his own, than to any other; unless he hath some greater assurance of its non-erring, than of any others; and besides, what reason in this kind he hath to take that particular Church, wherein he lives, for his Guide, the same have all other Christians, living elsewhere, to refuse it for theirs; and do adhere to their own particular Church: and thus, if he, by such obedience, light on truth, they by the same obedience will be necessitated to Error. Again, if (suppose) twenty six Bishops of several Nations, opposing an Ecumenical Council, cannot be a Guide to all Christians, much less can they, if all these of one Church, or Nation; because here is more dependence one on another; and so a just fear of less integrity. Lastly, if these, against the whole, can have any authority; the proceed of General Councils in condemning, and exercising Ecclesiastical Censures against them, as subjects to those Courts, have been unjust, (which yet those General Councils, universally allowed, have used, not only against Bishops, but Patriarches, and the Clergy joined with them); And the Church's Decrees, thus, will be necessarily obligatory never, but when the Governors thereof (to a man, or to every particular Church, or Society of Churchmen) are all of a mind. Neither can the people, (when the Ecclesiastical Court, (which consists of many Judges) is any way divided, tell, which to obey, if our Saviour's Promise be only to some certain Guides, we know not in how small a number, because they know not, whether our Saviour's promise of Indefectibility even in necessaries belongs not to the more inconsiderable part thereof. He that appoints us to follow a Guide in what it shall enjoin us, and then leaves us no way (when our Guide consists not of one, but many persons, and particular Churches; and when two parties of them contradict one another, and guide us contrary ways) to know, which of them is to be our Guide; it is all one, as if he left us no Guide: and he that ties us, besides our own judgement, in doubtful matters to obey, and follow, only some Ecclesiastical person or other, not obliging us to the most, or major part, to the Superior rather, than an inferior, person, or Court, revolves our obedience, in any division of our Governors, only to our own Judgement; (i. e.) to choose that side which we judge is most conformable to Scripture; as we follow the Counsel of that friend, who, we think, speaks most reason, (But can this be called any obebedience to his authority?) and then, left to this choice, what opinion can ourselves take up, that is so absurd, in which we cannot find some Clergy or other for our Leaders?  
This concerning these Protestant-Divines, allowing an absolute Promise of Indefectibility (as to Necessaries) made to, and always verified in, some Persons, or also some Body, and Society, or other, of the Clergy, i.e. of the Church-Guides; but not to these always in such a capacity, as that they are, in the Church's constitutions and traditions, to be our Guides; these Orthodox-Guides (as they suppose) being perhaps in some Ages, a very small number, nor those of the highest rank, in comparison of the rest.   

CHAP. V.  
III. Other Expressions of Protestant-Divines, granting the Church's Prelacy, as defining her Doctrines, Or the General Councils of them, to be unerrable in Necessaries, §. 32 when accepted by the Church Universal §. 32. The Expressions of * Dr. Potter §. 33. * Of Bishop Bramhall §. 34. Where, 
III. 3. Other expressions of Protestant-Divines, granting the Church's Clergy, as defining her doctrines, Or the General Councils of them, to be unerrable in necessaries: But then only, when universally accepted, no considerable persons, or at least Churches, dissenting.  concerning what Judgement of the Church sufficiently obligeth her subjects, in respect, 1st, of the Church-Catholick diffusive §. 36. n. 1. 2ly, of Councils General §. 36. n. 3. 3ly, of Councils Occidental §. 36. n. 8. Where, particularly of the Freedom of the Council of Trent §. 36. n. 9 * Of Bishop Lawd. §. 37. Where, concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church-diffusive is only necessary §. 38. * Of Dr. Field §. 40.  
III. BUt thirdly, several other Expressions may be found in some of them, wherein they would seem to go further yet, and to allow; That the Church-Catholick taken in general, or in her greatest Body of Clergy, as she is a Canonical Guide, and as she teacheth and defineth doctrines, can never err in Necessaries or Fundamentals. But, whether all their expressions cohere one with another; or whether their opinion, when strongly assaulted, will not retreat and resolve itself into the first, or second, already explained, I conclude nothing.  
§. 33 For this, see, first, that of Dr. Potter, §. 2. p. 28.— Where he saith, 
Expressions Of Dr. Potter. — The Church Catholic is confessed in some sense [(i. e.) in Fundamentals, as he explaineth it afterward, §. 5. p. 148, etc.] too be unerring: and he is little better than a Pagan that despiseth her judgement. For she follows her Guides, the Prophets and Apostles: and is not very free and forward in her Definitions. [Here we hear of Definitions, and judgement of the Church Catholic that are to be followed; Therefore (I infer) that such judgement may be known.] So §. 4. p. 97.— The Catholic Church (saith he) is careful to ground all her Declarations in matters of Faith, upon the Divine authority of Gods written Word; and therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretic. [Then he addeth] not properly, because he disobeys the Church; but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded, or cleared unto him. [Where I do not see, but that whoso believeth this in general (as all aught) that the Church Catholic always groundeth her Declarations, in matters of Faith, on Divine Authority, though every particular Declaration of hers is not cleared to him, that it is so well grounded, yet must needs wilfully, and self-convicted, oppose her judgement, and so incur Heresy; But, however he is, or is not, an Heretic, who dissents from such Decrees; yet, by the Doctor, all those, it seems, are secured, as for necessary Truth, that do obey and adhere to them.] And (§ 5. p. 169.)— If in any thing (saith he) General Councils err and mistake; the Universal Church hath means of remedy, either by antiquating those Errors with a general and tacit consent, [General Consent: therefore such Decree of a General Council, to tender it non-obligatory, must be, at least tacitly, reversed by a major part of the Church Catholic; else, if any single Church's reversion serves the turn to annul the Obligation thereof, no Churches are obliged to such Decrees further than they please.] Or by representing herself again in another General Council, which may view, and correct the Defects of the former. [Hear are two ways of the Church Catholick's correcting the Errors of her Representative, the Council. 1. Either by, generally, not observing, or practising their Decrees. 2. Or by condemning them by another Representative: therefore I gather, where the Church Catholic neither by another general Council contradicts such assembly; nor, in her most general practice, or Doctrines, varies from its Decrees, the definitions and judgement of such a General Council are admitted as the definitions and judgement of the Church Catholic: Or else there is no way of knowing what, or which, are so.]— Ib. After that (p. 141.) he hath spoken of the present Church-Catholick, her being as a Candlestick to present, and hold out the light to us; and (p. 143.) of her being a witness, and an Instrument for working Faith in us; he (p. 148, 149, 156.) accords, as he saith, with some moderate Roman Writers, That the Extent of the Infallibility of this Church [i. e. in defining, p. 156.] reacheth too all matters Essential and fundamental, simply necessary for the Church to know and believe. But, not so to all her Doctrines, and Definitions.— And, p. 155. The Universal Church (saith he) hath not the like assurance from Christ, that she shall not err in unnecessary additions, as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is fundamental, and necessary: [Where; Defining, Adding, Taking away, etc. argue, that he speaks here of the present Church Catholic, (which he affirms to be infallible in Fundamentals,) in relation to the main Body of her Governour's being so.]  
§. 34 Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 9  speaks much what on the same manner— If (saith he) of two particular Churches, 
Of Bishop Bramhall.  the one retain a communion with the Universal Church, and be ready to submit to the Determinations thereof; the other renounce the communion of the Universal Church, and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and Decrees thereof, the former continues Catholic, and the latter becomes Schismatical; Or as he expresseth it, in Schism-guarded, p. 2.— That Church which shall not outwardly acquiesce, after a Legal Determination, and cease to disturb the Christian Unity, though her Judgement may be sound, yet her practice is schismatical.— And afterward.— We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the Judgement of the truly Catholic Church, and its lawful Representative, a free General Council. [Hear the Bishops submitting and standing to the judgement, and determinations of the Church Universal, or a free General Council, were it now called, argues him to hold the present Church Catholic, in such Councils, as a Guide, and Lawgiver; infallible in Fundamentals; or at least whose judgement in all points is finally to be stood to so far, as not to contradict it; and his pronouncing Schismatics to be no Catholics, argues, that this Church Universal may be also narrower, than Christianity is] Add to this, what he saith below, p. 26.— That, by disbelieving any Fundamental Article, or necessary part of saving Faith, in that sense, in which it was evermore received, and believed by the Universal Church, a man renders himself guilty of Heresy. [Here he declares one an Heretic not only in his disbelieving a necessary point of Faith, but in disbelieving in in that sense, wherein the Church Catholic hath always believed it: which sense (in the former quotation) he holds, is to be received, and learned from her Councils.] Again; In his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, speaking of the Catholic Church in present Being, he saith, 
‖ p. 279. — I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholic Church diffused over the world doth believe and practise.— And afterward— Though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement, I do farther profess my readiness to submit to the right Catholic Church, [in present bein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me, and— Ibid. in the Preface— I submit (saith he) myself, and my poor endeavours, first to the judgement of the Catholic, Ecumenical, Essential Church.— And if I should mistake the right Catholic Church out of humane frailty, or ignorance (which for my part I have no reason to suspect, yet it is not impossible, etc.) [therefore Catholic doth not necessarily include all Sects professing Christianity] I do implicitly, and in the preparation of my mind, submit myself to the true Catholic Church; the Spouse of Christ; the Mother of the Saints; the pillar of Truth.— And after this, he professeth— That his adherence is firmer to the infallible Rule of Faith (the holy Scriptures) interpreted by this Catholic Church [i. e. firmer to its interpretation] than to his own private judgement— So, in his Reply to S. W. p. 43.— We acknowledge (saith he) the Representative Church, that is, a General Council; and the Essential Church, that is, the multitude, or multitudes of Believers, either of all ages, which make the Symbolical Church; or of this age, which makes the present Catholic Church.— And Ib.— We are ready to believe, and practise, whatsoever the Catholic Church even of this present Age, doth universally believe, and practise 
‖ See Schism guarded, p. 398. . [Surely, from these Protestations it follows; * that he supposeth that such a Church there is in this present age, that may deliver her judgement: Else his promise to believe, and to submit to it, is utterly unsignificant; and * that he holds this Church not errable in Fundamentals, else her judgement in them could not by him be safely followed.  
— And if you would know also, 
§. 35. n. 1.  what present Body he understandeth by this present Catholic Church, to which he will yield his submission and belief, he tells the Bishop of Chalcedon 
‖ p. 279.  That it is not the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependants; but the Church of the whole world, Roman, Grecian, Armenian, Abyssine, Russian, Protestant, which Churches, [i. e. Grecian, etc.] are three times greater than the Roman is. But, if you think the present Church Catholic in this vast amplitude, a Judge not likely to resolve his doubts; He in the Preface to his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, very conscientiously adds also,— I submit myself to the Representative Church, a free General Council, or so general, as can be procured; And in pursuance of the same Notion of General, (Schism Guarded, p. 350.) he saith,— That the presence of the five Proto-patriarches, and their Clergy, either in their persons, or by their Suffrages, or, in case of necessity, the greater part of them do make a General Council.— And— That we may well hope, that God who hath promised, that where two or three are gathered together in his Name, there will he be in the midst of them, will vouchsafe to give his assistance, and his blessing to such a Council, which is as general as may be; although perhaps it be not so exactly general, as hath been; or might have been now, if the Christian Empire had flourished still: as it did anciently. In sum, That he shall ever be ready to acquiesce in the Determination of a Council so General as is possible to be had; so it may be equal, etc. Naming several conditions thereof;— Equal Votes of Christian Nations— Absents sending their Suffrages,— The place free, whither all parties may have secure access, and liberty to propose freely, and define freely— yet consenting 
‖ p. 352. — That none declared Heretics by former true General Councils be admitted to any vote in them; and 
‖ p. 401.  that all those be held for excluded from the communion of the Catholic Church, whom undoubted General Councils have excluded. He adds yet further, reflecting on Dr. Hammond's words 
‖ Answ. to Catho. Gentl. 3 c. §. 1. — That Ecumenical, or General Councils are now morally impossible to be had; The Christian world being under so many Empires [and some of them enemies to the Christian Religion] and divided into so many Communions, that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled. I say here he adds 
‖ Schism guarded, p. 352. — That because it is not credible, that the Turk will send his Subjects, that is, four of the Proto-patriarches with their Clergy to a General Council, or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendom in a General Council, it being a thing so much against his own Interest; that therefore, if these Patriarches do deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters, or by Messengers, this is enough to make a Council General.— And— That, as there have been General Oriental Councils Without the personal presence of a Western Bishop; so there may be an Occidental Council [I add General] without the Personal Presence of one Eastern Bishop, by the sole communication of their Sense and their Faith.  
And, for the calling also of this General Council, 
§. 35. n. 2.  he saith 
‖ Ib. p. 356. — That if the Pope have any right, either to convocate General Councils himself, or to represent to Christian Sovereign's the fit Seasons for Convocation of them, either in respect of his beginning of unity, or of his Protopatriarchate, he doth not envy it him, since there may be a good use of it, in respect of the division of the Empire; so good caution be observed.— And before, p. 91. he saith,— That at present he will not dispute, whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order, or beginning of Unity, may lawfully call an Ecumenical, or Occidental Council by power purely spiritual, which consists rather in advice, than in mandates properly so called; or in mandates of courtesy, not coactive in the exterior Court of the Church: that, considering the division, and subdivision of the ancient Empire; and the present distraction of Christendom, it seemeth not altogether inconvenient. That the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods, and make Canons, before there were any Christian Emperors; but that was by authority merely spiritual; they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will; and the uttermost they could do, was to separate him [I suppose, he meaneth who contemned their summons, or their Canons] from their communion, and to leave him to the coming or judgement of Christ. Ib. p. 120. He seems to allow the Church-governors a right to summon Councils, where there are no Christian Sovereigns to do it, [i. e. that will do it] and to make Canons such as the Primitive Bishops made, before there were Christian Emperors. [Only I hope he will, consequently, allow further (what was done also by these Church-governors in the Primitive times;) that, if Ecclesiastical Governors have authority, as need requires, to summon such a Meeting, they may appoint some place for it; which place will always be in some Prince's temporal Dominions; and that, if they may make Canons, they may divulge, and send abroad their Laws, and Canons to the Church's Subjects, upon spiritu●l censures inflicted on the disobedient; which must be also amongst some temporal Prince his Subjects; for so did the Governors of the first Council 
‖ Act. 15.  appoint the place of their Meeting, Jerusalem; and sent abroad their Canons amongst the Emperor's Subjects; both, contrary to the then secular Powers; and this without entrenching on any ones Politic Rights.]  
The Bishop having condescended to thus much concerning General Councils; 
§. 35. n. 3.  he yields further 
‖ Reply to Chalced, presat. ; That, until such Council [the most general that is procurable] he submits himself to the Church of England, wherein he was baptised, or to a National English Syxod. But here he makes too great a leap, (though perhaps he had some reason for it) in removing his Submission immediately from a General, to a National Synod of his own Church; for between these lies a Patriarchal, or Occidental Synod, to which he ought to submit; the just authority also of which, above a National Synod, he elsewhere both freely maintaineth 
‖ Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 258. ; and, though not here, yet elsewhere, he also refers his trial to it.— There is nothing (saith he, Schism Guarded, p. 136.) that we long after more, than a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding; or, in defect of that, a free Occidental Council, as General as may be, But then, we would have the Bishop to renounce that Oath [to the Pope] that hath been obtruded upon them. Lastly, Concerning the quality of Obedience due to such Councils, even in nonfundamentals, he saith 
‖ Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 27. ,— That, as to Questions none fundamental, when these are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians, though they cannot assent in their judgement, 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 Heretics; where also he makes this the fourth way of rendering one's self guilty of Heretical pravity, I suppose because, though the Councils Determination in his opinion makes no point Heresy, yet at least it equals the crime of the Opposer to that of an Heretic.  
I have been somewhat copious in giving you the condescensions of this Bishop, 
§. 36. n. 1.  not to make advantage of what a single Author indulgeth, 
Reply. Where. Conc. what Judgement of the Church sufficiently obligeth.  but because they seem no greater than reason requireth, and what all Protestants, allowing a Church-Government, aught to stand to; and therefore I desire your leave, before I proceed to some other quotations, to reflect a little on this submission of the Bishop's, and to see how far it, truly performed, will rationally carry him, or others, towards a present settlement in many of the points controverted. 1st. Then; This I presume here aught to be granted me, that, in the Bishop's, or others professing a submission to the General, or unanimous, accord of the Church Catholic in any Doctrine, or Practise, this accord ought not to be taken so strictly, either for what is defined by Councils, or accepted by the Church diffusive, as that, if any particular Person, Church, or Party, (perhaps his own) that is held Catholic, dissent in any thing from all the rest, being a much major part in respect thereof, and joined also with the supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church, and Primate of the Patriarches, he shall account himself discharged from Obedience, or deny such a Consent to be sufficiently General and Unanimous to oblige him. Concerning which, see more Disc. 2. §. 25. and before §. 31.  
2. This premised; Come we now to the Bishop's submissions, 
§. 36. n. 2.  which are promised, 1st. To the present Church Catholic, viz. To all things universally believed, or practised by it, 2 . To Free General, 3 . Or also free Occidental Councils. Which to review in their Order.  

In respect of the Church Catholic diffusive.  1st. Here he professeth 
‖ Schism — We are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholic Church of this present Age doth believe and practise: Here, if he meaneth, the Protestants are ready to believe, and practise whatsoever all the Catholic Church of this present Age, 
Guarded, p. 98 3  besides them, doth believe, and practise, and understands a Consent of this Catholic Church according to the former explication thereof, which is but reasonable; Then 1st. I refer you to what is said in the third Discourse, §. 26: whether, for the most of the modern Controversies, the whole Catholic Church, I mean the main body both of the Oriental, and Occidental Churches, (especially as to the Guides, and Governors thereof, who only have authority of voting, and giving Laws in the Church's highest Consultations, and to whose Judgement Inferiors in spiritual matters ought to conform) at the coming of Luther, did not, and do not still, agree in their opinion in many things, now opposed by Protestants, and then by Luther, and a few others; who sided not with, or joined themselves to, any, though lesser, part of the then Church-governors, Eastern, or Western, but freely acknowledged their discession à toto mundo. See below, §. 55. n. 4. [Which made Luther sometimes thus to utter the Objections of his Conscience within, and of the Church without— Quot medicamentis (saith he 
‖ Praefat. de de abroganda Missa privata. ) quam potentibus, & evidentissimis Scripturis meam ipsius conscientiam vix dùm stabilivi, ut auderem unus contradicere Papae, & credere eum esse Antichristum, Episcopos ejus esse Apostolos, Academias esse ejus Lupanaria? Quoties mihi palpitavit tremulum cor, & reprehendens objecit corum fortissimum & unicum Argumentum? Tu solus sapis? Totne errand universi?— And elsewhere 
‖ In Galat. 1 11, 12. — Ecclesia sic sentit, & credit; Impossibile est autem, quòd Christus tot saesulis Ecclesiam suam errare sinat. Tu certè solus non sapis plus, quam tot sancti viri, & tota Ecclesia— And— Sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritatem amamus illaesam Ea tot saeculis sic sentit, & docuit; sic senserunt, & docuerunt omnes primitivae Ecclesiae dectores, viri sanctissimi multo majores, & dectiores te. Quis tu es, qui ansis, ab omnibus his dissentire, & nobis diversum dogma obtrudere? To which the sum of the Answer he gives (I pray you see the place) is— Neque mihi, neque Ecclesiae, neque Patribus, neque Apostolis, neque Angelo è Coelo credendum est, si quid contra Dei verbum docemus.— And— Quisque igitur videat, ut certissimus sit de suâ vocatione, & doctrina. As for those Answers * of Dr. Field 
‖ p. 82. 880. ,— That the Doctrines, which Luther, and the Protestants oppose, were not the generally received Doctrines of the present Catholic Church, but only of a prevalent Faction in it; Or * of Mr Stillingfleet ‖,— That, if they were Doctrines generally received, 
p. 368.  yet they were not Catholic Doctrines, but generally received in the nature of an Opinion: I say, such Answers were not then thought on; or not thought fit to be made use of. For what ground is there, to call all those Church-governors of the present Age that have power to vote in Councils, and steer the Church, only a prevalent Faction in it? Or to say those Doctrines, or Practices, which none could then oppose without incurring the Church's Censures, (for so Luther and others did, before the Council of Trent), were only generally received in the nature of an Opinion.] 2ly. But next; if all the points, that are pretended, are not found to have been generally believed, or practised in the Church-Catholick at Luther's appearance; yet if two or three of them appear to be so; according to the Bishop's Concession here, to so many will the Protestants stand obliged in a conformity of their Belief, and Practice; nor can they excuse their dissent from these, because a dissent in more than these is falsely laid to their charge. But 3ly. If at lest what is contained in the public Liturgies, and Missals (to which all are obliged to conform) both of the Eastern, and Western Church may be said to be of universal Belief, and Practice, Protestants, by this Profession, are bound, herein at least, to believe, and practice with the rest, And why then, do they compose new Liturgies? why absent themselves from the old? Is it not, that these contain something in them, to which they cannot thus conform? 4. Lastly, For points no way enjoined, yet if such (either speculative, or practical) do appear, so far as our Examination can discover to us, not only to be tolerated, but justified, and maintained either by the whole, or a much major part of the Church Catholic united with the Prime Apostolic Chair, it seems here necessary, that no particular person, or Church, do decretally censure any such Points as Errors in Doctrine, or Practice; or do any way oblige their Inferiors to think, or profess them to be so, which this much major part alloweth, and practiseth. If liberty to think, teach, or practice otherwise, according to their Opinion, in a point yet no way defined, or enjoined, may be granted to such a minor part; yet not a liberty to define against it, or pronounce it an Error in matter of Faith; for this cannot be done without such minor condemning the much major part, joined with the prime Patriarch; which small part's condemning both the superior, and much greater, if it be allowed, destroys Church-Government.  
2. After this first Submission. 
§. 36. n. 3.  wherein the Bishop seems to engage the Protestants Belief, 
2. * Of Councils General.  and Practice to any thing which is generally believed, and practised by the Catholic Church, though it be not also conciliarly defined; if, next, we come to the Church's Councils. Here also he makes fair promises of submission, (I mean as to external Obedience, and noncontradiction.) And 1st. In respect of a Council General he is not in every thing so nice, or exceptions, as some other Protestants be. He, 1st. not exacting, that this Council should be so absolutely general, as that any Heretics should be admitted; such, as true General Councils have evidently declared to be Heretics; or such as will not pronounce Anathema against all old Heresies 
‖ Schism guarded, p. 352. , [I suppose he means, all which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted General Councils.] 2ly Nor, that all the five Proto-patriarches should be present there, four of them, and their Clergy being under the power of the Turk; but granting it sufficient, if the sense, and Suffrages of them, and their Churches, be delivered by Messengers, or Letters. 3. As for the calling also of this Council, considering the division, and sub-division of the ancient Empire, and the present distraction of Christendom [i. e. as to the Princes thereof their altogether contrary Interests] he is well enough content, that the prime Patriarch summon it; [and then, upon this conceded, I think I may add, as evident from what is said before, §. 35. n. 2. that the same Patriarch may both appoint some place of meeting, and also, such Council met, divulge, and upon spiritual Censures, require to be observed, its Decrees concerning matters merely spiritual, whether, meanwhile, the secular Powers favour, or frown; I say, appoint some place; which place, since it must be within the Dominions, and under the Power of some particular Prince, and farther distant from some particular Churches than others, it cannot be expected, that it shall ever be so fitly chosen, as equally to serve all Interests, or remedy all Inconveniences; and therefore supposing, free access, free proposal, and voting, for all Prelates that come, the post-acceptation must make amends for the necessity of many Prelate's, or also Church's, absence.  
Things thus far conceded by him concerning General Councils, 
§. 36. n. 4.  that, which I have chief to except against, is this. 1st. In his reckoning up the Clergy of the Roman, Grecian, Armenian, Abyssine, Russian, Protestant Churches, as constituting the entire body of such a general Council, and affirming, that the rest of them are a body three times greater than the Roman, including the Western Churches joined with it 
‖ See before § 35. , he seems much to miscount. For 1st. Several of the Protestant Churches, viz. so many as have deposed Bishops, and constituted a Presbyterial Government, for any thing I can see, are very clearly concluded by Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Ferne, to be Schismatics; and that from, and against, their Spiritual Superiors; 
‖ See Disc. 2.  and that from, and against, their Spiritual Superiors; 
§ 24. n. 2.  which Schism excludes them from being true Members of the Church Catholic, or having place in her General Councils, especially, since their Clergy also are no Bishops, (See Bishop Bramhall, Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 9 opposing Catholic, and Schismatical, as he doth elsewhere Catholic, and Heretical.) But then, as for the Bishops of other Protestant Churches, neither can they escape the same imputation of Schism by the same Dr. Hammonds Concession, if those Councils (mentioned below, §. 50. n. 2.) whose Authority, and Decrees they have rejected, be truly their Superiors; nor yet Heresy in the Catholic account, or perhaps in Bishop Bramhall's (considering what he saith, Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 27. quoted before, §. 36. and Schism Guarded, p. 352.) if any of these Councils be Legally General.  
2. Next: As for several of those Eastern, and Southern Churches that are brought in by the Bishop to enlarge the Church Catholic in comparison of the Roman Catholic; 
§. 36. n. 5.  they are a Mass of many several Sects (of which see what is said more at large in Disc. 3. §. 1.76, etc.) such as, after the Council of Chalcedon, some sooner, some later, deserting their former Patriarch, have since ranged themselves under several Patriarches of their own, residing in several Cities of the East; the different Sects having set up in later times, without any Conciliar Authority acting in it, no less than seven or eight Independent Patriarches. They stand divided both from the Latin and Greek Church, and also from one another, in several Tenants concerning our Lords, Person, Natures, and Wills; many of those dispersed in the more Eastern parts, Assyria, Mesopotamia, etc. suspected (as Dr. Field 
‖ Of the Church, p. 62.  acknowledgeth) of Nestorianisme somewhat qualified; many of the Southern, as the Egyprians, or Cophtites, Ethiopians, or Abyssines, (as to their Religion dependent on the former) suspected (as the same Dr. Field relateth 
‖ Ib. p. 64, 66 ) of Eutychianisme, or rather of Dioscorism (who was Patriarch of Alexandria, and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon); divers of them also, amongst other extravagant Rites, retaining Circumcision. If this than be true, which this Doctor relates; though they be not perfect Eutychians and Nestorians in their Opinions, yet such they are, as do transgress against the Faith, and Definitions, of the third and fourth General Council; the later of which Councils the greatest body of them expressly rejects (See Dr. Field, p. 70, 71.) No reason then can Bp. Bramhall have, to admit these to a Suffrage in a Catholic General Council. And if it be said 
‖ See Dr. Field, l. 3. c. 5. , that most of them, in such illiterate Regions, are only, through invincible ignorance, material, not formal, Heretics; and therefore are not so unmercifully to be cut off from the Catholic Church, it is to be remembered; that we speak not here of cutting off either them (or also Protestants) so many as are invincibly ignorant, from being internally still members of the Church, and of the Body of Christ, and possibly capable of salvation; but of their having externally no right (being involved in such Tenants) to officiate in the Government of the Church, or vote in its Councils; from which Councils in expelling Heretics, the Church can only look to the external profession thereof; and to which suppose a Material Heretic admitted, his ignorance would be, as to voting, as much the bane of Truth there, as the formal Heretics pertinacy.  
But 3 lie. were they never so good Catholics; 
§. 36. n. 6.  yet their Body and bulk, (taking in the Greek Church also) as for those residing in the Turks dominions, is far from being so considerably great, as it is made. Where, especially for the former Prelacy, the oppression is so great, these Dignities so set to sale, and their means and revenue so alienated, and most of the Metropolies in Asia so ruined, as that the bare title (only now descending) of many of the Ancient Sees is neglected, and the succession in them ceased: And, though the territory is much vaster, yet it may reasonably be presumed, that, abstracting those which in these parts are adherents to the Roman Communion (as the Marointes a long time have been) there are more Canonical Prelates, and perhaps Christians, in some small part of Europe, than there are throughout all Turkey; where also the chief Supporters of the Christian-Religion are mostly Regulars and Monks, no welcome Colleagues for the Protestants to join with. 
‖ See brerewood's Inquiries. 10. c.— Botero Relat Universal— Rel. del. Gr. Turco.  The chief and most united Body of these Eastern Christians is in Greece. which Boterus (but long ago) conjectured might make up two thirds of the inhabitants there; And, as for those more remote, divers of them, by the diligent missions of several Religious Orders of the Roman Profession out of Europe into those parts, (who, by the Merchant's help, procure houses of constant residence there) have been from time to time reduced to the Unity of the Roman faith and communion, as appears in the relation of these Missions. See Spondan. Annal. A. D. 1616. 8. and Dr. Field p. 63. what hath happened in the more Eastern Churches since A. D. 1550. And as their number small, so is learning there, by reason of extreme poverty, very much decayed 
‖ See Roger. Recollect. Terr. Saint 2 l. Tract. 4, 5.— Thomas à jesus dé conv. Gent.— 6 l. p 285. . So that he must now adhere to the Western, who would adhere either to the major, part of Christianity, or to the learned. And it seems a great tergiversation and distrust in their cause, for any person, or Church, of this Western-flourishing Body, to fly and retire to such remote Confederates, some of them almost our Antipodes: and to decline the judgement (that is easily had) of the same Western-Body, which hath a Conclusive authority, in respect of any part thereof, for controversies arising within this Patriarchat; and which was always, by reason of the Presidency of S. Peter's chair, the most dignified part of Christendom; and is the most free at this present time in their exercise of Religion; the most unmolested in their Government and Discipline; the most flourishing in Learning and Records of Antiquity; and lastly, which by their numerous Clergy, and Populacy. and the extent also of several members of their Body into all those parts, where these other Churches reside, do seem by much the greatest part of Christianity.  
4. But 4ly, how numerous soever these Eastern Christians be, or how good their title to give their Suffrages in Councils, yet, 
§. 36. n. 7.  there seems no great advantage, that can arise to the Protestant-party hence, all these Churches in their public Liturgies, Doctrines, and Rites, as to the Protestant-controversies, much what agreeing with the Greek Church 
‖ See 3d Disc. §. 158. etc.— 177, etc. ; and this again with the Roman.  
5. Lastly, this consent and agreement of the Greek, and other Eastern Churches, or the greatest part of them, with the Roman in the forenamed Controversies, appearing in their Liturgies, Writings, common Practices, and these not borrowed from the West, between which, and them, there is known to have been for many Ages no great Friendship, seems sufficient to render the Occidental Councils, wherein these Points have been decided, either General, or Equivalent thereto, without those Letters or Messages which the Bishop requires as necessary from these Churches; which Letters depend on the assembling of some inferior Synods Diocesan, or Provincial, among them; a thing in so great a Desolation, not to be expected. Yet, before the Turks last Conquests, in some of these Western Councils, that have determined some of these points, there hath been a considerable Representative of the Eastern Churches; as in the Great Lateran Council under Innocent, and in the Florentine. So then stands the case with the Bishop and other Protestants, that, yielding submission to General Councils, they cannot rightly on this account withdraw it from several Councils that have been assembled in the West in later Ages,  
3. But next, this Bishop professeth himself to submit also to the Sentence of an Occidental Council, 
§. 36. n. 8.  if a free one; so that we need not further trouble ourselves to inquire after a more General, 
* 3. Of Councils Occidental.  but search, if any such free Occidental Council hath defined all, or any of the present Controversies, which Council he obligeth the Protestant Churches to acquiesce in; and that with good reason: For the same Authority hath a Patriarchal Council over the National Churches, and Synods of the West, as these claim over Provincial, or Diocesan; the authority of which National Synods see established in the Synod under King James, 1603. Can. 139, 140. And the same Authority of Patriarchal granted by Dr. Field, and others, Disc. 2. §. 24. Now Occidental Councils there have been many, several of them before Luther's days, one since, that have decreed and given their Sentence in several, if not all, of those Points of Controversy, of which yet the Protestants do still, from a free Occidental Council, seek resolution 
‖ See below, § 50. n. 2. . The enquiry than remains concerning their freedom, where also I suppose no greater freedom needs be proved, than, as to the particular Controversies defined against Protestants; For a Council, to which some violence is offered in one thing, which perhaps is, by some potent persons therein, contended for, yet may be left altogether free as to many other things, wherein none have any particular, or all, an equal, interest, 1st. Then, If we inquire into the Western Councils before Luther, that of Franckfort; (Mistakes being removed; concerning which, see Mr. Thorndikes 
‖ Epilog l. 3. p. 363.  Concessions) the great Lateran Council, and those five preceding it, (that defined a substantial conversion in the Eucharist;) the Council of Constance; 
‖ Of Idolatry § 57  and that of Florence, I find nothing objected against their freedom, nor any antifaction then in the Church, as to the Points we speak of, against whom there was any need to procure in the Council a stronger part, or to over-awe any one's liberty: Nor see I any necessity of force to be used upon the Fathers for voting those things lawful, which were their daily practice, or for voting such a thing a truth in their Meeting (as that of a substantial conversion in the Eucharist,) which before their convening (though agitated much, and contradicted by some Inferiors, yet) not one Bishop in the Catholic Church of those times opposed. And if the paucity of the number of Western Bishops in some of these Councils should be alleged as a prejudice to them, the general acceptation of them by those times makes a sufficient amends for it.  
Next, if we take into consideration the freedom of that of Trent, since Luther's time, 
§. 36. n. 9  according to the particulars required by the Bishop 
‖ Before §. 35 n. 1. , there are four things sufficient to remove our jealousy of any violence used for the defining most of those points (I will not say all, to avoid some cavils) controverted by Protestants, concerning which only is our inquiry. They 1st is; That however some of those points may be pretended to have been voted at first as it were surreptiously by a very small Body of Bishops, and many of those of one Nation; yet both a full Body of Bishops afterwards in the Conclusion of the Council, unanimously agreeing, ratified these; and the General Body of the absent Prelaces of all the Western Churches (except Protestants), and those of France amongst the rest, accepted them. The 2d, That Soave, no friend to this Council, yet testified, that, as to the Protestant, or Lutheran controversies, the votes of the Fathers of that Council were very unanimous, without any cloak-bag expected from Rome; without any dispute or contracts, either between themselves, or with the Pope, (though, about some other points, there was much.)  
See Soave p. 230. where, speaking of the Councils using ambiguity of expression in some matters wherein was some diversity of opinion among the Fathers, so to satisfy all.— But (saith he) that which hath been related in this particular, & perhaps did happen in many matters, occurred not in condemning the Lutheran opinions, where all did agree with an exquisite Unity— And see him p. 324, 326. Concerning the Father's unanimous Votes of the 2. and 6. Canons of the 13. Sess. touching Transubstantiation and Adoration— See p. 799. 803, their General Agreement and Consent, touching Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images— p. 544, 554, 738. ' Touching the Mass, its being a propitiatory sacrifice, etc.— p. 324, 325, 519. touching the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating only in one kind— p. 348. Touching the necessity of Sacramental Confession for mortal sin— p. 783, 747, 678, 679. ' touching the lawfulness of the Vow of Continency, an universal capacity of the Gift of Chastity, and injunction of Priest's Celibacy. It were easy to add more.  
The 3d, that without such a testimony, if any consider, that the things defined, 
§. 36. n. 10.  of which here is question, were most of them common practices, then, used by all these Prelates (before they were assembled in Trent,) in their several Dioceses, and so for many hundred years formerly; and that the question in the Council to be decided was, whether such practices lawful? [As for instance, whether Communion only in one kind sufficient, and lawful— whether Adoration of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as corporally present, lawful— whether offering the sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood of Christ corporally present, for the living and the dead, lawful— whether a Relative-Veneration of Images; Prayer to Saints; Prayer for the dead, as betterable thereby in their present condition before the day of Judgement, be lawful. (I omit the speculative controversies concerning Justification, Faith, Works, Merit, Work of supererogation, Grace and , Certainty of salvation, Now by the Moderate as it were compounded, and laid aside, the Catholick-doctrine being of late better understood by the reformed); Whether the three Monastic Vows, as also the injunction of Celibacy to the Priest, lawful:— whether Sacramental confession to the Priest by those falling into mortal sin after their regeneration, not only lawful, but necessary] I say, seeing that the question in the Council, in opposition to the new Lutheran doctrines, was, whether these things lawful, which were, then, and in many former Generations, daily practised (Protestant's not denying it), what need of force; of new mandates from Rome; of hiring Suffrages; creating more titular Bishops; Oaths of obedience to the Pope, (which is only of Canonical obedience 
‖ See Bell. de Council 1. l. 21. , and this Oath administered at their Consecration, without any relation to the Council) to procure a prevalent Vote, or that the Prelates should in the Council establish those things, several of which are found in their Missals and Breviaries, [as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Adoration of Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the dead, in the sense ]? But yet if these Fathers of the Council decided these things in such a manner, by compulsion, how came the many more absent Fathers of the Western Churches (and of France with the rest) so freely and voluntarily to accept them? But if it be said, that though such things were generally believed and practised before, yet now the Fathers, by Art and violence, were brought to advance them into matters of Faith; I ask concerning many of these points, what faith required, save that they are lawful, beneficial, & c? which lawfulness all those, that practised them before, (who were the most, if not all,) must also believe before, or else, practised them against Conscience; and which Lawfulness Protestant's denying, had, by this, fallen under the condemnation of this Council, had it voted nothing more, or besides it. Lastly, What former Council had there been in the Church, though never so free, that, for the matters called in question, and decided in it, had not in like manner required Assent, from the Church's Subjects, to their Definitions?  
The 4th. That, though the Protestant Bishops, trespassing, in some points of their Reformation, 
§. 36. n. 11.  against former free Occidental Councils (of which, see below. §. 50. n. 2.) therefore, (either upon the account of Heresy, or of Schism, forfeiting their Right) needed not to be admitted into this Council, yet, had they been received, and that not only to plead their cause, but also to a decisive Vote in the Council, yet the small number of them (some Protestant Churches also having no Bishops) had been inconsiderable in respect of the rest; and so, the determination of things would still have gone the same way. And indeed they were admitted to plead their Cause, both by a safe Conduct granted, and, when they came, no violence offered; But I cannot say on the other side, that no violence was offered to the Council, and that within three weeks after their coming, by the very Princes that sent them; who on a sudden appeared in Arms, against the Emperor, and by their near approach, dispersed this Assembly at Trent, after they had secretly withdrawn from thence their Divines. But, had their coming been serious, and their stay longer, what could they have said here, that they had not formerly written, and that the Council, in these Writings, had not perused? Or by what Arts could they have dissuaded (as they desired 
‖ Soave, p. 642. ) this Venerable Assembly from taking, for their Rule, and Guides, in the Exposition of Scriptures, the Apostolical Traditions; former Councils, and Fathers, by which they were cast? Further, Suppose all things had been regulated in this Council, not by Personal Consent, but by the Equal Votes of the Western Nations, (though this is contrary to the usual manner; and never practised, save only in two late Councils after, Anno Dom. 1400. Constance, and Basil; and liable to many Inconveniences; of which, see Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 72.) yet, if these Votes were truly adjusted, and proportioned, according to the several Magnitude of the Countries, and the Multitude of the Bishops in them, the Protestants also would by this way have been as much over-numbred, and overborn; which they well saw, and therefore never motioned it ‖. But motioned this, That, after their party first allowed with the rest a decisive Vote, 
Soave, p. 642.  yet the Decisions in the Council should not be made by plurality of voices, but that the more sound Opinions should be preferred; i. e. those Opinions that were regulated by the Word of God; (they are Soave's words 
‖ Ibid. , not mine.) And motioned yet a second thing 
‖ Soave, Ibid ;— That, if a Concord in Religion could not be concluded in the Council, than the Conditions of Passau, and Ausburge might remain inviolable. Now these were a Toleration of all Sects, that every one might follow, what Religion pleased him best. See Soave, 378, 393.— And after this, motioned a third 
‖ See Soave, p. 369. ,— That the body of the whole Western Clergy being now divided into Plaintiffs [the Protestant Clergy,] and Defendants [the Catholic Clergy;] and it not being just, that either of these should be the Judge, therefore that, the Divines on one part, and on the other, arguing for their own Tenants, there might be Judges [i. e. Laics] indifferently chosen on both sides [that is, in an equal number] to take knowledge of the Controversies. And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing, p. 479. [And this indeed was the only way they had, in referring themselves to judgement, not to be cast, if the Judges of their own side, at least, would be true to them. But to let these things pass; As to a due proportion of National Votes, this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein; whilst those Nations, who (by their own, if by any ones, fault) had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees, yet were as plenary, and numerous as the rest, in the acceptation of them, after it. And, were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations, I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect, supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible, an issue divers from the former. For, have they any new thing to propose in their Orations, and Speeches before such a Meeting, that they have not already said in their Writings? And, notwithstanding, are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy, and the Learned, that peruse them, of a different judgement? And why should not the others have as great presumptions, upon an equal hearing, to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party, by Scriptures, explicated by Apostolical Tradition, Councils, and Fathers; as the Protestants of gaining some of the others, by Scriptures alone? Or, if any will say, that ancient Tradition, Councils, or Fathers, are on the Protestant side, how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council, that, all Humane Authority being excluded, the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council? And, the Trent safe-Conauct running thus; Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam, Apostolorum Traditiones, probata Concilia, Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates, Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum, tractentur, Why desired they a freer Safe conduct, after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians? Which if it had been granted (saith Soave 
‖ p. 344. ) they had obtained one great point, that is, that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture. This from §. 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhals so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgement of the present Catholic Church; or of free (General; or also Occidental) Councils.  
§. 37 Next come we to Archbishop Lawd. He (§. 31. p. 318.) affirms;— That, 
Of Archbish. Lawd.  the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental. Doctor White (saith he) had reason to say this.— And §. 21. p. 140.)— It is not possible the Catholic Church [i. e. of any one Age] should teach [He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age] against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation.— And (§. 25. n. 4.)— If we speak of plain, and easy Scripture, the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it.— If A. C. means no more, than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally err in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all men's Salvation, he fights against no Adversary that I know, but his own fiction. For the most learned Protestants grant it. [Where he speaks of the Church as teaching such points; as appeareth by the Context]— Ibid. p. 139.— Because the whole Church cannot universally err in absolutely fundamental Doctrines, therefore 'tis true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church— That she may err indeed in Superstructions, and Deductions, and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness. But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation [i. e. by Infidelity.] or by heretical Error in it, she can be no longer holy; (for no Assemblies of Heretics can be holy) and so that Article of the Creed [I believe the Holy Catholic Church] is gone. Now this Holiness (saith he) Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church.— Likewise (§. 33. n. 4. p. 256.) the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly— That the whole Catholic Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation, if any thing sway, and wrench the General Council [he must mean here, in non-necessaries; & such Council as is not universally accepted; for a General Council, universally accepted by the Church Catholic, is unerrable in necessaries, because the Church Catholic, he saith, is so] upon evidence found in express Scripture, or demonstration of this miscarriage, hath power to represent herself in another body, or [General] Council, and to take order for what is amiss, either practised, or concluded in the former.— and to define against it, p. 257.)— And afterward, (p. 258.)— That thus, though the Mother-Church, Provincial, or National, may err, yet if the Grandmother, the whole Universal Church [He means, in a general Council universally accepted] cannot err in these necessary things, all remains safe; and all occasions of disobedience, taken from the possibility of the Church's erring, are quite taken away.— Again. §. 38. n. 14. he saith, That, a General Council, de post facto, after it is ended, and admitted by the whole Church, is then infallible.— And, for this admittance, or confirmation of it by the Church, he granteth 
‖ §. 26. p. 165. , That, no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called, and so proceeding, but only that, after it is ended, the whole Church admit it, though never so tacitly.) The sum of all in brief is this; 1st. That, a General Council [or indeed any Council whatever, less than General] accepted, or admitted by the whole Church, is infallible in Necessaries, (the reason is plain, because he holds, the whole Church is so.) 2ly. Consequently that Obedience, and this, of Assent, is due to such Council, or to the judgement of the Church Catholic that is delivered by this Council, as to necessaries; Of Assent, I say, to it, because infallible. 3ly. That. all are to acquiesce, none presume to urge, or credit any pretence of Scripture, or Demonstration against such a judgement; because, infallible. 4ly. That, it is Schism to departed from the judgement of such a Council; because the Archbishop holds, all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholic, to be so 
‖ §. 21. p. 139. .  
§. 38 Now, thus much being professed by the Archbishop; if he will also allow the Church, 
Reply, Where.  or her Councils, and not private men, to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary; and, 2ly, will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholic diffusive (I mean, 
Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary.  of those Church-governors in it, whose judgements can be had) to be sufficient, though some lesser party continue to contradict, I think several Controversies, that are yet agitated, will appear formerly decided, and the Church's Peace not so difficult to be settled. For in the Church Catholic, within this last thousand years, have been assembled many Councils so General as the times permitted, and as the Callers thereof could procure; and these her Councils have made many Definitions contrary to the Protestant Doctrines; and yet she hath not hitherto, (though importuned by several pretending Demonstrators of the contrary to these Definitions,) assembled herself in any other Synod equal to the former, to recall such Councils, or their acts, (such a tacit admission being all that the Archbishop requires 
‖ See before, §. 327. ) Nay, when later Councils have been called from time to time, yet in these she hath altered nothing concerning those Definitions in the former: Nay, a much major part at least of the Church Catholic have also, out of Councils, in their public Write, Doctrines, and Practices, not only not contradicted, but owned the Legality of these Councils, and the truth of their Decrees: Now, may we not hence conclude, that the whole Church Catholic (I mean, whose judgement we can procure) hath, in such a sense as is necessary, admitted, and accepted them? And that nothing hath been, or is brought in, that she takes for a demonstration to the contrary to what she hath defined? And here may we not conclude, that, according to the Archbishop's sense, these forepast, and so long unquestioned, Councils are to be esteemed infallible? Or, if this we may not presume; what hopes have we left, of ever knowing the Church Catholick's mind; her acceptation, or non-acceptation of any thing! or of enjoying at all, as to Necessaries, this her infallible Guidance, promised us by Protestants, in stead of that of her Council's. We have waited now above 400 years, since the Conciliar determination of Transubstantiation: no Council equal to those, which passed it, hath been assembled by the Church Catholic to retract it: I ask, Hath not the Church then already sufficiently accepted it, though some, in some times, have offered to her their seeming demonstrations against it? In the expectation of new domonstrations; of a new Assembly; such as shall be called by the whole Church Catholic, and not by the Pope; and of a Council more full, and complete, than any former for a thousand years, have been; wherein the Cophtites, Melahites, Armenians, Abyssines, Russians, &c, are to have a part; I ask, what shall poor Christians do for a Guide, that may secure them, at least in Fundamentals, If first, The most supreme Guides that they have, and have had, and such acceptation of their Acts, as hath been, may not be securely relied on; and (then,) such an infallible Guide, as is promised them instead thereof, can never be had? Unless these Divines also will here retreat, and make use of the Answer that is mentioned before, §. 8. viz. that nothing at all, that is, or can, come into controversy, is necessary to be decided.  
§. 39 But, If the past Councils need an acceptation of the whole Catholic Church to render them infallible, more than the acceptation that is , what must it be? 1st. Must it be that of another Council assembled by the Church? For such thing the Archbishop mentions. But, how shall we know, again, of this Council, whether the Church Catholic sufficiently accepts it? And what if it accepts this no more amply than the former? Or, are there any such new Evidences or Demonstrations now discoverable in matter of Faith, that are not as liable to be mistaken in one Council, as in another; in a later, as in a former? If you say, Yes; Because a Demonstration (in the Archbishop's sense ‖) is such, as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent unto it: I answer; Such a Definition suits not with Theological, but Mathematical Demonstrations, such as this, that twice two makes four; for what, or how few Theological Truths are they, that all, in their right wits, and understanding the Terms, immediately assent to, when proposed? Or what Judge, in these matters, can promise such Evidence, as that none, having the use of Reason, shall deny his Sentence? Lastly, As to one Council's accepting of another, where can we stay, if we may not in the first? For will not this second Council be rendered as uncertain to us for its Definitions, and as liable to Appeals, upon other new Evidences, and Demonstrations pretended against it, as the former was? For when, in its Definition, against these false ones that are already examined, it corroborates the former; yet this hinders not, but that some other Evidences may be produced against it, and against the same Definition, that may be true. Or, 2ly. Must it be such an acceptation of the whole Catholic Church out of Council; that no person, or at least, Church, contradicts such former Council? This also is unreasonable: For some, not only Persons, but Churches, and these very considerable, (I mean, in comparison of some other Churches, though not in respect of the main Body of the Catholic Profession) may stand condemned of Heresy, and Schism by some former Council; and therefore do become uncapable of any right now, either of Voting in, or accepting of, a future Council; I mean, in such a manner, as that their Vote, and acceptation, are any way necessary to the validity thereof. Or such Persons, or Churches, if not condemned of former Heresy, yet may be, by the much greater, and more considerable part of the present Council, for some new Doctrine of theirs, against the former traditive Faith of the Church, either suspended from sitting, and voting with them; or admitted to vote (as in a thing perhaps not so clear in former tradition), yet when they are, in the number of Suffrages, much inferior, in this case neither their contrary Vote in the Council, nor their non-acceptation of it afterward, are of any effect, as to the annulling of the Acts of such Councils. Otherwise no new Tenent can be condemned by the Church; if those who hold it, being a considerable number, will not concur, to vote, or to accept, the condemnation thereof. Some Arrian Bishops never accepted the Council of Nice; nor now the Socinians. Unless therefore the former acceptation of the Church Catholic, though perhaps deficient in some persons, or also Churches, may suffice to render, or declare the judgement of that Council infallible, who can be assured, but that this Nicen Council erred in a point Fundamental, (if the Deity of our Saviour may be thought such)? The Church Catholick's acknowledged Infallibility in Fundamentals, and her acceptation of Councils, may not be obstructed with such unactuable Circumstances, as that these can never, in any particular, come to be known. This for the Archbishop.  
§. 40 Again, thus Dr. Field 
‖ l. 4. c. 2.  concerning the present Catholic Church in any one Age— As we hold it impossible the Church should ever by Apostasy, 
Of Dr. Field.  and missbelief wholly departed from God, (in proving whereof, Bellarmine confesseth, his Fellows have taken much needless pains, seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing. [Bellarmin's words are, Notandum, multos ex nostris tempus terere, dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere. Nam Calvinus, & caeteri Haeretici id concedunt; sed dicunt intelligi debere, de Ecclesiâ invisibili:] So we hold, that, it never falleth into any Heresy: So that he is as much to be blamed for idle, and needless busying himself in proving, that the visible Church never falleth into Heresy, which we most willingly grant. [Bellarmin's words are,— Probare igitur volumus, Ecclesiam visibilem non posse deficere; & nomine Ecclesiae non intelligimus unum, aut alterum hominem Christianum, sed multitudinem congregatam, in quâ sunt Praelati, & Subditi, [urging also afterward, out of Eph. 4.11. the Ministries of Pastors, Doctors, etc. never to fail in the Church:] quae Ministeria (saith he) non possunt exerceri; nisi se pastors, & Oves agnoscant. From all which, I collect, that, of such a visible Church-Government, consisting of Prelates, and Subjects, it must be, that Dr. Field affirms, (Ibid.)— That in things necessary to be known, and believed, expressly, and distinctly, it can never be ignorant, much less err; nor never fall into any Heresy.]— As also afterward, (c. 4.) In all Ages he acknowledgeth a Church, that not as a Chest preserves only the Truth, as a hidden Treasure; but as a Pillar, by public Profession (notwithstanding all Forces endeavouring to shake it) publisheth it to the world, and stayeth the weakness of others, etc.   

CHAP. VI  
IU. Learned Protestants conceding, the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never so to have erred in defining Necessaries, as that the Church governed by them did not remain still True, Holy, and Catholic, §, 41.  
§. 41 IU. SUitably to their Concessions set down in the last Chapter; these Learned Protestants do not assume the confidence to pronounce; 
iv 4. Learned Protestants conceding the former Church's Clergy preceding the Reformation never to have so erred in defining Necessaries, as that the Church governed by them, did not still remain True, Holy, Catholic.  The joint Body of the Governors of any precedent Age of the Church, how corrupt soever they have been in their Conciliary Definitions, to have erred, or to have misled the people, in Necessaries, Essentials, or Fundamentals of Religion, whether in respect of Faith or Holiness, (notwithstanding that they have placed, in these very times, the Reign of Antichrist. Whence it may be presumed; that the Church shall not see, nor suffer, hereafter worse times, than those past: And that all these Governors, in any succeeding Age, shall not miss-guide the people in Necessaries, or Fundamentals, whom, in the times of Antichrist, they have not misled so.) Therefore Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Vindic. 2 c. p. 8.— Reply to Chalcedon, p. 345.  holds the present Roman, a true part of the present Church Catholic; and frequently affirms the Reformed, as to Essentitials in Faith, not to have separated from it. And Dr. Potter speaks thus of the present Roman Church 
‖ §. 3. p. 63. — The most necessary, and Fundamental Truths which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned; and, for that reason, learned Protestants yield them [the Roman] the Naeme, and Substance of a true Church. Dr. Field also 
‖ Des. 3. pt p. 880.  thus apologizeth for this Tenent, at least for the times before Luther.— Because some men perhaps will think, that we yield more unto our Adversaries now, than formerly we did; in that we acknowledge the Latin, or Western Churches, subject to Romish Tyranny, before God raised up Luther, to have been the true Churches of God, in which a saving Profession of the Truth of Christ was found— I will 1st. show, that all our best and most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written. And so he proceeds to urge several Authorities to confirm it.  
And thus Mr. Thorndike 
‖ Epilog. Conclusion, p. 416.  saith— Though I sincerely blame the imposing new Articles upon the Faith of Christians; and that of Positions, §. 42 which I maintain not to be true; yet I must, and do freely profess, that I find no position necessary to salvation prohibited, none destructive to salvation enjoined to be believed, by it [the Roman Church:] And therefore I must necessarily accept it for a true Church, as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted; seeing there can no question be made, that it continueth the same visible Body, by the succession of Pastors, and Laws, that first were founded by the Apostles (the present Customs [that are] in force, being visibly the corruptions of those Customs, which the Church had from the beginning [I suppose he means, being the same Customs which the Church had from the beginning, though in some manner corrupted.]) For the Idolatries, which I grant to be possible, (though not necessary) to be found in it, by the Ignorance, and carnal Affections of Particulars, (not by command of the Church, or the Laws of it) I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those, who, living in the Communion of this Church, are not guilty of the like. There remains therefore in the present Church of Rome the Profession of all the Truth▪ which it is necessary to the Salvation of all Christians to believe, either in point of Faith, or Manners.— So he saith concerning Prayer to Saints— That those, who admit the Church of Rome to commit Idolatry therein, can by no means grant it to be a Church; the very being whereof supposeth the Worship of one God exclusive to any thing else. And l. 3. c. 23, Concerning Communion in one kind, he saith,— That they in the Church of Rome, who thirst after the Eucharist in both kinds, do receive the whole Grace of this Sacrament in the one kind, is necessary to be believed by all, who believe that the Church of Rome remains a Church though corrupt, and that Salvation is to be had in it, and by it.  
2. Again; For the Essentials, or Necessary Doctrines in order to Holiness, these learned Protestants grant, §. 43 that Holy is an Attribute unseparable from Catholic [Credo, Sanctam, Catholicam Ecclesiam;] And that the Church cannot be the one, unless it be the other; and as in the whole, so in the parts; that no particular Church is a part of the Catholic, that hath not the Holiness of the Catholic— Of which thus the Archbishop 
‖ p. 14●. .— If we will keep our Faith, the whole Militant Church must be still Holy. For if it be not so still, then there may be a time, that a falsehood may be the Subject of the Catholic Faith; which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm: For we must still believe the Holy Catholic Church. And if she be not still Holy, then, at the time that she is not so, we believe a falsehood under the Article of the Christian Faith. Of this more needs not be said.  
§. 44 3. Again, If, under such Governors, the visible Church, preceding the Reformation, is allowed to have been Catholic, and Holy; from these it must needs be granted also not to have been Heretical, or Schismatical. Which Churches Protestants contra-distinguish to the Catholic Church, and all the Members of it; and in which Churches, dividing from the Unity of the Catholic, no salvation can be had by those, who, if either knowing, or culpably ignorant of, these sins of such a Church, do not actually desert such a Communion. For this likewise, see the Quotations out of the Archbishop, before §. 367. and out of Dr. Field, before, §. 40.— Bellarmine (saith he) is to be blamed for idle, and needless busying himself in proving that the visible Church never falleth into Heresy, which we most willingly grant.— And (l. 1. c. 7.) he saith,— That, the name of Catholic Church distinguisheth men holding the Faith in Unity from Schismatics; whom as also Heretics, though he there affirms— to be, in some sort, of the Church [taken more generally] as it distinguisheth men of the Christian Profession from Infidels, yet not of the Church Catholic, or fully and perfectly of the Church, with hope of Salvation 
‖ l. 1. c. 14. p. 21— & c. 7. p. 13. . The Common Prayers also, used both in the Roman and Protestant Churches on Good Friday, show the same.— Oremus (saith the one) pro Haereticis, & Schismaticis; ut Deus eos ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam, atque Apostolicam revocare dignetur.— Have Mercy Lord (saith the other) upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and so fetch them home to thy Flock— that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one Fold under one Shepherd. But, in the trans-ferring these Good- Friday Collects out of the former Missal into their new Common-Prayer-Book, 'tis observable, that though the Reformed retained Heretics, yet they omitted Schismatics; and 2 lie. changed the former Expression of revoca ad Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam, & Apostolicam▪ into Fetch home to thy Flock, etc. As if the mention of our Holy Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic Church, might occasion in the people some Mistakes. See also Bishop Bramhal's Vindication. of the Church of England, c. 2. p. 9, 27, 28; & before, §. 34.  
And thus Mr. Thorndike in his Letter concerning the present state of Religion 
‖ 208. — ‛ When we say, we believe the Catholic Church, as part of that faith whereby we hope to be saved; we do not profess to believe, that there is such a company of men [as professing Christianity], but that there is a Corporation of true Christians, excluding Heretics and Schismatics; and that we hope to be saved by this faith, as being members of it [of that Corporation]. And this is that, which the stile of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church signifies; as distinguishing the Body of true Christians, (to wit, so far as Profession goes) from the Conventicles of Heretics and Schismatics. For this title of Catholic would signify nothing, if Heretics and Schismatics were not barred the Communion of the Church. Thus he.  
§. 45, [In the former passages you may observe, that the Author's forequoted speak not of some, or other in the Church, before Luther, to have been Catholic and consequently holy, etc. but of the visible Church, consisting of the ruling Clergy, and the subject and conforming Laity, according to the public doctrines, and Definitions thereof, as these being not deficient in the Essentials of the Church Catholic, either as to Faith or Holiness: for such a Church Catholic they believe always to be, whose doctrine and definitions, discipline and external visible profession, maintained by the Governors thereof, is Catholic. And if, in any other sense, we call it a Catholick-Church, (when we hold its Governors and Doctrines, meanwhile, Heretical and Schismatical) viz. by reason of some, that may be found herein Catholickly persuaded, we may as well call that an heretical Church, the Doctrines and Doctors of which are Catholic, if perhaps some only in it be heretically affected.] To go on.  
Therefore Dr. Field proceeds also so far, as to own the Western Church, that was before Luther, § 46 for the Protestants true Mother (for indeed where could he find, at that time, a Church any whit better, to call Mother) and to confess 
‖ l. 3. c. 6. : ' That she continued the true Church of God until our time— And— To those (saith he) that demand of us, where our Church was before Luther began: We answer, it was the known, and apparent Church in the world, wherein all our Fathers lived, and died; wherein Luther and the rest were baptised, &c. and 
‖ 3 Part p. 880.  wherein a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found. In order to which he so far justifies the public service also of those days, which our Fathers frequented, even the Canon of the Mass itself; as to say, 
‖ Append. 3 l. p. 224. — ' That the using thereof, [& no other was used in those days, than is now], is no proof, that the Church, that then was, was not a Protestant Church, and that both the Liturgy itself, and the profession of such as used it, show plainly, that the Church that then was, never allowed any Romish error. And again, so far justifies he the doctrine of that Church, which he owns as Catholic, and the Protestants- Mother, as to affirm 
‖ 3 l. p. 81. : That none of those points of false doctrine and error, which the Roman Church now maintaineth, and the Protestants condemn, were the doctrines of that Church [before Luther] constantly delivered [He must mean constantly, for the present Age before Luther, for in that Age he acknowledgeth it Catholic] or generally received by all them that were of it, but doubtfully broached and devised without all certain resolution, or factiously defended by some certain only, etc. [It seems therefore, that look how many Doctrines (of those now condemned by Protestants,) may appear to have been in the Church, 
§. 47. n. 1.  (I say not here, the Catholic, but the Latin Church, for of this he speaks) before Luther, not doubtfully broached, but in her Councils resolved, in her public Liturgies conformed to, and generally received, (Generally, not as including every single person, for so perhaps were not the doctrine of the Trinity, or of Christ's Incarnation, received; but so generally received by the then Western Church-Governors, as is necessary for the ratification of the Decrees of their Representatives met in Councils, for more than this cannot, rationally, be required) so many he will acknowledge for Catholic, and, in obedience thereto, show a filial Duty to this his Mother.]  
And therefore, after this, to defend the discession of the Reformed from, and their present non-communion with, the present Western Church, he seeks to relieve himself, in saying, 
‖ Apol. 3 par. p. 880. & Append. 3 l. p. 187, 224.  That this Roman Church is not the same now, as it was when Luther began.— Nor the external face of Religion then, the now professed Roman Religion.— And further, 
‖ p. 880.  That the errors of the present Roman Church are Fundamental.  
Where it is observable, 1st. That the discession of Protestants in Luther's time, or of Luther himself, from that Church, (which was not the same, as he saith, then, as now, nor the Errors which Protestant's now condemn, than the doctrines of it, but of a faction in it) remains by this still culpable; For none may desert the Communion of a Church, because of the corrupt doctrines or practices of a faction in it. But if he make the Clergy, and Ecclesiastical Governors of such Church, imposing such doctrines, and requiring unjust conditions of their Communion to be that Faction, than the Doctrines, and the Faction, to be charged on the very Church itself, and not on a party in it; (as a Church, all the ruling Clergy of which holds and imposeth Arrianism, is rightly styled an Arrian Church, if any can be so.) But this expression, Dr. Field saw, he had reason to forbear. 
§. 47. n. 2.   
[And therefore Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Reply to Chalced. p. 263.  thought fit to take another course; and, for the defence of the lawfulness of this first discession of Protestants, (which discession, the Bishop of Chalcedon urged, to have preceded those grievances, and impediments of Communion, that Protestants of later times chief complain of; namely, the many new Definitions and anathemas of the Council of Trent, and new Articles and Creeds of Pius the fourth) seems to make a contrary plea to Dr. Field— For those very points (saith he) which Pius the fourth comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed, were obtruded upon us before by his Predecessors, [and therefore before the ratification, or obliging authority of the Council of Trent] as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith, and required, as necessary Articles of their Communion; so, as we must either receive these, or utterly lose them. This is the only difference, that Pius the fourth dealt in gross, his Predecessors by retail. They fashioned the several rods, and he bound them up into a bundle. [But if the Bishop understands this of the Council of Trent, that sat under the Predecessors of Pius, the Query still remains concerning the lawful Grounds of the first Protestant- discession, from the former Church, which discession precedes the beginning of that Council, above twenty years, 
§. 47. n. 3. ]  
2 lie, It is observable, that the discession made since, from the former public service of the Church, and the Canon of the Mass, (affirmed by Dr. Field to contain in it no Romish Errors) must be also culpable; in which nothing, since Luther's time, hath been altered.  
3ly, That the present Church of Rome in being said by him, since that time, to err in Fundamentals, is hereby ceased to be any part of the Church- Catholic; and (further) no salvation to be had in her at all, even to the invincibly ignorant; if Dr. Field holds, no truth to be fundamental to salvation, but such, without which salvation cannot possibly be had; Concerning which see what he saith 3 l. 4 c. p. 79.   

CHAP. VII.  
V That, according to the former Concession made in the precedent Chapter, §. 41. there seems to be * a great security to those continuing in the ancient Communion. §. 48. As to avoiding Heresy, or Schism, Ib. As, to other grosser Errors. §. 51. And * danger to those deserting it. §. 54. Where is drawn up in brief, the Protestant's Defence for such Discession. §. 55. n. 1. And the Catholick's Remonstrance. §. 55. n. 9  
§. 48 Now to reflect on the former Discourse, as to the two Principal Concessions, made by Protestants therein. The 1st. Their conceding the Catholickness, 
The security that hence seems to be to those continuing in the ancient Communion.  and Indeficiency of the former Western Church, as to all Necessaries, before, and at, the coming of Luther 
‖ §. 41, etc.  The 2d. Their conceding the general Councils of the Church in any age to be unerrable in Necessaries, when they are universally accepted by the Church Catholic diffusive. 
‖ §. 32, etc.   
From the first of these, (the Catholickness of the Roman Church before Luther in Necessaries), 
As to Heresy or Schism.  being granted, methinks appears a great secnrity for their salvation, (as to their Faith, who are not deficient in a holy life) to all those who persevere to live, and die in the external Communion of the present Roman, and other Western Churches, unreformed; (and then, the like hazard to those, who relinquish that Communion.)  
For, 1st. I think it is clear; that none who lived, and died in the Faith. (I mean; that, declared in her Councils) and in the Communion of the Western, or Roman Church, that was before Luther's Appearance, could endanger his Salvation, upon the account of his incurring either Heresy, or Schism; because then the Western, or Roman Church before Luther, must be held Heretical, or Schismatical, and so non-Catholick; for these two Heretical, and Catholic, are contra-distinct. (See the Archbishop, §. 21. n. 5. p. 141. and what is said before, §. 44.) And then, seeing there was an Holy Catholic Church, some where or other, in that immediately before Luther, as in every Age; which, and where was it? The Eastern Churches using much-what the same public Liturgy; and being guilty of as gross Errors and Practices; and also they, excluding Non-Conformists from their Communion.  
§. 49 Add to this Mr. Stillingfleet's Position 
‖ Rat. account p. 58. — That, if we inquire; what was positively believed as necessary to Salvation by the Catholic Church: we shall hardly find any better way than by the Articles of the ancient Creeds; and the universal opposition of any new Doctrine on its first appearing; and the condemning the Broachers of it for Heresy, in Ecumenical Councils; with the continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all Ages. As is clear in the Cases of Arrius, and Pelagius. For it seems very reasonable (saith he) to judge; that, since the necessary Articles of Faith were all delivered by the Apostles to the Catholic Church, since the foundation of that Church lies in the belief of those things which are necessary; that nothing should be delivered contrary to any necessary Article of Faith, but the Church, by some evident Act, must declare its dislike of it, and its resolution thereby to adhere to that necessary Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints. Thus he. From which thought so reasonable, is gathered the security in adhering to those Tenants, received in the Church before Luther (which Protestant's now oppose) as being not contrary to any necessary Article of Faith, delivered by the Apostles to the Catholic Church, because Protestants cannot show (to repeat here the former words) the Broachers of these Tenants, [suppose of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist; Saint-Invocation; Veneration of Images; a Purgatory of Souls after this life; Monastic Vows; Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.] condemned for Heresy in Ecumenical Councils; or a continual disapprobation of those Doctrines by the Christian Churches of all ages (as is clear in the cases of Arrius, and Pelagius;) or, the Church by any evident Act, declaring her dislike of them; as may, on the other side, be showed many evident Acts of her Approbation of them.  
And 2ly. If no danger of perishing for Heresy, or Schism, to those living, and dying in this Communion before, 
§. 50. n. 1.  then neither to any since, Luther's times. For if, since these times, this Communion be become Heretical, or Schismatical, I demand, in respect of what Council, or what Definitions, made since Luther's days, which it opposeth, is it become Heretical? or in respect of what Church, in deserting, or departing from its Communion, Schismatical? Or in the Protestant's Notions of Heresy, and Schism; in respect of what new Tenent, or Practise against some Fundamental point of Faith, since Luther's time, is it become Heretical; when guilty of none such, before?— And, in its requiring of Conformity to what new points of Faith, since Luther's time, is it become Schismatical; so that one, that could lawfully yield obedience to all those required before Luther's appearance, yet cannot to all the present; or so, that the Church before Luther might lawfully require, without hazard of Schism, Conformity to its whole Faith then; and not so the present Church to the whole, present, Faith? For I hope none here will have the face to deny Conformity required, by the Western Churches, before Luther's coming, to many of the chiefest of those points, wherein Protestants now refuse it. See those, mentioned, Disc. 3. §. 26.  
And you may observe, 
§. 50. n. 2.  that the most, or chiefest of the Protestant Controversies, defined, or made de fide, in the Council of Trent, were made so By former Councils of equal obligation; or also were contained in the public Liturgies of the Church Catholic. As; The Lawfulness of Communion in one kind, declared in the Council of Constance. Canon of Scripture; Purgatory; seven Sacraments; the Pope's Supremacy; in the Council of Florence. Auricular Confession; Transubstantiation; in the Council of Florence, the Lateran, and five others before it, wherein Berengarius his Doctrines were condemned. Veneration of Images, in the 2d Nicene Council. Monastic Vows; and Celibacy of the Clergy; sufficiently authorized in the four first General Councils. And, to these, I may add the Council of Frankfort, (if the Capitulare Caroli, which indeed was written before, may be taken to deliver the sense of the Council.) * For Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist: the Council applying the Psalmist's Adorate Scabellum thereto, as it is expounded by S. Ambrose 
* Ibid. 4.15. l. 3. c. 24 , and S. Austin: 
‖ De Spiritu Sancto, l. 3. c. 12.  And for Veneration of the Cross 
‖ Capitulare l. 2. c. 5. c. 27. l. 4. c. 17 , and of Relics ‖. [Only the Adoration of Images, allowed by the second Nicene Council, indeed is condemned: but this upon a Mistake of the Doctrine of that Council; as is confessed, by Dr. Hammond, Treatise of Idolatry, §. 57 And by Mr Thornd●ke, Epilogue. l. 3. p. 363. And as any one may easily discern, if he will view in the Preface of this Capitulare, what opinion was imputed by the Fathers of Franckfort to those of Nice. Besides these Councils; Invocation of Saints; Prayers for the Dead, Sacrifice of the Mass and several other, are apparent in the Public Liturgies of the Church, ●naltered, (Protestant's being Judges) for many ages preceding the Council of Trent; Now the Church obligeth her Subjects to believe all those things lawful, which, in her Liturgies, she obligeth them to practice. And, why was there made a departure from the Church for these points, before the Council of Trent, if the Church, before, had not made them de fide; or required Obedience and Conformity to them; or if the Council of Trent, or Pius the Fourth were first faulty herein 
‖ See Bishop Bramhal's Concession before, §. 47. ? Suppose then, a belief of some more Points is since added; yet I ask, will the decreeing, or imposing of these infer upon the present Church the guilt of Schism; and not the like decreeing, or imposing the former, infer the same guilt upon the former Church; that preceding Luther? Now from this Identity in Faith. and practice, in the present Church, with that preceding Luther, (excepting, if our Gratitude may be allowed to speak the truth, that the Council, held since Luther's time, hath reform several practices, in some persons of it, which were before justly blamed) it seems clear, that whoso is a member of the present Western, or Roman Church, is secure, that he is a Member of the Church Catholic: For it is impossible, that the Church, which is the same with what was the Church Catholic 150 years ago, should, merely by the difference, and decurrence of time, become non-Catholick. Now if this be denied, that the present Roman Church is the fame for its Doctrines, and Practices, with that Church, which was at Luther's appearing, let the issue of the Contention be placed here; and let search only be made concerning this. Not to ask, meanwhile, why Luther reform, then; why exclaimed, so vehemently on the Babylonish Captivity; and sounded an Exite de illâ Populus meus, if the Deformation of this Church, it's non-holinesse it's non-Catholicknesse, is since the Council of Trent; and so not till after his time?  
3ly. As (I think) here is showed no danger of perishing in the present external Communion of these Churches upon the account of Heresy, or Schism; 
‖ §. 51.  so neither is there, 
As to other gross Errors.  on the account of any gross, or grievous Errors. For, 1st. How are they grievous Errors, that are not against any necassary Point of Faith? But if they be; such, with Protestants, are Heresies. For Example, to name some chief ones. How are Adoration of the Eucharist, or Invocation of Saints grievous Errors, if also they be not against any necessary point of Faith: viz. this, That Divine Worship, and Divine Supplication (which they say is presented to Saints) may be given only to God? But them they are Heresies. Or what so grievous Error in the present Communion, that was not, (it, or as bad,) in the same Communion before Luther's time? When, yet, Christians, in this Communion, were secure; because, it was then the Catholic; and the Catholic, being always Holy, may err indeed in superstructions and deductions, and other by, and unnecessary Truths from curiosity, etc. but cannot err from the Foundation (saith the Archbishop) I add, 
‖ §. 21. p. 141.  as, of Faith, so also, of Good Manners. These Errors then, which are now charged to render the Church of Rome guilty of a manifold Idolatry, in her worshipping the Eucharistical Bread; the Relics and Images of Saints; and making Prayers to them, were they not the same in the Church before Luther, and the same their effect? Or if the same Errors, then, light, are now become grievous: Upon what account? Is it, upon a more evident Conviction Christians may have now, than heretofore, that such are Errors? But what ground can we have to say, that they now, culpably, and convincibly, err in these, who, no more than those before Luther, can be accused for holding any Errors, save such, as are the Public Faith of the Church, now authorized as much, as that before Luther; and who, to preserve themselves from erring, make use of the securest way, that Reason can imagine, or that Christians are prescribed; whilst, for the sense of the Scriptures, controverted in such Points, they choose not to rely on their own judgement, but on that of the supremest Guides of the Church, and Judges of divine Truth, that are afforded them here on earth; and so, if they err, yet take the wisest course to miss erring, that Religion, or Reason can dictate? To which Guides also all the Subjects of this former Communion believe submission of their private judgement to be due, and to be commanded; (which is a very plausible one, if, an Error). From whence also it follows, that till they are convinced of Error in this one Point, of Submission not to be due, they are not capable of being convinced in any other, where it is required: Nay yet further; to the Obedience of which Guides, at least for silence, and noncontradiction, they are obliged, even by the Doctrine of Learned Protestants 
‖ See Disc. 3. § 44. , wherever they cannot demonstrate the contrary: which demonstration is a degree of Conviction, surely, very few can pretend to,  
§. 52 1. It is said indeed by Protestants 
‖ Stillingf. P. 330. Archbishop Lawd, § 21. n. 5.  That, all Particular Churches, or the whole Catholic Church, in some age, or ages, may universally hold some Tenent, that is an Error; but then, granted by them: That, any such universally held Error can never destroy the Essence, or Being of the Church Catholic, or render it non Catholic; because, thus, in such age the Church Catholic would fail. Now from this I collect my security, (ni holding any Tenants, though they should happen to be Errors, which were universally held in the Church before Luther), that, as they destroy not the Church its being still Catholic, so neither do they expel me from still continuing in the bosom of the Church Catholic. And hence, for example, I am secured; that I am no Idolater, if not swerving from the Church's Doctrines; because the Church, whilst Catholic, (as she is affirmed to be) is not such. But in joining with a Church, that, pretending to reform, holds the contradictories of these former universal Tenants, I am not here secure, but that some of these Tenants may be such Errors, as exclude this new Church from being a part of the Catholic; and me, if adhering to it, from being a Member thereof; as the maintaining, by the Arrians, and others, of some Tenants contrary to the universal Doctrines of the former Church, hath separated them from the Church Catholic: I say, for any Tenent, I can show to have been spread over the whole Catholic Church at Luther's appearance, I am secured by Protestants, that in holding this, I am free from Heresy, or being rendered thereby extra-Catholick: But then, I am not so, in my entering into a new Society, that contradicts this Church, and such Tenants; except, in such Points, of the truth of which I am infallibly certain.  
2. Again, it is affirmed by Protestants ‖ That a Separation may be made, without Schism, §. 52 from the external communion of all particular Church's [some of which, or all which, I say, 
See Stillingf p. 331. Chillingw. c. 5. §. 52, 55, 56, 59  must be the Catholic] of some age, for some Points, if held, and imposed by them: viz. Those Points, wherein the Essence, and Union of the Church Catholic consisteth not, because in such the Church Catholic may err; but cannot, without Schism, for other Points: viz. such, as constitute the necessary Faith of the Church Catholic, wherein she erreth not; for so she would cease to be Catholic. Now from hence also I gather: that I, continuing in the external communion of all those particular Churches, can never be non-Catholick, or guilty in concurring in any Schism, for my holding, and conforming to, any of the Church's universal Tenants; because none such can destroy the Church from being Catholic still ‖. But, in my separation from all these Churches, imposing such Tenants, I am not secure; because some of these Tenants (as Protestants grant) may possibly be such, as are some part of the necessary Catholic Faith; and so my separation, if made on such account, is Schism.  
§. 54 This security than they seem to enjoy, who live, and die in the Communion of the unreformed, 
And danger to those deserting it.  Western, or Roman, Church, before, or since Luther's times; they being acquitted thereby from Heresy, and Schism, or any other error damnative to them, who therein follow their spiritual Guides, not against Conscience. But the like, I see not, how any may promise to himself in living, and dying in a new-raised Communion, and in deserting the former; especially if deserting it for any former general doctrines, and practices thereof; which, if not enjoined, he, here left to his free liberty, hath no reason, for these, to withdraw himself from the Communion of the whole; but if enjoined, ought in these to submit to the judgement of the whole: especially so many, as cannot demonstrate against it; 
‖ See 2 Disc. §. 20.  to submit, at least so far, as if not to assent, yet not to contradict. All which are transgressed in following the Reformation; where such a person, for the sense of the Scriptures controverted, and for his denying conformity to the doctrines delivered by the Church as matter of Faith, either relies on his own judgement: or, in submitting to a Guide, follows inferior, against Superior, Governors, or Synods; or a Minor, against a much major part; Lastly, follows those, who have refused conformity to the external Communion, even to the Liturgies and public service, of the whole former Catholic Church, whether Eastern or Western, and have set up a new one against them of their own, which are all manifest breaches of the unity of the whole: I say, I see no security any can have in such a new Communion; excepting that, which invincible ignorance affords; which, in such an apparent decession from former Churches and Councils, God knows how few, especially of the Learned, that peruse the Writings of former times, it may shelter.  
The most moderate, 
§. 55. n. 1.  and plausible defence, which Protestants, or (to speak more particularly) which the Church of England makes for her discession, 
Where. A brief Relation of the Protestants defence.  and reformation, is this. 1st. That they have a most certain Rule of their Faith (common to them with the rest of the Church Catholic,) the Holy Scriptures: and besides these, a summary thereof drawn up in the Apostles Creed, and explicated by the first three Ages, (i. e. the writings we have thereof) and the first four-General Councils. And that, in the sincere belief of this primitive Rule, they rest secure, of believing all that is necessary for salvation; and likewise, of their retaining a firm-Communion, as to the essentials of Faith, with the whole Catholic Church, and even with that of Rome. 2ly. That the Roman Church is acknowledged by them a Catholic, but not the whole Catholic, Church; one part only of the Catholic Church, as also the Church of England is another. 3ly That this Roman, or any other, part of the Church Catholic may err, whilst it still remains a part of the Catholic, in nonfundamentals. or non-essentials and necessaries. 4 . That this part did err in such nonfundamentals, and that grievously; and that the Protestants, or Church of England, discovered these to be such grievous errors, by the light of Scripture, and testimony of Antiquity. 5 . That this Roman Church added this also to her erring; that she exercised an unlawful dominion, or jurisdiction over the Church of England; and required an assent from this Church to such her grievous errors, upon pain of losing her Communion. 6 . That the Church of England refused such assent to what, by clear Scripture, she had discovered to be Errors; as in conscience she was bound, though these had been never so small ones; nay, though some of them were no Errors, yet if she were persuaded, they were so; how much more, when so great? 7 . Proceeded, after mature consideration, to reform these Errors; but, in herself only, not imposing them upon, or condemning, by reason of them, any other Church for non-Catholick. 8 . Whereas this her defence proceeds upon supposing the Roman Church; that she left, a part only, and not the whole Catholic Church; yet that, were it supposed to have been the whole, or their departure to have been from the whole also, as well as from it; that the whole, though granted in Fundamentals infallible, yet may err in nonfundamentals, or non-essentially necessaries, and that grievously; and consequently, if it should require assent from its members to such points, in which it is fallible, that they ought not to assent thereto, nor to conceal, if of consequence, when they any way discover, such Error; nay further also, that, if the General Church neglect it, they may, and aught, for themselves, to reform such Error.  
But this Plea seems easily overthrown, 
§. 55. n. 2.  in many of its particulars, by this following Remonstrance, made by the other side. 
And of the Catholics Remonstrance.  1, To the first, It is replied, 1 That there is a faith of Agends, or Practicals, (concerning what is lawful, and unlawful, and what is our duty to do or forbear,) as well as of speculative credends, which faith is necessary, and fundamental for attaining salvation; and in which practical points also may be, and have been, Heresies and Schisms. I say; the faith of them necessary, because the practice of them is so; which must be grounded on this faith; that they, are lawful, or aught to be practised. 2 That these points are of a much larger extent, than the speculatives; and that of these we have no Collection, or Summary, drawn up by the Apostles, as we have of the other. 3 That, as these Protestants say, they do not, for the speculative Credends, rely barely on the words of the Apostles Creed, or any private sense of Scriptures; but profess to believe them according to the Explications made of them by the Church in her first four General Councils, and do place the security of their Faith, in them, not on their own judgement, but on their conformity to the judgement of these Councils; so it is all reason; that, for the practicals also, they should rely on the Scriptures, only so as they are explicated by the Church in her General Councils. 4 That, for both these, (speculatives, or practicals,) as they do, or aught to rely on the Explications of the first four General Councils; so, * that they cannot rationally confine their submissions to these alone, but do own it also to any Councils of the Church following, in any age whatsoever: provided, that these be of equal authority: To which later Councils new Heresies may give like occasion of further explicating the Articles of our Faith; either in speculatives; or practicals; as new Heresies did after three or four hundred years' time, to the Explications made by those first Councils; and * that for the speculative, Articles of the Apostles Creed, particularly that of the Procession of the Holy Ghost à filio, the Protestants have submitted to the Explications of Councils, after the four first, (and these too, Western Councils only, when the Greek Churches refused to consent to them; and that, as the Greeks say, upon not a verbal, but real, diversity in their faith, concerning this procession; yet, it seems, the Protestants here preferred, and thought fit to adhere rather to, the authority of the Western Churches.) From all which, it follows; that, if the Protestants descent from the Explications of such Councils held in any Age, in either of these, speculative, or practical, Articles of their faith, that are necessary (of which necessity, it is fit also, the Council, not they, should judge), they cannot be secure of their retaining all necessary faith, so, as no way to have fallen from it into Heresy, or Schism: no more, than they will acknowledge, Arrians, and Socinians secure in their belief of the Apostles Creed, when departing from the Explications of the four first Councils. And thus is the Protestants security of their faith, if any way built or dependent on the first Councils, so also devolved on the perpetual conformity to the Decrees of other lawful General Councils, of what Ages soever, in all their Definitions. Again, 6 since Schismatics, (I mean those, that are so in respect of their spiritual Superiors; by whom, in a line of subordination, they are joined to the Head) as well as Heretics, are no members of the Catholic Church; and since all Schism doth not necessarily spring from some difference in the essentials of Religion, but may arise upon smaller matters, and occasions, 
‖ See Bishop Bramhall Reply to Chalced. p. 8. Dr. Field l. 1. c. 13. l. 2. c. 2. Dr Hammond. Schism. 3 c. 3. and §. 9 §. 55. n. 3.  (any, wherein obedience is due); and, the lesser the occasion of it, the more criminal many times the Schism; therefore there is no security to Protestants in this first Branch of their Defence: that, because they agree with the whole Catholic Church in the Essentials of faith, hence they do still remain in its Communion. This said to the first.  
2 . To what follows it is replied, That the whole Catholic Church of Christ is but one body, compacted with a due subordination of its members, as well Churches, as persons, for the preservation of truth, and peace, among them; and the avoiding of Schism. 3ly. That the Church of England is a member of the Western Church, and subordinate to the Patriarch thereof, the Bishop of the prime Apostolic See, joined with a Council composed of this Body. 4 lie, That being a part of this Body, this Church, together with the rest of the Protestants, dissented, and departed from the consenting judgement, not only of one particular Church, the Roman; but of all the other Occidental Churches in several points of faith; that are necessary, as the other say; but, as themselves confess, that are of moment, and the failings in which are by them charged on the other side, as grievous errors, which will infer the contrary to be needful truths: disceded likewise from their consenting judgements concerning the testimony of Scriptures (rightly understood) and of the Fathers; affirmed by these not to be for, but against, them. 5 lie, Departed both from them, and the most General Councils, that have been held therein, for near this thousand years. 6 . And departed from them in several points, wherein the Eastern Churches also consented, and do so still, with these Occidental Churches, and their Councils.  
7 lie, And, for submission required to these doctrines, 
§. 55. n. 4.  departed also from the external communion, not only of all the Western, but of the Eastern Churches, even of the whole visible Catholic Church of that Age, (of which in every Age is said, Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam, & Apostolicam Ecclesiam) wherein this discession was made. From the external Communion I say, so, as they neither could (nor yet can) communicate with any Church, Eastern, or Western, in their public worship, and service of God; nor in the participation of the blessed Sacrament and Communion of the Altar. And, the necessity of such their universal discession, both, sufficiently appeareth from the modern Eastern, and Roman Missals, compared; the Masses of S. Chrysostom, & S. Basil, which (admitting some small variations 
‖ See Cassand. liturg. c. p. 24, etc. ) are the present service of all the Eastern, & Southern Churches, not much differing from the Roman; and being, as well as the Roman, disallowed by Protestants: And also the Discession itself is confessed; both long ago by Calvin, lamenting the Protestant's want of Union amongst so many Adversaries 
‖ Epist. P. Melancthoni, p. 145. — A toto mundo discessionem facere coacti sumus. And by Mr. Chillingworth, l. 5. §. 55.— As for the external Communion of the visible Church, (saith he) we have without scruple formerly granted, that Protestants did forsake it (i. e.) renounce the practice of some Observances, in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate; (See likewise, §. 56.89). Forsake the external Communion of the whole visible Church, i. e. (as he expounds himself, §. 32). by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies, and public Worship of God; Thus he. And this, surely, was done for some Errors extant in this public Worship; else, why did Protestant's also reform this public Service? And, these again, such Errors, as were not only held, and used in, but justified, and allowed by, this Church Catholic; and Obedience, and Conformity from her Subjects, required thereto: since if any thing, after the holy Scriptures, be held, by this Church Catholic, sacred, and authentic, and by all her Subjects to be embraced, and frequented, her public Liturgy, and the most August Sacrifice of the Altar must be so. What ground therefore of Discession, and what just complaint the Protestants have against the Western Church, excluding them from her Communion, because requiring something in it, they cannot conform to; the same ground of complaint they have also against the Eastern Churches, as requiring something in their Communion, to which they cannot assent, nor in which join with them. This for the external Communion of the Oriental, as well as Occidental, Church, as to God's Public Worship, & partaking of their Sacraments, forsaken by them; And next; as to any other Communion internal (meanwhile) professed with these Eastern Churches in the Fundamental Faith, and Essentials of Religion, they can pretend none, but that they have (and confess they have) the same Communion with the Western Churches too. In what sense therefore they stand separated from the Roman Church, viz. in external Communion of their public service of God, and receiving with that Church the blessed Sacrament, they stand separated from the Eastern also; and in what sense they still retain the Communion of the East, viz. in the Essential, and Fundamental Articles of Faith, they still retain this with Rome, as much as them. How is it then, that they say often, in the Reformation they left the Roman Church only not the whole Catholic; numbering the Greek, Russian, Abyssine, and other Churches, as three parts of four; and all these, as on their side, and joined with them? And, to what purpose is the calculating, what proportion the Western Church hath to the whole Catholic; when as their separation, for communion external, is as much from the rest, as it; and both Churches, if any for this their separation, equally culpable? and when as, for the internal Communion, (i. e. in all the Essentials of Faith) they maintain this no more with the rest of the great body of the Catholic Church, than they do with the Roman, or Western, Church?  
But here again, if they allege their further Union with the Eastern Churches, not in Fundamentals only, but also in some other Points not Fundamental (which are but few, and none of them, on the Greek side, defined by any former Superior Council) wherein these Churches oppose the Roman; among which is named the Pope's Supremacy, and Infallibility of the Roman Church (the later, a thing the Roman Church, taken singly, pretendeth not to), yet what will this help 
‖ See Disc. 3. §. 185. , as to those many other points, defined by Superior Couneils 
‖ See before § 50. n. 2. , and wherein both East, and West consent; as those mentioned in the third Discourse, §. 26. & c.? In which Points chief, Protestants are questioned, for having made, in the Reformation, not a secession from their Western Mother to another part of the Catholic Church, but a discession from the consenting judgement of the whole Catholic.  
8. Departed from the whole in these points, (which were, 
§. 55. n. 5.  at that time, of a general belief, and practice); not only so far as to descent, but also as to contradict, and reform, against, them. 9 And all this, in several of these Controversies, upon pretence of the clearness of those Scriptures, the sense whereof, by a much major part of the West, and by the greatest Councils, that could for those times be assembled there, (where these Controversies arose), the sense also of the Eastern Church concurring in the same Doctrines, and interpretation of Scripture, was judged clear on the other side. 10. Of which Controversies, and matters in debate, if any were in points necessary; it must be granted, that such Councils, being universally accepted in such a sense as can only be rationally required 
‖ See before, §. 38. , in these were unerrable; and might lawfully require, from their Subjects, assent thereto; Or at least, if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent; so must be the four first. that are allowed by Protestants. 11. To which Councils also, and not to their Subjects, must belong the judgement of what, or how many Points are to be accounted necessary; Or else, neither did the judgement hereof belong to the four first Councils; nor could they justly, upon it, require assent, and join some such points to the Creed. 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries; yet, for the peace of the Church, after the determination of such a Council, the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence, and non-contradicting, without either pronouncing that an Error, which such Council holds a Truth; or the Scripture clear for such a sense, as such Council disallows. 13. Or, If Protestants will not be obliged to this; why do they appeal to a free General Council, for deciding differences, and settling a peace? when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils, in points not necessary; nor grant, that any of the Controversies, concerning which they appeal to them, are points necessary, wherein such Council, universally accepted, may be submitted to, by them, as un-errable. The sum than is; That their Reformation was not from some  Church attempting to tyrannize over them; as the second branch of their defence, and those following to the eighth, do import; but, from their Superiors: From these, not for something held, or practised, and not enjoined (for here, all having their liberty, was no cause to departed) but for points defined, and wherein Conformity was required by them; to whose judgement therefore they ought to have submitted so far, as to learn from it, in matters questioned, what is Truth and Error; Or, at least so far, as not to contradict it; and consequently, as, not to reform against it: In doing the contrary of which, they are charged as guilty of Schism, and of breaking the Laws of Subordination, and Unity, established in the Church 
‖ Of which see Disc. 2. §. 24. n. 1. . 14. Lastly, Whereas, against such Obedience, an Obligation is pleaded (n. 6.) to do nothing against Conscience It is replied, that a man's conscience, miss-perswaded, that something is an Error, is to be followed indeed, and he, upon no command, to profess assent thereto; but excuseth not from guilt, nor freeth from the Church's Censures those, who might have better informed it 
‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism, c. 2. §. 8. . Thus the Remonstrance. After which well weighed, I see not, what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society, as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government, and lives in a separation from the main Body; if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresy; or relinquishing her Communion, Schism.   

CHAP. VIII.  
VI That, according to the former Concession, made in the Fifth Chapter, §, 32. (If so enlarged, as ancient Church-practice, and Reason requires,) all, or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former (obliging) Councils already decided, §. 56. n. 1, etc. An Instance hereof in the Controversy of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, or Transubstantiation. §. 57  
NOw to consider the other Concession 
‖ See before §. 41.— and § 32, etc.  of more moderate Protestant Divines; 
§. 56. n. 1.  * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholic such, as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries: [a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth 
‖ See before, §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly, be required, most of those between Cathol. & Protestants have been already decided. , because of a Consequence thereof; which he foresaw; Namely, That, we must take her judgement, and guidance also in this point; what points are fundamental, or necessary; and than who seethe not what will follow? Namely, That, we are to believe this Church in all Points, wherein she saith, she is unerring.] And upon this, * granting also her General Council, or Representative, (she having no other way to teach, direct, define any thing; or, at at least, no other way so clear, and evident) to be unerring in Necessaries; provided, that such Council be universally accepted; and not opposed, or reversed by the Church Catholic in another following Representative; but received by a general, tacit at least, approbation, and conformity to its Decrees. (Where also it is conceded; that, a Council, for its meeting less General, yet, if having an universal acceptation, is equivalent thereto.) And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils, as the supreme and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court, for settling Unity of Doctrine, and Peace, in the Church; and wherein, they promise victory to their Cause, and an end of Debates. Of which see before § 32. etc.  
[A General Council, 
§. 56. n. 2.  after it is admitted by the whole Church, is then infallible (saith the Archbishop 
‖ p. 346. ) [he means, in Necessaries]— But Bishop Bramhall further,— When inferior Questions (saith he 
‖ Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 27 ) not fundamental, are once defined by a lawful General Council, all Christians, though they cannot assent in their judgements, are obliged to passive obedience, to possess their souls in peace, and patience. And they who shall oppose the Authority, and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished, as Heretics. 
Reply to Chalced. Prefat.  And I submit (saith he ‖) myself to the representative Church, that is, to a free General Council, or so general as can be procured.— And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing (saith he) that we long after more, than a General Council rightly called, rightly proceeding; or, in defect of that, a free Occidental Council, as general as may be— See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop, before, §. 34, etc. And thus Dr. Hammond 
‖ Of Heres. §. 14. n. 6. , notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before §. 5.— We do not believe, that any General Council truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of Faith; nor shall we further dispute the authority [I suppose he means) to oblige us] then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such [Council]— And Answer to Catholic Gentleman 
‖ c. 2. §. 3. — A Congregation that is fallible, may yet have authority to make Decisions, and to require Inferiors so far to acquiesce to their Determinations, as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions.— And 
‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ●. n. 7. — I acknowledge 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— The Belief, and Practices, we forsook, were not Doctrines defined by the Church: (saith Dr. Ferne 
‖ Divis. Eng. and Rom. Ch. p. 59 ).]  
Upon such Concession concerning Councils universally accepted; and upon these appeals made to them, here are referred to the examination of all disinteressed, 
§. 56. n. 3.  and conscientious Christians these Considerables following; (the design of this discourse).  
1. The first Considerable is: Whether the necessary points, wherein our Lord is supposed perpetually so to assist his Church, or her general Councils universally accepted, as that she is infallible, and doth not err in the decision of them, and consequently, whereto all her subjects are obliged to yield their assent, ought not to be extended so far, as to comprehend some at least of those points, (I mean, either the Negative, or Affirmative of them,) the disputes about which, (as things of the highest moment) have so miserably afflicted the western Churches now for so long a time. The necessary consequence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, (as many Protestants maintain), is the committing of Idolatry, in worshipping a piece of bread for our Lord Christ. Is not this point then necessary and Fundamental to Christian Religion, that, in a Council meeting to decide it, the contrary to Transubstantiation should be therein determined? For the Affirmative can never be determined in such a Council, where the Negative is necessary to be believed? If the belief of God's essential Attributes is a necessary and fundamental point of faith, is not the defining the contrary, and giving some of them to a creature, in allowing Saint-Invocation, (a thing with which Protestants charge the Roman Church) erring in a Fundamental? and if it be, then cannot a General Council, universally accepted, so define. The same may perhaps be said of many other points, Merit of works, Worship of Images, Communion in one kind, according to what esteem many Protestants have of these errors, aggravated also by their fancy, that the Pope is Antichrist. But, suppose none of them to be in necessaries; yet they being affirmed by the more moderate Reformed to be-errors very grievous, damnable, etc. then may not a right belief of them be thought necessary so far, as that the Catholic Church, and such a Council may be presumed to receive from our Lord a continual preservation in a right Faith of them, if the Error in them be pretended so grievous? And I desire that, for this, Dr. Hammond's words, quoted below, §. 59 may be well weighed. As likewise, this to be considered, 
‖ Of Heresy, §. 13.  whether it is not all reason, that the Church, or these Councils, not private men, or Inferiors, should judge of this Necessity.  
2ly. If this may not be granted; 
§. 56. n. 4.  that any of these modern Controversies are about Necessaries; or the points such, that the Church Catholic, or her General Councils, universally accepted, in their Definitions, cannot err in them; and so an assent to such Definitions be due from her Subjects. The Second Considerable is: Whether at least, when such Councils define them, all particular, Persons, and Churches, ought not to yield the external Obedience, to them, of Silence, and not any further opposing, or contradiction; without these private men's, or also Church's, reserving still to themselves, (lest some Truth should be thus oppressed), new Remonstrances, and Demonstrations, and a Liberty, (if upon these Remonstrances the Church Catholic neglect to assemble another Council, or, it called, err again in the result,) a Liberty I say (especially if it be a Church National) to reform, for themselves, such Errors of Councils. For, with such Reservations, what signify their former appeals to, or to what purpose, any Meeting of, such Councils? when as 1st. The present Controversies are not allowed to be in Necessaries, (in all which the Roman Church, and Reform are said by them to be already fully agreed); 2 And then, they will yield neither any internal, nor external Obedience to any such Conciliary Decrees in the stating of non-necessaries? But, if such an external submission of noncontradiction be thought fit to be allowed, though that internal of assent cannot be obtained, yet this seems to secure the Church's peace: for thus a Controversy, once defined cannot be revived, to the disturbance thereof; and if they say, some Truth sometime may happen thus to suffer; yet, being in a non-necessary, (as they say it is) it may be spared; Neither, had this Duty been duly performed by our Ancestors, do I see, how the past Reformation, as to many points, could have found any entrance. And therefore, though some of the formerly recited appeals of Protestants promise fairly for such an absolute submission to Councils; yet the Archbishop seems to allow no more than a conditional one, and with an, If, or Unless still annexed.— I pray you look in him §. 32. p. 227.— Far better (saith he) is that Inconvenience [viz. of tolerating an Error, till another General Council meet] than this other; that any authority, less than a General Council, should rescind the Decrees of it; unless it err manifestly, and intolerably— And again, Ibid.— No way must lie open to private men to refuse Obedience, till the Council be heard, and weighed: as well as that, which they say against it; yet with Bellarmine's Exception still [hear misseapplied, 
‖ De Council. l. 2. c 8.  Bellarmine constantly denying, that a General Council, lawfully proceeding, and confirmed by the Pope, can err in any matter of Faith, the Bishop here affirming it.] so the Error be not manifestly intolerable. Nor is it fit for private men, in such cases as this, upon which the whole Peace of Christendom depends, to argue thus; The Error appears, Therefore the Determination of the Council is ipso jure invalid. But this is far the safer way (I say still, when the Error is neither-fundamental, nor in itself manifest) to argue thus: The Determination is by equal authority, and that secundum jus, according to Law, declared to be invalid, Therefore the Error appears.  
3ly. If this submission of non-gainsaying at least, 
§. 56. n. 5.  may be once granted; the third thing, recommended to a diligent Examination, is; Whether not only the Roman, but all the Occidental Churches, joined with the Western, and Prime Patriarch, (the Exordium Vnitatis, as S. Cyprian 
‖ Cyprian de Vnit. Ecclesiae.  with Bishop Bramhall's approbation, styles him) 
‖ Schism Guarded, p. 4, 25.  and the Councils that have been heretofore assembled in the West, be not, for the Doctrines, wherein we find the Greek Churches also consenting with them, in such a sense the whole, as that any Christian, especially a Member of the Western Church, aught to take these for their supreme Guide, in defect of any greater Meeting; and aught to yield obedience of Assent to them in defining Necessaries; or, in not Necessaries, of noncontradiction. And whether a more General, or any fuller, acceptation of the Definitions of such Councils by the Church Catholic, (which acceptation also, if any Council, for the Meeting, is not so numerous as others have been, supplies the defect) can rationally be required, than that, which is set down, before, §. 18, 36, 38.  
4ly. Whether, most, or at least some, of the chiefest points, of present Controversy between Catholics, and Protestants, have not been decided by former Councils so accepted. Which he may be pleased to examine in the points, mentioned, Disc. 3. §. 26, etc.  
§. 57 But, for a present Example, I will annex here a brief relation 
‖ See Baronius. and Blondel's Esclairciss. sur L' Eucharist. , applied to the precedent Rules, 
The great controversy of a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist examined according to the former Proposals; whether a sufficient decision hath not been already made by the Church therein.  of the past proceed of the Church in the decision of one of the main points of Controversy, which, notwithstanding such former decision, yet remains still called in question by the Reformed: Namely, whether in the Eucharist there is a Corporal Presence of Christ, and a Substantial Conversion of the Elements of Bread and Wine into his Body, and Blood?  
This Corporal Presence, and Substantial Conversion then (to relate the proceed about it as briefly, as possibly I may) long ago Berengarius, and some Followers of his, denied; were complained of; two Councils called, one after another; at Rome, and at Vercelles, Anno. Dom. 1050. Berengarius summoned; and, he not appearing, his hetorodox Opinions condemned. He, (according to the now Protestant Grounds) thinking his, a Doctrine of great consequence; and the Decree of these two Councils a manifest Error; and that himself freed from the Obedience of silence, or noncontradiction to these Councils; and so he, with his Followers, publicly justified his old Tenent, desiring a reversing, by some new Council, of the former Sentence against it. Upon this revived disturbance of the Church, another Council, five years after, is assembled at Tours, 1055. not far distant from Angers, where he was Archdeacon. Here himself, with others of his party, was present; his Cause pleaded; his Demonstrations considered; and, after all, his Opinion again condemned; himself recanting it. The Council dismissed, he finds yet other new Reasons, or a greater strength in his former; and falls again to the abetting, maintaining, and spreading abroad his old Doctrine. A Fourth Council, upon those new Troubles of the Church, 1059. Four years after the last, was called at Rome; where himself also was present; some say, long Disputation there had; his new Plea for it found too light, and rejected, and his Opinion opposing Substantial Conversion, again condemned, both by himself, and by the Council, consisting of 103. Bishops. The third time this man revolts; and publisheth a Writing (answered by Lanfranck, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury) wherein he complains, that some particular Enemies of his swayed the former Council, and had made him to swear contradictions. These new Imputations occasioned a Fifth Council to be called at Rome, A. D. 1078. In which were new Dispute; his last Cavils censured; and the Article of a Substantial Conversion further vindicated; and his Error of the Substance of the Bread remaining, again condemned by this Council, and, ultimately, recanted by himself.  
§. 58 Such was the Sentence of five several Councils, if we may believe D. Blondel 
‖ Sur l' Eucharist, c. 20  (one reviewing another) against Berengarius and his Party, opposing a Corporal Presence, these Persons being present in three of these Councils, and pleading their Cause. The same Arguments (as will appear by the writers of those times, Lanfranck, Guitmond, Algerus, to any one, that pleaseth to peruse them) then refuted, that are still urged: the same Authorities out of Fathers then pressed, as are still produced anew by the Reformed, and with the same Answers repelled, All these Councils, (if some of them in the Members thereof less numerous, yet) universally accepted by all the Western Churches, where this Controversy was only agitated; Not one single Bishop thereof, that is known, dissenting, or siding with the Berengarians, Look we for more satisfaction yet? When the Fervour of parties in this matter was much allayed; and the Church had had sufficient leisure to consider, and digest the former Conciliary Decrees; above a hundred years after the last of the Councils , the great Lateran Council was assembled under Innocent the 3 d. in which were present the Patriarch of Constantinople, and of Jerusalem in person, and the Substitutes, * of the Patriarch of Antioch, then sick, Episcopus Antheradensis; and * of the Alexandrian Patriarch, lying under the Sarazen yoke, Germanus his Deacon. ['tis true indeed (as it is objected) that some of these Patriarches were then Latins, because, both Constantinople, and Jerusalem being held in possession (the one, for near 60. the other, for near 100 years) by the Latins, Latin Pariarches were then elected; (as sometimes Greeks also, by the power of the Emperors, have been Bishops of Rome); but yet they were the Lawful, and the only Patriarches of those Sees in that time;] And present there were, besides these, a considerable number of other Eastern Bishops, the whole Council consisting of 412 Bishops, and 70 Archbishops. Now this Council again, in stead of reversing, declared for a Substantial Conversion, where also first, (i. e. in a Council) was used the name of Transubstantiation. Two hundred years after this again; the Council of Florence declared likewise for the same, in the Articles of Instruction to the Jacobines, and Armenians, in these words— Ipsorum verborum Christi virtute, substantia panis in Corpus Christi, & substantia vine in sanguinem, convertuntur. Which declaration, though made after the departure of the Greeks, (whom the Turks Invasion hastened away) yet it was fully agreeable to their doctrine: Nor had the Latin, and Greek Church then any difference concerning the Substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body, but only hy what words this mutation was effected. For which thing see the plain Confession of Bishop Forbes 
‖ De Euch. p. 412. See below, Dises 3. §. 158. , against Chemnitius, and others of his own party. And all these, without any opposition; or the Church-catholic's assembling itself in any other Council, in so many Centuries, for to reverse such a Decree. If there was; let it be named.  
§. 59 Now, if the Decree of so many Synods, so often weighing the Adversaries reasons and evidences, was not sufficient for settling such a point, at least as to the obedience of future silence, and noncontradiction, and as to suffering the Church to enjoy her peace, what can hereafter be sufficient? Or, can we ever hope, that any controversy shall be finally determined, or ended by any future Council, if this is not by these forepast? Can there be any ground here to question the integrity, or lawful proceed of so many Councils, at such a distance from one another, all concurring in the same judgement, for a corporal Presence, and a substantial mutation? Or, can there be any new Light in this Point (since there are no new Revelations) attainable in these present times, which those were not capable of? Or, if there could, is not much the major part of the present Clergy, and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christianity still swayed on the same side, against any present evidence pretended?  
If we consider (saith Dr. Hammond 
‖ Of Heresy, §. 13. n. 2, 3. ) God's great, and wise, and constant Providence, and Care over his Church; his desire, that all men should be saved, and in order to that end, come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth; his promise, that he will not suffer his faithful Servants to be tempted above what they are able; nor permit Scandals, and False Teachers to prevail to the seducing of the very Elect, his most pious godly Servants; If, I say, we consider these, and some other such like General Promises of Scripture, wherein this Question [about the Errability of Councils] seems to be concerned, we shall have reason to believe; that God will never suffer all Christians to fall into such a temptation, as it must be in case the whole Representative should err in matter of faith. [I add, to define, therein, any thing contrary to the Apostles depositum, and which, Christians may not safely believe; or, without idolatry, practise], and therein find approbation and reception among all those Bishops, and Doctors of the Church diffused, which were out of the Council. And though in this case the Church might remain a Church, (and so the destructive gates of hell not prevail against it) and still retain all parts of the 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 Dr. Hammond; whose words I desire may be seriously considered with application to this great Controversy of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass.] We do not believe (saith the same Doctor 
‖ Ibid §. 14. n. 6. ) that any General Council, truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of Faith. 
‖ See before, §. 56. n. 2.  We are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgement of the truly Catholic Church, and its lawful Representative, a free General Council 
‖ Vind. c 2. p. 9 : Or, in defect of that, a free Occidental Council 
‖ Schism Guarded, p. 136 , saith Bishop Bramhal. It seems very fit, and necessary for the peace of Christendom, that a general Council [supposed] thus erring, should stand in force, till evidence of Scripture, or demonstration, make the Errors to appear, as that another Council of equal authority reverse it. Saith Archbishop Lawd 
‖ p. 227. — Again. An Argument necessary, and demonstrative is such (saith he) as, being proposed to any man, and understood, the Mind cannot choose, but inwardly assent unto it. So it is not enough to think, on to say it is demonstrative; the light of a demonstrative Argument is the evidence, which it hath in its self to all that understand it. Well: but because all understand it not; If a quarrel be made [as was by Berengarius four or five times] Who shall decide it? No question, but a General Council.— For if it be evident to any man, then to so many learned men, as are in a Council, doubtless: And if they cannot but assent, it is hard to think them so impious, that they will define against it. And if that which is thought evident to any man, be not evident to such a grave Assembly, its probable it's no Demonstration, and the Producers of it ought to rest, and not to trouble the Church 
‖ Pag. 245, 246. . Thus Archbishop Lawd. How then I say in the present point, can the reformed, reviving the former Arguments of Bertram, Scotus Erigena, Berengarius, etc. still trouble the Church again with urging of them, after the judgement of so many Councils already passed upon them: If the reform tie us to obedience, as of assent, when the Council brings evident Scripture, or Demonstration; so of Silence, when we cannot bring it against the Council; and, after our bringing what we think Demonstrative, tie us to stand to the judgement of the Council, whether it be so, or no; From hence it follows; that, as we may not gainsay a second Council, after our Demonstrations proposed, and disallowed by it; so we may not gainsay the former, or the very first Council, if we produce no new demonstrations, but such as were considered by such Council, and rejected. Now, if Councils are thus to judge of Demonstrations brought against their former Decrees, and the Contradictour to acquiesce in their judgement; Can any desire a fairer Judicature by Councils in any matter (for silencing future disputes; if not, for uniting variety of opinions), than there have already been, of this? And is there any reason, that Protestants should refer themselves in this point (as they do) to the judgement of a new Council? If all these Councils, successively, erred in this point so manifestly, as that they could not lawfully oblige their subjects, (especially bringing no new Arguments,) to silence; the next, and the next to that, of such Councils, as ever we can hope for, may err so too; and the same obedience of silence be denied to them; whilst, one pretended Evidence, or Demonstration quelled, another new one starts up, and demands satisfaction.  
§. 60 But if these Councils be invalid for establishing the belief, or at least the non-opposition, of a substantial Conversion. Let us see the proceed of the Reformation here to repeal their Acts, and establish the contrary to them.  
After all these Councils forenamed, and that of Trent, added to them A. D. 1562. a Synod is called at London of two Provinces only of the West, consisting of about twenty four Bishops, and two Metropolitans. And by these, against all the former Councils abovesaid, it is decreed 
‖ Article 28. ; That the change of the substance of the bread, and wine in the Eucharist, is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture; and overthrows the nature of a Sacrament. [If than the rest of Christendom have no more, than Protestants here say they have; for many ages they have had no Sacrament of the Lords Supper amongst them.] Next; in obedience to this their decree, they tie their subjects not to silence, or a noncontradiction of it, but to subscribe 
‖ Synod. 1603 Can. 63  that they acknowledge it, [i. e. confess, believe, it] to be agreeable to the Word of God, [i.e. to be true]: An obedience, which themselves, though subjects, do deny to the decree of all those preceding Councils, wherein the judgement of all the Bishops and Metropolitans of the then western world concurred, and amongst the rest, those of these two Provinces also, yet doth their Synod require it.  
§. 61 And their requiring this, thought to be rationally, thus, defended; Because, Though it is not impossible, but that such Synod may err yet it may be certain, that in something it doth not err 
‖ Mr. Stilling-fleet p 542. — And so, to such point may enjoin assent. because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture, as that all denying of it must be wilful. 
‖ Mr. Whitby. p. 100  But meanwhile, you see, all these Councils have denied, what this Synod of twenty six Bishops is certain of; and certain, from evidence of Scripture; an evidence, the perusal of which all those Councils had, as well as these. Here let a sober Christian judge, if assent be held due to this London-Synod, upon such a pretended certainty of theirs; is it not to those other much rather? to those others, I say, incomparably more numerous; accepted by the whole West for many Ages; and adhered-to still by the greatest part thereof; having before them the Scriptures, and the traditive Exposition of them; weighing the Arguments that are still on foot; meeting so often; and concluding still in the same Judgement. But; if these other Councils are justified, by the practice of this English Synod, either in their requiring assent, or at least silence; thus is the Reformation rendered unlawful; as likewise their appeal to future Councils; which can afford us no more just satisfaction, than the forepast. As for that refuge, usually sought, in flying to the contrary judgement, or non-acceptance, of the Eastern Churches in this point, it helps not. For 1st, (besides a considerable presence of Grecian Bishops, that there was in some of these Councils) as to a tacit-approbation or non-opposition in this point, the Greek Churches have never been found to have made the least anti-declaration. And 2ly. You may see below, Disc. 3. §. 158. the Testimonies both of their own Writers, and also of several Protestants, showing their accord herein with the Western Churches.  
§. 62 As for the Appeal, that is made by many to our senses, that they may be consulted rather, than the Church, or the Fathers, (who yet had as perfect an information from their senses, as we from ours,) for the decision of this point; and as for the many contradictions that are mustered up by them 
‖ See Mr. Tillorsons Rule of faith, p. 271. Dr. Tailor Real price, p. 207, etc. 251. etc.— Stillingf. Rat. account. p. 117 & 567. , out of Philosophy, and from natural reason, against it. 1st, I think all are here agreed, that the contrary testimony of sense, or the seeming contradictions of Reason are not to be regarded, where Divine Revelation declares any thing to be Truth.  
[That which I am now upon [saith Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ p. 567.  in the place where he urgeth such contradictions of sense, and reason, to Transubstantiation] is not, how far reason [I add, or sense], is to be submitted to divine Authority in case of certainty, that there is a divine Revelation for what I am to believe. This saith enough; But give me leave to add the judgement of two or three Protestants more in this matter, here a little to check the forwardness of those, who so peremptorily admit the arbitrement of sense, and natural reason, in mysteries of Religion. The 1st is, that submission of Dr. Tailors in Real Presence, (p. 240.) after he had numbered up many apparent contradictions, not only in respect of a natural, but (as he saith) of an absolute possibility of Transubstantiation, (from p. 207. to 237.)— Yet, saith he,— Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my Arguments against it, and make public amends. [All my Arguments, (i) of apparent contradictions, and absolute impossibilities]— And p. 237. To this objection, that we believe the doctrine, of the Trinity; and of the Incarnation; of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin, etc. clauso utero; and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies (in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions) notwithstanding seeming impossibilities; and therefore why not Transubstantiation? He answers, That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation, as of the other than this Argument were good; and if it were possible for a thousand times more Arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation, yet (saith he) we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all. [Now I pray you observe, that none can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows certainly to be false, or (which is all one) certainly to contradict, or to be, not naturally, but absolutely impossible (which therefore, it is strange, that Dr. Tailor affirms himself to know concerning Transubstantiation) 
‖ p 107, 236. : For these, we say, are not verifiable by a divine power; and therefore here I may say; should divine power declare a Truth, it would transcend itself].— Again, (in Liberty of Prophecy §. 20. n. 16.) he saith,— ‛ Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications, which are in the School, and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church, believe them with as much violence to the Principles of Natural, and Supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation, [Yet I suppose himself denies no doctrine about the Trinity, that is commonly delivered in the Schools.] The next is that grave admonition of that learned, and moderate Prelate, Bishop Forbes.— Admodum periculosè (saith he) & nimis audacter negant multi Protestantes Deum posse panem substantialiter in Corpus Domini convertere. Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum, imo & Angelorum. Id quidem, quod implicat contradictionem, non posse fieri concedunt omnes; sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat, quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia, ac perinde quid implicet, & quid non implicet contradictionem, magnae profectò temeritatis est, propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem, Deo limites praescribere; & praefractè negare, omnipotentia sua, illum hoc vel illud facere posse.— And (p 395.)— Certè haud pauca (saith he) credimus omnes, quae, si ratio humana consulatur, non minus impossibilia esse, & contradictionem manifestam implicare videntur, quam ipsa Transubstantiatio; instancing there in the doctrine of the Resurrection of the same numerical Body.— And he goes on, (p. 388.) ' Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtembergicorum in confession suâ. Anno 1552. Consilio Tridentino proposita, 
Vid. Harmonia Confess.  cap. de Eucharistiâ. Credimus, inquiunt, Omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse, ut possit in Eucharistiâ substantiam panis & vini vel annihilare, vel in Corpus & sanguinem Christi mutare. Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam Omnipotentiam in Eucharistiâ exerceat, non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum, & apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum. The third is calvin's Confession of faith, 
‖ Lib. Epist p. 5702.  written two years before his death, and directed to the Emperor, and Princes of Germany.— Porrò (saith he) qui nos accusant, quod Dei potentiae derogetur à nobis, valde sunt in nos injurii. Non enim hîc quaeritur, quid Deus possit, sed quid verbo suo velit, extra quod nihil nobis qaaerendum, ut hoc, aut illud divinemus. Quare illam quaestionem omittemus, an Deus possit facere, ut Christi Corpus sit ubique; sed cum omni modestiam intra istos Scripturae fines consistimus, qu● perhibet, Christum induisse corpus nostro corpori per omnia simile— Interea extollimus Dei potentiam magis, quam illi, qui nos istiusmodi probris infamant. Fatemur enim ipsamillam Christi à nobis, secundum humanam naturam, distantiam non impedire, quò minùs in seipso nos vivificet, habitet in nobis, nosque adeo participes reddat ipsiusmet substantiae corporis sui, & sanguinis, virtute incomprehensibili sancti sui Spiritus. Ex quo apparet merè calumniosum esse, quod nobis imponitur: quasi nempe figeremus suos terminos Dei potentiae explacitis Philosophorum; atqui omnis nostra Philosophia una est, simpliciter admittere, quod Scriptura nos docet.— And, de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione, c. 11. speaking of the Eucharist— ‛ Quasi vero (saith he) hic de Christi potentia disputetur.— Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo nos quoque fatemur.]  
This than I hope may be said, with the approbation of Protestants, that the interposings of sense (though indeed in the Eucharist there is no error in our senses, all that being really there, which they perceive there; but in our reason only; arguing from the position of the accidents to the position of the subject) or the interposing of Reason, and Philosophy, are not to be harkened to in this matter, till first it be cleared, what is the divine Revelation concerning it: which divine Revelation so often as it appears to have declared any thing contrary to them, we may, with modesty enough, use that expression of F. Cressies, causelessly censured, 
‖ Tillots, p. 276.  That we have learned, not to answer such Arguments, but to despise them.  
§. 64 2ly All thus acknowledging their submission to divine Revelation; This hath been produced out of the Scriptures, 
2.  For a corporal presence of Christ's Body, and a Conversion of the consecrated Elements into it. Many texts urged, if taken in their most literal, proper, and natural sense, very express for it▪ as Mat. 26.26.— Mark 14.22.— Luke 22.19.— Jo. (who, speaking of it here, omits it in the History of the Passion) 6.51, 53, 54.— 1 Cor. 11.24, 27, 29.— 10.16. It being very observable here, 1st, That the words of Institution are still repeated punctually by four several sacred Writers, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul) without any variation, or Exposition of any impropriety: whereas it is not usual so constantly to retain, without Explication, a tropical; or figurative speech; especially in a matter, where the truth is so necessary to be known. 2 Again, that the fourth of these Writers, cautiously as it were, useth not his own stile in this matter, as in others; but chooseth to deliver our Lords commands punctually in his own words, [what I have received, that I deliver, etc.] And 3 That our Saviour also in these words seconds his first expression Hoc est Corpus meum (without changing afterward any impropriety in them) with the like words following Hic est sanguis; and then confirmeth both these with a quod tradetur and qui effundetur (i) on the Cross, to show he was real in these words, and meant no Figure. Notwithstanding this, the true sense of these Scriptures was called in question by a party (not now only, but eight hundred years ago) contending, that they were, not properly but figuratively to be, understood. And upon this, the usual remedy, for the right understanding of Scriptures controverted, was, then, repaired to; and the same supreme Ecclesiastical Judge consulted, for deciding and declaring the true, and traditive sense of these Scriptures, in this important controversy concerning the real, substantial, corporeal presence of our Lord's Body, as was formerly for declaring the traditive sense of the Scriptures controverted, concerning the Divinity of Christ. A General Council, (i.e. the most general that the times would permit) was assembled in the West, in our Forefathers days, nay, of these more than one; as hath been showed 
‖ §. 57, etc. ; a substantial Conversion of the Elements, and a corporal Presence declared to be the traditive sense of these Scriptures; and a reverence suitable required in this great mystery; not one Bishop in these Councils, for any thing we know, in the whole Church of God at that time dissenting; and those of the Eastern Churches, absent, consenting in the same judgement 
‖ See Disc. 3. §. 158. : what, more can be done? Ought not sense, reason, philosophy, here to be silenced? and ought not such a Decree to be, if not assented to, yet (even in the judgement of those learned Protestant Divines before quoted 
‖ § 56. n. 2.— 59 ) acquiesced in, so far, as not to be by any contradicted?  
§ 65 But 3 lie, what, now, if many of those contradictions, and absurdities, which are urged against the corporeal presence of the Catholics, 
3.  do as much overthrow that real presence, that is maintained by Protestants, I mean the Calvinists, and so many in the Church of England, as have not deserted their Forefathers; and, to fly the father from the Church of Rome. are gone quite over into the Camp of Zuinglius, changing a real into merely a spiritual presence; or a presence only of Christ's Spirit, uniting the worthy Communicant here on earth to his Body in Heaven? But heretofore at least, it hath been the common Tenent of the English Divines, to affirm not only a spiritual presence, or a presence only by effect, operation, or grace, but a substantial presence, in the Eucharist, (and that is here on earth), not to the Elements indeed, but to the worthy Receiver, of the very same Body of Christ, that suffered on the Cross, and that is now, at the same time, as here, also in heaven.  
§. 66 [To which purpose thus Calvin in 1 Cor. 11.24.— Neque enim mortis suae keneficium nobis offert Christus; sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est, & resurrexit.— And Institut. l, 4. c. 17. §. 7.— Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt, qui dum Communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt, nos spiritus modò participes faciunt, praeteritâ carnis, & sanguinis mentione. Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dictaforent; carnem ejus verè esse cibum, &c. non habere vitam, nisi qui carnemallam manducaverit, etc.— §. 9 Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus, quin totus [Christus] spiritu, & corpore nobis adhaereat. So Dr. Tailor, Real Presence, p. 288. pronounceth Anathema to those, who do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us.— And p. 5. expounds spiritual Presence (put in the Title of his Book) only to exclude the Corporal, and natural manner. [not spiritual therefore, so as to exclude Corpus Domini; but only the corporal, or natural manner of that body:] now by excluding the natural manner is not meant (surely) the exclusion of Nature, or the thing itself; (For then, to say, a thing is there, not after a natural manner; were as much, as to say; the thing is not there;) but the exclusion of those Properties, which usually accompany Nature, or the thing. And p. 12. he saith— When the word Real Presence is denied by some Protestants, it is taken for Natural Presence [which Natural Presence, he well knows, the Roman Church also denies]. and not for Presence in rei veritate.]  
And thus Mr. Hooker, l. 5. §. 67. p. 357.— Wherefore should the world contìnue still distracted, and rend with so manifold contentions; when there remaineth now no controversy, saving only about the Subject, where Christ is?— Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within man only; or else his Body, and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves.— And p. 359.— His Body, and his Blood (saith he) are in that very subject, whereunto they minister life, not only by effect, and operation even as the Influence, etc. See also Bishop Andrews Resp. ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de objecto convenit; de m●do lis omnis est, etc.— Praesentiam (inquam) credimus, nec minus quam vos, veram. De modo Praesentiae nil temerè definimus.— non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, etc.]  
§. 67 Would not one think here; that, touching the Substantial (and, may not I say, corporal, so it be understood with Dr. Tailor, not after the natural manner of bodies) Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, all were agreed? And the question only, (as Hooker) whether it be to, and within, the Receiver only; or also externally seated in the consecrated Elements? And then, though not the deceptions of sense concerning the Bread, yet, (which is much harder,) the many contradictions about the same Body, or Entity (if you will, its being at once in divers places, its being deprived of its dimensions, etc. do not they press in to disturb the Protestant's belief in this matter, as well as the Catholicks? Surely some such thing was considered by the English Synod in Queen Elizabeth's days, 1562. when they both cast out of the 28th. of the former Articles of Religion, made in the end of King Edward's Reign, these words following.— [Cum humanae Naturae veritas requirat, ut unius, ejusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno aliquo, & definito loco esse oporteat; idcirco Christi Corpus in multis & diversis locis, eodem tempore, praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt Sacrae Literae, Christus in Coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad finem saeculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus, & sanguinis realem praesentiam in Eucharistiâ vel credere, vel profiteri:] And also cast out a Rubric, or Declaration to the same purpose, inserted in King Edward's 2d. Common-Prayer-Book, which gives this Reason, why no Adoration ought to be done to any real, and essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh, and Blood in the Eucharist; because the natural Body, and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not there; it being against the truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places, than one; though, (I believe to the great grief, and dislike of many of the true Sons of this Church), the same Rubric hath gotten in again into the late English Liturgy; But the other clause is not, hitherto, readmitted into the Article.  
§. 68 And, if there were not also some seeming Absurdities, and Contradictions in these Protestant's stating of the Real Presence, why call they the manner ineffable; full of Miracles; and not apprehensible by reason?— Ego hoc Mysterium saith Calvin 
‖ Instit. l. 4. c. 17.24. ) minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus sub jicio.— Humanae rationi minime placebit [that which he affirms] penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum.— Dicimus Christum tam externo Symbolo, quam Spiritu suo, ad nos descenderd, ut verè substantia carnis suae animas nostras vivificet— In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse miracula, plusquam stupidus est; quando— nihil magis incredibile, quam res toto coeli, & terrea spatio dissitas, ac remotas, in tanta locorum distantiâ, non tantùm conjungi, sed uniri; ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi.— And §. 32.— Porrò de m●do, si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quàm ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis, queat.— And §. 25.— Captivas tenemus mentes nostras, ne verbulo duntaxat obstreper; ac humiliamus, ne insurgere audeant.— And (in his Confession of Faith 
‖ Lib. Epl p. 572. )— Not fatemur omnino rationem. quâ cum Christo communicanus, ad miraculum referendam esse. Therefore as these Protestants charge the Roman Transubstantiation with contradictions, absurdities, impossibilities; so do the Zwinglians, Remonstrants, Socinians, as freely charge their Real Presence. See the Remonstrant's Apology, c. 23. who thus dispute against them— Quomodo enim non credibile sed possibile esse, imo quomodo non impossibile, adeoque absurdum videri' debet, Corpus Christi quod est & manet in Coelis, & non alibi, vere communicari nobis, qui in terrâ sumus, & non alibi, ita ut nobis cedat in cibum?— And afterward, p. 251. they'say,— Omnia ista non modò obscura, & incomprehensibilia esse, sed manifestè etiam inse continere, tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem.— Et ineffabilia illa mysteria humanam seu curiositatem, seu superstitionem, in hoc tam simplici, tam plano, & a nullo non ingenio facile perceptibili ritu, finxisse potius, quàm reperisse;— qui postquam a simplici Scripturae phrasi semel discesserunt, admirationibus inexhaustis se pascere malunt, quàm clarâ veritatis scientiâ. And the Socinians accuse this Opinion of the Calvinists, and English Church. 
‖ Volkel. l ●. c. 22, — Eam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnare, quae dictat fieri non posse, ut Christi Corpus, tanto intervalio a nobis disjunctum, in coenâ revera comedamus. Idcirco & ille ipse qui sententiae istius author est, fatetur se hoc Mysterium nec ment percipere, nec liguâ explicare posse.  
And thus also Rivet 
‖ Animad. in Grot. p. 85.  against it;— Si Corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitatiuè [(i. e.) corporally, or secundum modum corporis] non est omnino; quia Corpus Christi ubicunque est, quantum est, aut non est Corpus. Now if it be said here, that though the Real Presence of Protestants, to the worthy Receiver, admits indeed some seeming contradictions: yet doth the Roman Real Presence to the Symbols su●●er many more. 1st I answer, that a Tenent involving one true contradiction, is as far removed from Truth, as that which involves a hundred. And 2 . That I know no just bounds, but that, if ineffable incomprehensible, may be used for salving three, or four seeming impossibilities, so it may be, for forty.  
§. 69 As for the Fears suggested by some 
‖ Still p. 117. 567.— Tillots. p. 275▪ — That, if the judgement of all men's senses is not to be relied on in the matter of the Eucharist, than it will be impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith. For what assurance can be had of any Miracles, & c? Why not the Apostles be deceived in Christ's being risen from the grave? For might it not be an invisible Spirit under the Accidents of Christ's Body? And, since hearing may fail, as well as sight, may not we thus question all Church-Tradition? That nothing is to be admitted by us as certain, which admitted, we can be certain of nothing, etc. As for such Tragical Consequences, I say, they need not much terrify us.  
§. 70 For 1st. If it be not true in the Eucharist, I suppose it is in another instance; that under the outward accidents, and appearances to the senses of one body was contained the substance, or presence of another; viz. under the external appearance of men, the persons of Angels; so that the senses of all men, that looked upon them, were actually mistaken, Gen. 18.19. And so would so many more, as had beheld them. Doth it follow now from this deception of Sense, or Reason here, (which cannot be denied), that, after this, it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith; or, that any assurance can be had of Miracles, etc. Or lastly, That we can be, thenceforward, certain of nothing? If not; how follows it from the like supernatural Operation supposed in the Eucharist? An Argument drawn from our Senses is not, from any of these supernatural effects deceiving sense, weakened for proving any Truth, save only in so many Particulars, wherein we have, or pretend, divine Revelation concerning such deception of our sense. If then there be such Divine Revelation for a deception of sense, or natural reason, in the Eucharist, I hope all will see these aggravating consequences to be vain. But 2ly▪ If this Revelation be mistaken, yet cannot that deception of sense, which is only believed upon its supposal, be from hence justly extended to any other thing, where this is not supposed. So that, whether such Revelation be, or be not, Catholics, and the truth, in such hasty, and unweighed Argumentations, are much wronged. This (from §. 62.) I have annexed, though somewhat besides the design of this Discourse, that the reluctances of our Sense, or Natural Reason may do no prejudice to our Faith, and humble submission, (in this great Mystery), to the Traditions of the Church, and Definitions of Councils.   
The End of the first Discourse.   

THE SECOND DISCOURSE. Proceeding (upon the Concessions of Learned Protestants; That the Pastors of the Church, some or other, in all Ages, do infallibly guide their Subjects in Necessaries) to search, which, in any Division of these Pastors, are those, to whom Christians ought to adhere, and yield their Obedience.  
THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. 1. Protestant's grant, 

1st. That there is at this present, an One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church §. 1.  
2ly. That the present Pastors, and Governors thereof have authority to decide Controversies. §. 2.  
3ly. That these Governors (some, or other of them) shall never err, or miss-guide Christians, at least in absolute Necessaries to Salvation. §. 3.  
4ly. That they, and the Church governed by them, stand always distinct from Heretical, or Schismatical Congregations. § 5.    
Chap. 2. Catholics further affirm, 

5ly. That, if these Pastors guide unerringly in Necessaries, the People are also to learn from them, what, or how many Points are necessary, so far as the knowledge thereof is necessary to them. § 6.  
6ly. Again; That the Necessaries, wherein these Ecclesiastical Governors are infallible Guides, ought not to be confined to some few points absolutely necessary, but extended to all such points of Faith, as are very beneficial, to Salvation. § 9  
7ly. Concerning the exact distinguishing of necessaries from non-necessaries. 

1. That, there seems no necessity, that the Church guides should be enabled exactly to distinguish them. §. 12.  
2. That they may infallibly guide in them, though not infallibly distinguish them. § 14.  
3. That they guiding infallibly in all necessaries (and no distinction of these made) ought to be believed in all points they propose (except an infallible certainty can be showed of the contrary. §. 15.  
4. That these Governors do distinguish and do propose as such, all those more necessary points, which it is requisite for Christians, with a more particular explicit Faith, to believ. §. 17.    
8. That Christians, submitting their judgement to the present Church-Governors in deciding all necessary matters of Faith, ought also to submit it to them, in declaring the sense of the Fathers, or Definitions of Councils, and former Church, concerning the same Matters. §. 19  
9ly. That, supposing these Guides to err in some of their Decisions, yet their Subjects, (by the concession of Learned Protestants) ought to yield the Obedience either of silence, or also of assent, to them in all such points, whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary. §. 20.  
10. From whence it follows, that none may adhere to any new Guides; but only so many, as can demonstrate the Errors of the former. §, 21.    
Chap. 3. 

11. Granted by all; that these Church-Governors may teach diversely; and some of them (more, or fewer) may become erroneous in Necessaries; and miss-guide Christians in them. §. 22.  
12. In such dissenting therefore, that there must be some Rule for Christians, which Guides they ought to follow: and that this is, and rationally can be, no other, than, in these Judges subordinate dissenting, to adhere to the Superior; in those of the same Order, and Dignity dissenting, to the major part. §. 23. 

Where, Of the Major part concluding the Whole, in the ancient Councils. §. 25. n. 2. And,  
Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the time of Arrianisme. §. 26. n. 2.    
13. That, accordingly, both in Councils their defining Matters of Religion, and in the Church's acceptation of their Decrees, the much Major part must conclude the whole, and the opposing of their Definitions also be Heresy; and separation from their Communion, Schism; if an Opposition to, or separation from the whole, be so. §. 27. n. 4,  
14. As for the Protestant Marks, whereby, in any Division, to know these true Guides; [viz. A right teaching of God's Word, and a right Administration of the Sacraments]; that these are things to be learned from these true Guides first known, §. 28,    
Chap. 4. An Application of the former Propositions in a search, which of the opposite present Churches (or of the dissenting Ecclesiastical Governors thereof) is our true Guide. §. 30. 

Motives persuading, that the Roman, and the other Western Churches united with it, and with the Head thereof, S. Peter's Successor, are this true Guide. 

1st Their being the very same Body with that, which Protestants grant, was 150 years ago the Christian's true Guide: and the other Body, confessing themselves, in external Communion, departed from it. §. 33.  
2ly. Their being that Body, to which (if we follow the former Rule (recited, Prop. 12.) we ought to submit. §. 35.  
3ly. Their being that Body, that owns, and adheres to, the Definitions, and Decrees of all the former Councils, such as the Church of preceding Ages, hath received as General, or obliging; as well those Councils since, as those before the Sixth, or Seventh Century: which later, the other Party rejects. §. 37.      
Chap. 5. The pretended Security of those Protestants who deny any certain, living, or Personal Guide, infallible in Necessaries; affirming, 

1. That, all necessary Matters of Faith are even to the unlearned clear in the Scriptures; and the Controversies in non-necessaries needless to be decided. §. 38.  
2. That, all Necessaries are clear in Scripture; because God hath left no other certain Means, Rule, or Guide of the knowledge of them, save the Scriptures; §. 39 n, 1. 

Not any certain living Guide, 

1st. Which is infallible; as their Guide the Scriptures, are. §. 39 n. 2.  
2ly. Which the unlearned, in any Division, can discern from the false Guides; or know their Deerees better, than the Scriptures.  
3ly. From whom, the Scriptures direct them, to learn Necessaries; or tell them, what Church, or Party they are to adhere to, in any Schism made; In which infallible Guide, if there were any such, as being a thing of the greatest concernment, the Scriptures would not have been silent. Ibid.    
Reply. 

1. That, Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Heretics, in their dissenting from the Church.  
2. That, as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith, the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied by Roman Catholics; but only the clearness thereof, as to all men's capacities, questioned. And another Guide held necessary It is replied then.    
I. Concerning the Clearness of Scripture. 

1. That some Controversies in Religion, since the writing of the Scriptures, have been concerning points necessary; As those Controversies concerning the Trinity; the Deity, and Humanity of our Lord, the necessity of God's Grace, etc. §. 43.  
2. That, the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture, still with the more security may Christians rely for them on the Church's judgement; from which also they receive these Scriptures. §. 41.  
3. That, there is no necessity that all Necessaries should be revealed in Scriptures, as to all men, clearly. §. 41. 

1. Because it is sufficient, if God hath left this one Point clear in Scriptures, that we should, in all difficulties, and Obscurities of them follow the Directions, and adhere to the Expositions, and Doctrines of these Guides. §. 41.  
2. Sufficient; if God hath, by other Apostolical Tradition at least, clearly revealed to these Church-Guides, all such necessary Truths to be (successively) communicated by them to his people. §. 44.  
3. Sufficient, if God hath, by Tradition, at least clearly revealed to these Church-Guides the sense of such Scriptures as are, in points necessary, any way obscure. Ibid.  
4. Sufficient, if God, in the Scripture, hath clearly enough revealed all necessary Truths to the capacity of these Church. Guides, using due means, though he hath not to the capacity of the unlearned; for from those, these may learn them. §. 45.      
II. Concerning a living Guide. 

1. That, where the Scripture, (especially, several Texts compared) is ambiguous, and in Controversy, the Christians Guide, to know the true sense, cannot be the Scripture, but either the Church's, or their own, judgement. §. 46. n. 1.  
2. That it is not necessary, that God, in the Scriptures, should direct Christians to what Guide they are to repair. §. 46. n. 2. 

Or to what Church-Prelates, or Party, in any Schism,  
Christians for ever ought to adhere. §. 47. n. 2.    
3. Yet, that God hath given Christians a sufficient direction herein, in his leaving a due subordination among these Governors, whereby the Inferiors are subjected to the Superior; and a part unto the whole. §. 47. n. 3. 

And, that Christians may more clearly know the sense of their Definitions in matters controverted, than the sense of the Scriptures. §. 48.           

THE SECOND DISCOURSE.  
CHAP. I.  
Protestants assenting. 1. That there is, at this present, an One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, §. 1.  
2. That the present Pastors and Governors thereof have Authority to decide Controversies, §. 2.  
3. And that their Governors shall never err or misguide Christians, at least in absolute Necessaries, §. 3.  
4. And that they, with the Church governed by them, do stand always distinct from Heretical, and Schismatical, Congregations, §. 5.  
§. 1 1st. THat there is an, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church, in this Age, and at this present time; All, 
Proposition 1  I suppose, grant.  
§. 2 2ly, That this present Church (that is, in its Pastors, 
Prop. 2.  and Governors) is appointed for a Guide to Christians, and hath Authority to decide Controversies, is unquestioned also among several learned Protestants 
‖ See Disc. 1. §. 3●, etc. ; And, I think, is a part of the 20 th'. Article of the Church of England: which Article saith, The Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith, [And what can it mean, but for deciding them? or who decide them, but the Ecclesiastical Governors?]  
§. 3 3ly, That these present Governors, in this present Age, either * collectively taken, as they are assembled in a Council, 
Prop. 3.  the Decrees whereof are universally accepted by those Governors of the Church diffusive, that are absent from it; or * disjunctively taken, for some visible Society, or other, of them at least (sometimes lesser, sometimes greater); shall never misguide Christians, at least in absolute Necessaries to salvation, is also acknowledged by learned Protestants 
‖ See Disc. 1. §. 25. etc.   
And seems to be the clear sense of the 19 th'. Article of the Church of England, which affirms— ‛ The visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men, 
‖ See Art. 23.  in the which the pure Word of God is preached. [preached, I suppose by its Ministers] in all those things, that of Necessity are requisite to the same [Church, or Congregation of the faithful.] And indeed, otherwise, either the first Proposition (a part of our Creed) would be false; because, since the people are obliged to the faith of these their Governors, (Heb. 13.7.— Eph. 4.11. compared 14.) the whole Church would thus err in Necessaries, and so would cease to be Catholic: Or, at least the Catholic Church in such, deficiency of the Clergy, would be constituted wholly of Laics, and of Christ's Sheep without Pastors, save those, whose Sacraments, and Communion, as falling away from the Catholic Church in Fundamentals are unlawful: which seems very absurd, and contrary to the Promises of our Lord.  
Concerning this visible Church, or Society of Orthodox-Guides thereof never deficient, See the Concessions of Dr. Field 
‖ See 1 Disc. §. 3. , Dr. Ferne, Mr. Hooker, and other learned Protestants, in 1. Disc. §. 25, etc.  
And Mr. Chillingworth, though, by reason of the plainness of Scripture in all Necessaries, he acknowledgeth no need of any such Guide, and therefore denies it 
‖ p. 59 : yet thus he, freely, speaks of the necessity of the Infallibility of such Guide, supposed. ‛ In Civil Controversies (saith he) we are obliged only to external passive obedience, and not to an internal, and active. We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge, or not to resist it; but not always to believe it just. But, in matters of Religion, such a Judge is required, whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right. So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge: But in Religion none, but he that is infallible. Thus he. And the reason seems plain; because these are Guides of our souls, and consciences in matters of belief for attaining our salvation; but not so the secular, whether our natural, or civil, Governors, (so that the usual arguing of some Protestants, from the fallible authority of the one, its being sufficient, to that of the other, seems very faulty); since we have to these no obligation, as concerning divine matters, either to assent to what they propose, or to practise what they command, further, than we believe the thing true, they propose, and lawful, they command; but are, in case of any doubt in these matters, to repair to these our spiritual Guides to be directed, what is truth, and error; lawful, and unlawful. The judgement and decision of which things, (so often as the true meaning, and sense of the divine law falls into controversy) those, who do not give to these Church-Guides, do, much more dangerously, both for their own souls, and the state they live in, take to themselves; for neither do these give the decision of such things to the Civil Magistrates.  
§ 5 4. Again; It follows likewise from the present being of the Catholic Church of every age; 
Prop. 4.  supposed to consist as well of Clergy as People; That the present Governors or Guides thereof, who, or wherever they be, cannot in any age be Heretical, or Schismatical; for all Heretical, or Schismatical Congregations are contra-distinct both to [Holy Church] and [Catholic Charch], mentioned in our Creed.  
This is a thing conceded by Archbishop Lawd, Dr, Field Bishop Bramhall, and others. See Disc. 1. §. 37, 44.   

CHAP. II.  
4. Catholics, further, affirming.  
5. That, these Pastors being infallible in Necessaries, the people are to learn from them what is necessary. §. 6.  
6. That this their Infallibility in Necessaries must extend not only to some few points absolutely necessary, but all others very beneficial, to Salvation. §. 9  
7. That it is no way requisite, That these Church-Guides should exactly distinguish all such Necessaries from other points not so. §. 12. Which they may, infallibly guide in, though not infallibly separate, §. 14. And, no distinct on being made aught to be believed in all they propose. §. 15. Yet, that they do both distinguish, and propose as such, all those more necessary points, which it is requisite for all Christians more particularly and explicitly to believe. §. 17.  
8. That Christians, submitting to their Judgement in deciding Necessaries, aught also to submit to the same, in their declaring the sense of Fathers, Definitions of Councils, etc. touching the same matters. §. 19  
9 That, supposing these Guides tr err in some of their Decisions, yet their Subjects (by the Concession of Learned Protestants) ought to yield Obedience, either of Silence, or also of Assent, to them in all such points, whereof they cannot demonstratively prove the contrary. §. 20.  
10. Whence it follows; That, none may adhere to any new Guides, save only those, who can demonstrase the Errors of the former. §. 21.  
§. 6 THese things agreed on, 5 , Catholics proceed; That, if there shall be always such ae Body of Church-Governors, 
Prop. 5.  as shall direct the people unerringly in Necessaries, it is meet also, that Christians learn from them, what, or how many points they be, that are necessary (if this thing be at all necessary to be known;)  
§. 7 The Reason. 1. Because, if the Church-Guides be infallible in Necessaries; and the distinct knowledge of Necessaries be held also a Point necessary, than the Church-Guides must also be infallible in this point, the discerning of Necessaries. 2 . Because (though Divine assistance be set aside) these Guides, from their Learning, are fit Judges of Necessaries, than the People, 3 lie, Because the People, in their judging of Necessaries, if they should (ignorantly, or passionately) mistake something, that is necessary, not to be so; and so withdraw their Obedience, or assent, may thus become deficient in necessary Faith, and so miscarry in their Salvation: Whereas, on the other side, in their reliance, for these points, on the judgement of their Guides, (that are infallible in necessaries), in necessaries they cannot miscarry: and, in their believing something more, as necessary, which is not, their miscarriage is no way dangerous. For, as Dr. Potter well observes 
‖ p. 155.  There is not so much danger in adding superfluities, as in detracting Necessaries: and though these Church-Guides should be supposed liable to miscarry sometimes in the first, yet Christians are secured, that they cannot in the second.  
§. 8 Of the Duty of the Christian's learning from their Guides (supposed infallible in Necessaries) what points are necessary, thus Mr. Chillingworth 
‖ p. 150. — If the Church be an infallible director in Fundamentals, then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but also learn of her, what is Fundamental [i. e. if this be a thing necessary to be learned]; and, take all for fundamental, which she delivers to be such. [i. e. lest, in doing otherwise, we should mistake, and miscarry in some Fundamental.] And p. 105.— To say, the Church is an infallible Guide en Fundamentals, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain Society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can, err in Fundamentals; nor in declaring what is fundamental, what is not fundamental; and consequently, to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes, and requires to be believed. [i. e. that she may require our Assent, and Belief of all things, by the device of her proposing them as necessary.].  
§. 9 6 . When the Church-Guides are said to be infallible in Necessaries, 
Prop. 6.  Catholics contend; That, Necessaries * aught not to be taken here in so strict a sense, as to be restrained, and limited only to those few points of Faith, that are so indispensably required to be of all men explicitly believed, as that Salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief, or ignorance of any of them; which are thought by the Learned to be only some few Articles of the Apostles Creed. [Of which see Dr. Potter, §. 7. p. 242. etc.] But * aught to be understood in a sense more enlarged, comprehending at least, * all such Points, as are so requisite, and beneficial to Salvation, as that there is some danger of a miscarriage therein; either in respect of Faith, or Manners, either to Particulars, or to the whole Society; either to all, or at least to some persons, and conditions of men, by the ignorance, or disbelief of them; * all such Points, as corroborate Fundamentals by their near connexion to them; or as serve to repel the malignant Influence of some Error, that either directly, or by some consequence at least, undermines, and corrupts, or (to use the Archbishop's words 
‖ § 35. n, 5.6 ) grates upon, or miss-expounds, some Fundamental, either in the Christian Faith, or Manners.  
§. 10 The Reason. 1st. Because our Saviour's promised assistance of his Church is not expressly limited to Necessaries in the first sense, by any of those Texts that mention it; nor can, upon any account of the superfluousness, or nonnecessity of such assistance, be denied to the Church, in respect of the second, wherever any Error in such points (though they be not Principles, or Fundamentals, but Deductions, and Superstructions) appears to be gross, dangerous, damnable, blasphemous, idololatrical, grating the Foundation, &c. which sort of Errors Protestants grant there may be in nonfundamentals; and by them are such Errors charged upon the Church of Rome 
‖ Archbishop Lawd § ●7. n 5.6— Art. of Rel. 31.— I'll p. 119 ; but it seems unsuitable to our Lord's Love, and everlasting protection of his dearest Spouse, that they should be also incident to the Church Catholic, or its supreme Guides. 2 . Because the Practice of the generally-allowed Primitive Councils defining, and under Anathema imposing the belief of many several points of Faith, which fall not under the first notion of Necessaries, doth show; that Church-tradition hath always understood Christ's Promises, made to the Church, as extending to Necessaries in the second acception. Neither will infallible assistance in necessaries, as they are taken in the first sense, extend to the Church-definitions made in the points delivered in the Athanasian Creed; which points yet the Church hath defined as necessary, and infallible. Again; since it is affirmed by Protestants, that a Lawful General Council, 
〈◊〉.— Stillingf. p. 330.  accepted by the whole Catholic Church diffusive, may err in non-necessaries (for so, say they, may the whole Catholic Church dissusive err 
‖ See Archbishop Lawd. p 139, 140, 141.  if then the Church-definitions, found in the Athanasian Creed, are also to be reckoned such, i. e. non-necessaries, upon what account can Protestants firmly believe them for true, (except so many as are able to demonstrate them out of the Scripture,) seeing they are deprived of any confidence of the Church's not erring therein, as being points reckoned non-necessaries? And, the Promises thus restrained to Necessaries of the first kind, what an hurtful liberty is there left to all Sects, to question the Church's Infallibility in many principal Articles of her faith; as (for example) to the Socianians, to question it in the point of Consubstantiality, under this pretence of the Church's possibility of erring in non-necessaries? 3 . Because I see not, how the title of Holy, continued for ever to the Church-Catholick by the Promise of our Lord, can consist with all those errors, that yet do oppugn Necessaries, only as taken in the second, not first, notion: called gross, dangerous, damnable, blasphemous, &c. if, as these are imputed promises, to the Catholic. If her doctrines (and consequently practice) be sometimes damnable, blasphemous, etc. how She always Holy? Because, by the same divine assistance, the Catholic Church is affirmed by Protestants never to fall into Heresy; which thing also infers a divine assistance thereof beyond Necessaries in the first notion; unless they will affirm the contradictories of several of the Church-definitions that are delivered in the Athanasian Creed, or the first allowed G. Councils, not to be heresies. §. 11 5 lie. Because, One reason which Protestants give, why our Lords Promise of these Guides non-erring is to be restrained only to some, and not enlarged to all, Truths, is, * because they are by and unnecessary Truths, to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule, etc. 
‖ Archbishop Lawd p. 141.  * because they are such points, as may be variously held, and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith— * because they are unprofitable curiosities, and unnecessary subtleties, for which the Promise was not made— * because, Deus non abund●t in superfluis 
‖ Dr. Po●ter p. 5. p. 150, &c : As natare, so God is not lavish in superfluities: therefore what points, though not Necessaries in the first kind, yet are as far removed from superfluous, or curiosities, and are, though not absolutely, yet very, necessary still, thus far in these we may suppose our Lord's assistance continued to his Church, and preserving her from failing in them. ‖ A second reason, which Protestants also give, why the Church cannot err in fundamentals, is, the perspicuity of Scriptures in these Points.— This power of not erring (saith the Archbishop 
‖ p. 140.  is in the Church, partly by the virtue of this Promise of Christ; and partly by the water which it teacheth; which is the unerring Word of God, so plainly and manifestly delivered to her, as that it is not possible, she should universally fall from it, or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to salvation. But doubtless many more points there are, as plainly delivered in Scripture, as those Necessaries of the first rank; and therefore no reason to confine her un-erring verdict only to these. And, if more points than the primary fundamentals were not clear in Scripture, how come Protestants, in several of them, on this account of their clearness in Scriptures, to oppose, and contradict the Supreme Guides of the Church.  
7ly. Concerning the Church-governors their exact distinguishing of Fundamentals, §. 12 or Necessaries from non-Necessaries.  
1st, There setms no greater necessity, * that these Church-Governors should be enabled exactly to distinguish these, 
Prop. 7.  as to all particulars: Or * that Catholics should learn such distinction from their Governors; than that Protestants should learn it from the Scriptures. And the Answer which Protestant give, for a nonnecessity of this latter; viz. [Because who believes all the Scripture, believes all Necessaries revealed in it]; they may take for a nonnecessity of the other; [because who believeth all that the Church defineth, believeth all Necessaries defined by it]; neither again can the Protestants justly require any certainty, explicitness, or distinction of faith, concerning the Proposals of the Church, which distinction, etc. themselves do not maintain, or think necessary, concerning the Proposals, and sense of Scripture.  
So; if the Protestant Divines grant a sufficient certainty (as they do) 
‖ See Mr. Chillingw. p. 160.  in a Christian's faith, who believes all Fundamentals from the Authority of Scriptures▪ * though, meanwhile, he knows not from the same Scriptures which, or how many they are; nor either the Protestant-Guides, or their followers, out of these Scriptures can make any certain catalogue of them; and * though they also may in the sense of many Texts of Scripture, err, and mistake; (so that they only build a sufficiency of their faith upon this hypothetical certainty; that, if the point be necessary, they, using a due industry, cannot err in the sense of such Scriptures; because all necessaries God hath, in these Scriptures, clearly revealed,) Then they cannot deny the same sufficient certaînty of a Catholics faith, that believes all fundamentals from the Proposal of his Ecclesiastical Guides, if these Guides be granted in these infallible; tho', neither he, nor these Guides, should certainly know, for all points, which, or how many these fundamentals be.  
§. 13 Very vain therefore seems that discourse of Mr. Chillingworth c. 3. § 57 so far as it is made use of to this purpose; to show, upon the non-distinction of fundamentals, or the supposed liability of Church-Guides to err in nonfundamentals, the uncertainty or unsufficiency of a Catholics faith: As also ridiculous that arguing of his; where, when Catholics say, they are certain, concerning every particular point proposed by the Church, that, if it be a fundamental, she errs not in it, [i.e. errs not, in what she determines concerning it; or errs not in determining any thing against it] He faith, They say, that they are certain, that if it be a fundamental truth, the Church doth not err in it [i. e. in holding it]: which (faith he) is in plain English to say; you are certain, it is true; if it be both true, and necessary.  
§. 14 2ly, Neither doth it follow from these Church-Guide's supposed inability exactly to distinguish Necessaries from non Necessaries, that therefore they are, or can be, no infallible Guide in all Necessaries; that is, in teaching, and prescribing them, though they should not be so in distinguishing them, and in their teaching nothing, besides, togesher with, them.  
Nor is that consequence of Mr. Chillingworth's 
‖ p. 105, 150  true, That if there be a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals, they must be so also, in declaring what is Fundamental, or necessary, what not; unless upon this supposition, that the declaring thereof is also a thing Necessary (as I suppose he meant it.) For I may be certainly, by the divine goodness, preserved from error in many truths, which yet I do not certainly know, that they are truths; And again further; may certainly know something to be a truth, and teach it to others; and yet not further know it to be a truth so absolutely necessary, as perhaps it is. To use Mr. Chillingworths' simile 
‖ p. 159.  A Physicians, in his using of a medicine consisting of twenty Ingredients, of which medicine he is certain, that the whole receipt hath in it all things necessary to the cure of such a disease, yet may not exactly know, whether all the Ingredients thereof are absolutely necessary, or only some of them necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse; or some only necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtful; As also the Protestants grant, that the Church, in delivering the Scriptures, delivers all necessary truths therein, yet without punctually knowing what, or how many they are.  
§. 15 3ly It seems most reasonable; that a Guide, of whose not erring in Necessaries, 
3.  I am secure. But neither I, nor it, can exactly distinguish such from non-Necessaries, should be believed by me in all it proposeth, though in some Proposals it should be liable to error.  
I must add one exception indeed: If that in no particular, which it proposeth, I am infallibly certain of the contrary; for then, in such, I am sure, that the Tenent of this Guide can be no fundamental Truth, because not truth. But first; this Exception is unserviceable to all those (which are the most) as can plead no such infallible certainty; for so many stand obliged still to the former belief. 2ly, such exception can, rationally, be made use of by none, in the matters we speak of; for who can presume himself thus certain in a matter of faith, or in his own sense of Scripture (though the literal expression be never so clear), where so many learned, and his Superiors, (comparing other texts, etc.) understand it otherwise, and are of a contrary judgement? For, it is the same, as if, in a matter of sense, a dim-sighted person should profess himself certain, that an object is white, when a multitude of others, the most clearsighted that can be found, having all the same means, with him, of a right sensation, pronounce it black, or of another colour.  
§. 16 Now, this case only excepted, I say, such Guide ought to be believed by me in all it proposeth. And this upon a triple account. 1st, because otherwise I expose myself to error in something necessary; to which error, in not following this Guide, I am very liable; for, though, I have, besides this Guide, a Rule infallible; yet my sense thereof is not so, in points that are controverted. 2ly, because this is such a Guide, as learned Protestants grant, that God's Command doth oblige me, to obey its judgement, where I have no certain evidence of the contrary of its decrees 
‖ See below §. 20. . And also common reason obligeth me to follow a better judgement, than my own; especially when I do it, as with due humility, so with sufficient safety; because thus it must be only a non-Necessary, that I can err in and as I am certain, if a fundamental, that it is true, what it delivers; so not certain, if it be no fundamental, that then it is not true. 3ly, because, though something superfluous may possibly be determined by this Guide, yet, considering the former notion of Necessaries 
‖ §. 9 , (to which, there seems good cause, that the infallibility of this Guide be extended), who will undertake to exclude any particular Church-definition from being, in some of the forenamed respects, necessary? especially when he must do this against better Judgements; whilst these Guides, consulted about any particular decrees of theirs, will never profess, or grant to him, to have passed it, but as thought, in respect of some times, places, or persons; Christian-faith, or manners; edification of particulars, or Government of the Church, necessary. This concerning the reasonableness of believing in all points, those, who are infallible in all Necessaries.  
§. 17 4ly, Though these Church-Guides should be granted not to be enabled, by the divine assistance, so far, as to distinguish exactly Necessaries, 
4.  from non-Necessaries in all points, so that nothing should be redundant in their definitions, or proposals: Yet it seems rationally concluded, That they are always so far divinely assisted, not only in their decisions, not to err in Necessaries; but also, in their judgement, to discern, and distinguish them from others, not necessary to be so much pressed; and, in their diligence, to propose them, as that they shall never fail in the discerning, or proposing (in their Creeds, Catechisms, and other public teaching) all more absolute necessaries, or all points requisite to be explicitly believed; (for all things defined are not necessary to be by all known, or to all taught): never fail in proposing these, I say, so clearly and entirely to all the subjects of the Church, even the unlearned, as that none can be ignorant thereof, without his neglect to hearken to such a sufficient Proposal; which is, in all times, made by the Church.  
§. 18 The Reason of this Indeficiency of Church-Guides in the Proposal of such Necessaries, is: Because it seems most just, and is on all sides accorded; that all Necessaries, wherein an explicit faith is required of all Christians, should be to them, by some means or other, sufficiently proposed. And then; the dispute, concerning this sufficient Proponent, lying between the Scriptures, and the Church (for what other external Proponent can be devised?) of these two, as to several of these Points, the latter must be it. 1st, Because experience shows, the sense of Scripture not evident to all in many great Articles of faith; which Articles yet are cleared by the Church-Guides 
‖ Stillingf. p. 58, 59 . So that, tho' it be true, which Mr. Chillingworth saith 
‖ p. 18. 160, ●6. , That he who believes all that is Scripture, believes all Necessaries: yet so it is, that in many places of Scripture, and that about points thought necessary, when variously interpreted, many (unlearned especially) know not what to believe for the Scripture-sence in such places; and thus fail in the explicit belief, * of some part of Scrirture, and so perhaps, * of some Necessaries in it. 2ly, Because before the penning of the New-Testament-Scriptures this office of the Proposal of all divine necessary truths to the people, belonged to the Church-Guides, to Timothy, Titus, and others. Nor seems their authority, by the writing of the Christian faith, diminished; by which Writings also they are still more enabled completely to perform their former duty. 3ly Because these Scriptures also refer us, in controversies, and in learning our faith, to the direction of these Guides. See §. 3. 4ly, Because the illiterate within the Church-Catholick, to whom also God is not deficient in the revelation of all necessary faith, cannot have this from Writings; but must receive it from their Guides, and Pastors: as also they did in all those times before Christ, when the Holy Scriptures remained only in the hands of the learned; or also, before any of them were penned.  
§. 19 18. If we ought to submit our judgements to these present guides, in their deciding what are necessary matters of Faith, 
Prop. 8.  according to the fifth Proposition preceding 
‖ See §. 6. ; it seems reasonable, that so we ought also to submit * in their expounding all former Writings concerning the same matters, that are pretended any way ambiguous, and so cannot end the Controversy, made about their sense; whether these be the Writings of the Scriptures; or Fathers; or former Councils of the Church. And also * in their declaring which of former Councils are Legal, and Obligatory:  
So that the ultimate determination of doubts, * concerning all former Determinations, and Definitions of former Church in such matters of necessary Faith (as well as * concerning new questions) when Controversy is raised in them, aught to be referred to these present Judges; and their determinations hereupon, so far as we can have them, to be peaceably acquiesced in. For, if we ought to receive all, that they deliver to us as matters of necessary Faith; we ought also, and may as securely, credit them, when declaring, what in these Necessaries was the Faith of their Predecessors.  
§. 20 9ly. Protestants also agree: that, though these Guides may err in some Points not necessary, yet their Subjects ought to yield their silence, and by no means to contradict them; 
Prop. 9  or (as some more judicious Protestants do yield yet further) ought to submit their Judgements also, and yield their Assent to them, even in those Definitions, wherein these Guides are liable to Error, whenever, not these Guides do prove to them their Conclusions (so much is thought unreasonably exacted) but when their Subjects cannot demonstratively prove the contrary.  
In this matter thus Dr. Jackson, in stating the Question: whether the Injunction of public Ecclesiastical authority may oversway any degree of our private persuasion, concerning the unlawfulness of any Opinion, or action 
‖ On the Creed, l. 2. § 1. c. 5. .— It is most evident (saith he 
‖ Ibid. c. 6. ) from the former places alleged 
‖ Eph 4.11.— Heb. 13.17.— Luk. 10.16.— joh. 20.23. Ib.  concerning the Commission of Priests, and Ministers, that the lawful Pastor, or Spiritual Overseer, hath as absolute authority to demand Belief, or Obedience, in Christ's; as any Civil Magistrate hath to demand Temporal Obedience, in the State, or Prince's Name.— And— Our Disobedience [i. e. Dissent, or non-submission of Judgme] is unwarrantable, unless we can truly derive some formal contradiction, or opposition, between the injunction of Superiors, and express Law of the most High.— Every Doubt, or Scruple that the Church's Edicts are directly, or formally contrary to God's Law, is not sufficient to deny Obedience.— Again. We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands, but he is to be obeyed, till we can prove the contrary.— If Pastors are only to be obeyed, when bringing evidence out of Scripture, what Obedience perform we to them more, than to any other man whatsoever? For whosoever shows the express undoubted Command of God, it must be obeyed of all. If we thus only bound to obey, than I am not more bound to obey any other man, than he bond to obey, or believe me: The Flock no more bound to obey the Pastor, than the Pastor them: And so the donation of spiritual Authority, when Christ ascended on high, were a donation of mere Titles, This he, this others 
‖ Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7.  and in reason, what can any say less?  
§. 21 10ly. From this I also take it for granted; That, though such or so many, 
Prop. 10.  as can demonstratively prove the contrary, are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides: yet so many others as cannot do the like, remain obliged still to follow, and obey the same, their former, Pastors; and by no means may join themselves in communion, or adhere, to the new Demonstrators, till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty.  
By which Rule, how few will there be of the Reformed, that do not still own their Obedience to the same Church (giving her Laws still as formerly), that was before Luther, (who upon new Evidences, deserted it), where all own this Obedience, save Demonstrators of their new Tenants?   

CHAP. III.  
11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversely; and some of them err in Necessaries, and fall into Heresies. § 22.  
12. And therefore Christians not left to follow, whom of them they please: But some certain Rule there is, to which of them; in any Division, they ought to adhere.  
That this, in the universal Church-practice, is, and rationally can be, no other; than, in these Judges subordinate dissenting, to adhere to the Superior; in those of the same Order, and Dignity, dissenting, to the Major part. §. 23. etc.  
Where, Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils. §. 25. n. 2.  
And, Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism. §. 26. n. 2.  
14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides, as to the Quest here, (viz. to learn from these true Guides, in matters controverted, which is the true Faith) are unserviceable. §. 28.  
§. 22 11ly. THat some of these Church-Governors (more, or fewer) may become Heretics, and erroneous in points necessary; and may guide Christian's contrary to the rest of them, 
Prop. 11.  is granted by all sides, and known by Experience.  
§. 23 12ly. It seems therefore also evident: That, Christians, (for yielding the Obediences, forenamed, Propos, 9th. and allowed by Protestants) in such dissenting of Governors, 
Prop. 12.  may not safely follow, which of them they please, or judge to be, in their doctrines, the rightest; (for so they judge of their Judges, and may as well judge the Controversies); but, that some Rule there is, to whom, in such case, they are to adhere; whom to relinquish (it being as necessary, for the same divine providence, to leave some means, by which to know our Guide, as to give us one.) And this Rule also by tradition hath been, and in reason can be, no other, but that, in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate (whether Persons, or Councils) dissenting, men ought to adhere to the Superior; in Judges equal dissenting, to adhere to the Major, not minor, part. For Example. In England a Synod Diocesan, and one compounded of both the Provinces, dissenting, here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod, or Convocation; and, in the Provincial Synod again, a minor part dissenting, due to the Major. Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best, and oppose the maintainers of the contrary; since ordinarily, some Ecclesiastical Governor, either Inferior, or Superior; if not a greater, yet some smaller part, or other of them, may be found also to hold it. And thus the Unity of this Catholic Church, as to doctrine, is quite overthrown.  
1st. In Persons, 
§. 24. n. 1.  or Councils, subordinate, that the Superior, in case of any dissent, rightly challengeth our Obedience, I think it out of dispute. So, in England, for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod, and the Obedience thereto, in respect of all Inferiors, for preventing dissensions, see the Decree in Can. 139. & 140. of the Synod under K. James. 1603. Where it is said,— Whosoever shall affirm, that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation.— Or shall affirm, 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 in causes Ecclesiastical, as not having given their voices unto those Decrees, let him be excommunicated, and not restored, until he repent, and publicly revoke that his wicked Error. And, for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court, see the King's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court 
‖ p. 72. — I will have one Doctrine, and one Discipline; one Religion in substance, and Ceremony; and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point (How far you are bound to obey?) when the Church hath ordained it. [What Subjection then, for preserving Unity, is required in the English Church, cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholic.] Again, see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism 
‖ c. 3.  an acknowledgement of primitive Subordination, as of a Presbyter to the Bishop; so of Bishops to Metropolitans; of Metropolitans to Primates, or Patriarches; where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains, viz. Of the Patriarches to the Protopatriarch, or the Bishop of Rome. And again, see his acknowledgement 
‖ Schism. c 8. p 158. Ans. to Cath. Gentl. p. 29.  of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation, or Body of them assembled in Council. (in which Council, he saith, It is evident, that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop, 
Answ. to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9, 10.  is there united.) [I add, and therefore if that Power which they have severally, be by divine right, so is this, which they have conjunctly, notwithstanding what is disputed against it 
‖ See Still. Rat account 3 par. c. 1. p. 515. etc. ]: as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province, to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National; of all Christianity, to a Council General. Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church, and sufficiently attested by other Protestants, viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch, to a Council Patriarchal.  
Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field, and Bishop Bramhall, Authorities as authentic as his. Thus then Dr. Field 
‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. ,— These Patriarches might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions, and hold a Patriarchal Council, which was of greater Authority, then either those in the several Provinces, or of a whole Nation, formerly mentioned; because it consisted of more, and more honourable, Bishops: yet had the Patriarches no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits, than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass. And (Ib. 513.) showing, against Bellarmine, that, by reason of the several subordinations of the Church's Officers, and of their Consults, there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church, for conserving the unity thereof.— 1 If (saith he) a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans, 
‖ l. 5. c. 30. p. 513.  and Bishops of one Kingdom, or State only, the chief Primate was Moderator; 2 If of many [Kingdoms] one of the Patriarches, and chief Bishops of the whole World [was Moderator]: Every Church, [and therefore this of England, as to Ecclesiastical Governme] being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches, and incorporate into the unity of it. 3. Thirdly, the Actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Ecumenical. And elsewhere he saith 
‖ l. 5. c. 52. p. 668. — That the Patriarch of the West may call a Council of the Western Bishops, lawfully punishing those, who obey not his summons; and he and ihe Council so assembled, may make Decrees which shall be obligatory to all the Western Church. And, thus Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Vindic. of the Ch. of England. p. 257. , What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishop of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces, within his own Patriarchate.— And afterward— Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority? in ordaining their Metropolitans (for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle) or confirming them, in imposing of hands, or giving the Pall; in convocating Patriarchal Synods; and presiding in them, &c, when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences, or difficulties. So in Schism-guarded p. 349. he saith,— That the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church is a General Council; and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate; and among the Patriarches, the Bishop of Rome, by a Priority of Order. And see Ibid. p. 4. his allowing this Bishop to be Exordium Vnitatis. This of the subordination of the Bishops of several Nations to a Council Patriarchal, taken out of others, because omitted by Dr. Hammond.  
Above which, the next and highest subordination is, that of all the Bishops in Christianity to a Council General. To which General Council this Doctor thus professeth elsewhere 
‖ Of Heresy. §. 11. p. 149.  the due subjection of the Church of England:— Upon the strength of this persuasion (saith he) that God will never permit any such universal testimony concerning the faith to conspire in conveying error to us, as we have never yet opposed [never opposed, that implies obedience of Silence; but, upon the former persuasion, I see not, why he should not say, never dissented from] any universal Council, nor other voice of the whole Church, such as, by the Catholic Rules, can be contested to be such; so, for the future, we profess never to do.— And on 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of truth, he comments thus. According to this it is, that Christ is said (Eph. 4.11.) to have given not only Apostles, etc. but also Pastors, and Teachers (i.e. the Bishops in the Church) for the compacting of the Saints into a Church, for the continuing them in all truth, that we should be no longer, like children, carried about with every wind of doctrine. And so again, when heresies came into the Church in the first Ages, it is every where apparent by Ignatius' 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 wholesome words kept by him, was supposed to be corrupted.— And the same also (to S. W. objecting, 
‖ Schism disarm. p. 255.  That it availed not for freedom from Schism, to adhere to the Authority of our Bishop (as the Arrians did) if such Bishop hath rejected the authority of his Superiors, and taught contrary to them) He grants 
‖ Answ. to Schism disarm p. 261.  concerning any Bishops, and those adhering to them, if departing from their Superiors,— That retaining the Authority of their Bishops is not, being taken alone, any certain Argument or Evidence of not being schismatics, etc. This he, for establishing such Church-authority, and the due subordinations thereof; from any of which (whether person or Council) a voluntary departure of those, who are subordinate 
‖ Of Schism, c 3. Answ. to C. Gentlem. p. 30 , or also a wilful continuance under their censures laid upon them ‖, is by him declared Schism.  
[Of which Schism he speaks thus, 
‖ Answ. to C. Gent. p. 9  First, (saith he) those Brethren, or People, which reject the Ministry of the Deacons, or Presbyters in any thing, 
§. 4.  wherein they are ordained, and appointed by the Bishop, 
§. 24. n. 2.  (and as long as they continue in obedience to him), and of their own accord do break off and separate from them, 
‖ Of Schism, p. 34.  refuse to live regularly under them, they are by the ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismatics. [Here then are many late Sects among Protestants rejecting the Clergy, (I know not well by what name to call them, confessed guilty of Schism]— In like manner (saith he 
‖ P. 37.41. ), if we ascend to the next higher link, that of the Bishop, to whom both Presbyters, and Deacons, as well as thebrethrens, or People are obliged to live in obedience, the withdrawing, or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt.— And, as this obedience may be of two sorts, either of a lower, or of a higher kind; (the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the Superior, or the casting off all obedience together; the throning them, or setting up ourselves either in their steads, or in opposition to them,) so will the Schism be also a lighter, and a grosser separation. [And here are all Protestant, Presbyterial, whether Persons, or Churches, (for any thing I can understand) opposing Episcopacy, or settling instead of it a Presbyterial Church-Government, confessed also by him guilty of Schism; of Schism, I mean from their spiritual Superiors; whereby also they become no members of the Church-Catholick (which Church-Catholick stands always contradistinct to Heretical, and Schismatical Churches): nor are any such Schismatics (known to be so, and not recanting such their Schism) to be admitted to enjoy the communion of the Presbytery of any Church, that professeth itself a member of the Catholic. Which thing will 1st, cut off no small body of the Protestants from the Catholic Church; And 2ly. will render, in some manner, partaker of their guilt, any other Protestant-Clergy that shall communicate (knowingly) with them] The same sentence upon the Presbyterians deserting their Bishops, that is, their spiritual Superiors, pronounceth Dr. Ferne,— They have incurred (saith he) by leaving us, 
‖ The Case between Eng. and Rome. p. 46, 48.  (and I wish they would sadly consider it) no less than the guilt of Schism, which lies heavily on as many, as have (of what persuasion or sect soever,) wilfully divided themselves from the Communion of the Church of England, whether they do this by a bare separation, or by adding violence, and sacrilege to it. For making good (saith he) this charge of Schism against them, we will premise some undeniable truths, which speak the Authority of Church Governors, the obedience due thereunto, the condition of Schism, and the danger, and guilt of it. The first is, that the Church of Christ is a Society, or Company under a Regiment, discipline Government; and the members constituting that Society are either persons taught, guided, governed, or persons teaching, guideing, governing, and this in order to preserve all in unity, and to advance every member of this visible Society, to an effectual and real participation of Grace, and Union with Christ the Head; and therefore, and upon no less account, is obedience due unto them, (Eph. 4.11, 12, 13, 16 and Heb. 13.17.) and he that will not hear the Church, to be as a Heathen, and Publican, Mat. 16. etc. Thus he. And thus clearsighted men are in the case where they are to require obedience; but not so, where to yield it. This said of the Schism of Presbyters departing from their Bishops; the same Dr. Hammond saith 
‖ Of Schism, c. 3.  of the Schism of Bishops departing from their Metropolitans, and of Metropolitans from their Primats or Patriarches. Now to go on.]  
If then (for example) the Presbyter is bound upon such a guilt, to obey his Bishop, than the subjects of both the Presbyter and the Bishop, when these two dissent, are tied to adhere to the Bishop, not to the Presbyter: i.e. to obey him, whom the other, if he continued in his duty, ought also to obey; and sic de caeteris. These subordinations therefore known, Christians also cannot but know, in the division of Church-Governors, distinct in dignity, still those, to whom their obedience is thus fastened.  
2. Next, 
§. 25. n. 1.  In a Body, or Court, consisting of many of an equal rank; (as Councils, the supreme Ecclesiastical Judge, do) in which body, in all, or most causes, or decisions, may, and usually do happen some dissenters, that here it is necessary for rending the decrees of such complex bodies effectual, that at least the much major part thereof joined with the prime Apostolic See conclude the whole, the traditionary practice of the most universally allowed Councils, from the beginning of Christianity (as likewise the same practice in all Civil Courts of the same composition) doth sufficiently put this out of dispute, if any thing can be so. See what is said of this. Disc. 1. §. 31, 36, 38.  
Where, if it be further demanded, for legitimating the Acts of such a Council, or also for the sufficient acceptation, by the Church Catholic, of such act, or definition, what proportion this major part, whether defining in Council, or accepting out of it, is to bear in respect of the minor, or how much to exceed it, I know not, what better director herein we can have, than the former custom of the Catholic Church, and the example, and pattern of the primitive times; Nor what greater justification the proceed of later Councils can receive herein, than the same practice, as theirs is, appearing in those ancient Councils, that are universally allowed.  
[If then we stay here a little to review the proceed 
§. 25. n. 2.  of the first Councils, and think the later times may safely steer according to their course. Looking into the first Council of Nice; we find, in Hilarius 
‖ De Syncdis , no less than eighty Bishops, before this Council was assembled, mentioned to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; (See also what Bishops, Arius pretended, to have sided with him, in his Letter to Euseb. Nicomed. written some years before the Nicene Council 
‖ Apud Epiph. Haer. 69. Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. ); and, in the Council also, ⋆ seventeen Bishops (some of note) at the first to have dissented from the rest; and, after the Council, * Arianism, in the Eastern parts, to have grown, in a small time, to a much greater bulk, (supporting their cause with several unwary expressions of former Ecclesiastical Writers, as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexand. Origen, 
‖ See Pelavins in Epiph. Her. 69.  before a stricter discussion of this controversy.) Yet was this no diminution to the strength of the Nicene decree, or to a valid acceptation thereof, both being done by a much greater part of the Church.  
Again in the third General Council of Ephesus, 
§. 25. n. 3.  we find John the Patriarch of Antioch with his Oriental Bishops (above thirty) favouring Nestorianism, and opposing the decrees of the rest of that Council; yet did not the other part of that Council forbear to define Anti-Nestorianism without, and against them, and also to excommunicate them for their nonconformity to the major part; nor did the Christian world cease to account the acts of this Council valid, without the acceptation thereof by this Patriarch, and his party, these acts being justified by the much greater part of the Church Catholic, joined with the Roman Patriarch. Neither supposing that this Patriarch, and his Bishops, and their Successors had continued to this day, (as too many ever since in those parts do, and as they did for some time) to oppose this decree, could it have rescued Nestorianism from being justly reputed an Heresy; though this party was so considerable, as that the Emperor retarded the Execution of the Councils censures upon them, till that, in the year next ensuing, the Patriarch, and most of the rest were regained to a peaceable submission to the Church Catholic and her doctrine.  
Come we to the fourth General Council of Chalcedon. 
§. 25. n. 4.  Two years before it, in a question concerning our Lord's consisting of, and in, two natures distinct, not only before but after, their union in one person, the prevalent party in a Council of above 120 Bishops had defined the contrary, tanquam de fide; For which also they pretended the doctrine of the Fathers, Athanasius, Cyril, Alexand. and Gregory Nazianz. Concerning which Fathers you may find Eutyches 
‖ In Concil. Constantinop. apud Conc Chalc. act. 1.  pleading thus for himself— Vae mihi, si sanctos Patres anathematizavero— And Dioscorus thus 
‖ Conc. Chalc Actione prima. .— Ego testimonium habeo sanctorum Patrum Athanasii, Gregorii, Cyrilli in multis locis, quia non oportet dicere post adunationem duas naturas, sed unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatam: Ego cum Patribus ejicior; Ego defendo Patrum dogmata, non transgredior in aliquo, & horum testimonia, non simpliciter, neque transitoriè, sed in libris habeo. Thus Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon, and we find the subscription of 96 Bishops (either deluded, or forced, as they complained afterward 
‖ V Conc. Chalc. Act. 1, 4. ) to Dioscorus his definition in that former Council. But the great Council of Chalcedon, notwithstanding such an opposition, defined the contrary doctrine as of faith, and deposed the chief Actors in this former Council; amongst which were the Patriarches of Antioch and Alexandria. And to the greater authority of this Council, all the rest (save only the Patriarch of Alexandria,) in the fourth Session came in, and submitted, not only for their silence (that would not serve the turn,) but assent. But after these, there were 11 Egyptian Bishops, i. e. all that were present from the Patriarchy of Alexandria (how Orthodox I cannot say) that refused still to subscribe to the Councils decrees, alleging the fear of a persecution upon their return into Egypt, from their brethren at home, these at home it seems being also of a contrary judgement to the Council; yet the Council both established their decree without them: and required, upon excommunication, their submission to it; and to it, put into the Confession of their Faith. After this Council ended, Timotheus the usurping Patriarch of Alexandria, (after Proterius, who was placed there by the Council, slain) and his adherents, continuing still to profess Dioscorism, or a mitigated Eutychianism, condemned the Acts of Chalcedon, and much solicited the Emperor by Letters to call a new Council; and besides these a very great faction in Palestine did the same, whose followers also continue the same division to this day, not only the Egyptians, but the Ethiopians, or Abyssins', Armenians, Jacobites of Syria, giving to the Adherents of the Council, in those parts, the name of Melchites, or Royalists, because they pretended the corruption of this Council by the Emperor's faction: yet the owning of this Council by S. Peter's Chair, and the acceptation thereof by much the greatest part of the Church Catholic, was and still is not doubted to be a sufficient ratification of its Acts, notwithstanding this storm in the Patriarchy of Alexandria against this fourth General Council, much worse than that of Antioch, against the third.  
Before the seventh General Council, the second Nicene, 
§. 25. n. 5  a question being on foot concerning the lawful use, and also relative veneration of Images; a Council assembled of above a hundred Bishops under Constantinus Copronymus, though indeed none of the Patriarches joined with them, defined it negatively; and, for making good their Tradition for this, produced several places out of the Fathers, particularly out of Epiphanius, Nazia●z. Chrysostom, Athanasius, Eusebius Caesariensis, and others, (See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. Tom. 5.) yet, so soon as the Ghurch recovered her liberty by the death of this Emperor, It in a fuller body, the Patriarches also present, notwithstanding such a party preventing them, declared their Faith contrary, with an Anathema to all dissenters from their decree.  
In the Council of Sardica; the Oriental Arrian Bishops, 
§. 26. n. 6.  about 70. withdrew themselves from the Council to Philippopolis; because, it consisting of above 300 Western Bishops besides them, they saw their number too small to invalidate the Acts of a party so much greater; though indeed, being condemned already for Heretics by the Nicene Council, they could have no just vote in any following.  
Before all these Councils: a great question arose in the Church about the validity of Heretics baptism, and whether the Tradition, commonly practised of non-rebaptizing those converted from Heresy, [though Firmilian seems to plead also a contrary Tradition in those parts where he lived. 
‖ Ep 73. ad Cypr.  Caeterum nos (saith he,) veritati, & consuetudinem jungimus, & consuetudini Romanorum consuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus: ab inìtio hoc tenentes, quod à Christo, & ab Apostolo traditum est] were Apostolical, or no? A part of the Church Catholic questioning it, because another more certain Apostolical Tradition, viz. the Scriptures, seemed to them to declare plainly the contrary. A difficult controversy this was accounted; several Provincial Councils in divers parts were held about it: above 80 African Bishops assembled with their Primate, S. Cyprian, and likewise Firmilian, and some fifty other Eastern Bishops with him, judged it not Apostolical 
‖ See Dionysii Alex. Ep. ad Xystum. Euseb. l. 7. c. 4. . Yet afterward a General Council proceeded to decide it; and their definition was esteemed valid, and obliging, and those who continued in their former opinion (which in Africa was no small number; in S. Augustine's time above 150 Bishops 
‖ See the Conference with the Donatists. Baron. A.D. 411. ) were from that time accounted Heretics. 'Tis true, that this General Council 
‖ Are latense 1.  was held some 50 years after the other Provincial ones; and that, before this, several of the African Bishops had corrected their former opinion. But I suppose none will say, that a General Council, if assembled at the same time, with those Provincial, could not justly have defined it against them, (as Stephanus his Council at the same time did) and justly have required their Obedience, as being, though a considerable number, yet a much smaller part, compared with the rest of the Bishops of the Christian world, and their Suffrage invalid Contra tot millia Episcoporum, quibus tunc error in toto Orbe displicuit, to use S. Austin's words contra Cresconium. l, 3. c. 3. Who elsewhere also 
‖ De Baptismo l. 1. c. 7.  speaks thus on this matter.— Quaestionis hujus Obscuritas, prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros, & magnâ charitate praedites, Patres, Episcopos, ita inter se compulit saluâ pace disceptare, atque fluctuare, ut diù Conciliorum in suis quibuscunque Regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint, [So, contra Cresconium, l. 1. c. 33. he saith, Similiter inter Apostolos de Circumcisione quaestio, sicut postea de Baptismo inter Episcopos, non parva difficultate nutabat] donec plenario totius orbis concilio, quod saluberrimè sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur.]  
By the Acts of these Councils I think it appears; 
§. 25. n. 7.  that Points of former dispute, and such, where the contrary to some of them have been defended by a numerous Party in the Church, yet have been afterward defined, and declared, as matter of Faith; and that such opposition of a number, though in itself considerable, yet in respect of the whole, much smaller, hath been thought insufficient to debilitate the authority, and decisions of the rest, confirmed by the judgement of the Bishop of Rome, and the Chair of S. Peter; and that the Church may cut off from her Body, for the safety of the whole, (if such part happen to be gangred, or putrified) not only a little Finger, or Toe, but an Arm, or a Leg. But yet I would not have this so understood, as if that the Church's Councils, in this matter of the very greatest concernment, do at any time proceed to declare as matter of Faith any Propositions, save * such, as to disengaged judgements carry great evidence in them, flowing either from express former Tradition, or the present clear deduction; and * such, as are admitted, and allowed by much the greatest part of the Church Catholic.—  
And in particular, the late Council of Trent (very prudently considering the great distraction, and dissatisfaction of those times, and their proneness to Schism) is said (if we may believe Soave 
‖ Hist. l. 6 p 576. ) to have entertained this Maxim; That, to establish a Decree of Reformation, a major part of Voices was sufficient; but that a Decree of Faith could not be made, if a considerable part did contradict. But this considerable part must always be understood of such as are Catholic, i. e. by no formerly condemned Heresy, rendered uncapable of voting in the Church's Councils. And lastly, if a Contest arises; what a part may be called considerable, to whom the judgement of this can be left, save to the same major part, whether in, or out of, the Council, wherever all are not agreed, I see not. This concerning the necessity, and the ancient practice, of a much major part at least (we keeping still within the bounds of the Church Catholic) its concluding the whole.  
Where it is also worth the noting concerning times past; 
§. 26. n. 1.  that (though we set aside here, how necessary the Confirmation of Councils is by the always-esteemed most supreme Authority Ecclesiastical on Earth, the Bishop of Rome, yet) never any Heresy (now universally so accounted) hitherto can be showed, in any age, to have been confirmed in any Council, or accepted after it, by the Major part of Christianity, or of the Church-Governors thereof; such especially, as have Right to vote in Councils, because guilty of no Heresy; that hath been declared such by a former Council,  
And for the Future likewise. Before that any grievous, and pernicious Error, should spread so far, as to infect a major part of the Ecclesiastical Governors, and so be past all cure from this supreme Court, the Church's Vigilancy, from our Lord's promised perpetual assistance, and favour, may be presumed to be such, as that her Councils, either distributed in several Provincial ones, or united in a General, will condemn it. And then, after such censure, though its Patrons should grow to a major part of Christianity, yet do they now, to all, clearly appear, I say, not a less, but no, part of the Church Catholic. But yet, all those Texts of Scripture, (Prophecies, and Promises there), pressed by S. Austin against the Donatists, and the many Arguments he drew from them, seem to evince the contrary; that never any such Sect shall be, (I mean of one Denomination, or conspiring in any one Heresy), at any time, that shall for the multitude of its Followers, and Latitude of its Extent, exceed, or match the Catholic, As for Heretics, or Schismatics of many different Tenants, and Communions, dissenting from one another; what Magnitude, or Bulk the whole Mass of them put together, may amount to, or whether not transcend the Catholic, it much matters not. For the Catholic Church being (according to our Creed) always but One, and a Body united in a due subordination of its Governors; in its Service, Doctrine, Discipline, etc. so far as these model them, it is sufficiently, for its magnitude, and extent, discerned from all the rest, if, of any one Society, or Church, that hath the former coherence in its Members, the Catholic is the greatest, and the most diffused, Of which thus S. Austin observes 
‖ De Pastoribus c. 8. .— Non omnes Haeretici per totam faciem terrae, sed tamen Haeretici per totam faciem terrae; alii hîc, alii ibi,— Alia Secta in Africâ, alia Haeresis in Oriente, alia in Egypto, alia in Mesopotamiâ. Diversis locis sunt diversae, sed una Mater Superbia genuit, sicut una mater nostra Catholica omnes Christianos fideles toto Orbe diffusos.— Est in Africâ pars Donati; Eunomiani non sunt in Africa; sed cum parte Donati; est hî Catholica. Sunt in Oriente Eunomiani, ibi autem non est pars Donati; sed cum Eunomianis ibi est Catholica. The sum is; the Catholic Church is every where, and every where Heresy; but the Catholic every where one, the other divers; the Greatest, but many, may be Heresies; the Greatest that is one, must be the Catholic.  
There are two General Councils by Protestants frequently urged for decreeing, 
§. 25. n. 2.  or confirming Heresy; the second of Ephesus, and that of Ariminum. But 1st. For that of Ephesus: Both the whole West out of the Council (than the greater, and more dignified part of the Church Catholic) and the Pope's Legates, and likewise many eminent Eastern Bishops in the Council (suffering much persecution for it from the present secular power) dissented from the Acts thereof; and the main Body of Bishops also, that in the Council▪ subscribed to them, complained, in the following Council of Chalcedon, of force used.  
And 2 For that of Ariminum. 1st. Though the major part of it had been Arrians; yet these, having been declared Heretics already by the Council of Nice, and so now no true Members of the Church Catholic, 
‖ See before Prop. 4.  could rightly have no Vote therein; though the then Arrian Emperor forced upon the Council an admittance of them. So that if the major part of the Church-Governors, generally taken of that age, had maintained an Heretical Tenent, yet this was, after that the major part of Christianity in a former Council, and in a General acceptation thereof, had condemned this Tenent for Heretical; and so thence Christians might clearly discern the Maintainers of it to be no more Members of the Church Catholic, nor their present Gu●des. Especially the rest preserving a Communion separated from them.  
But 2ly, He, 
§. 26. n. 3,  that pleaseth to examine the History of this Council, and of these times, I think will find no ground to affirm Arrianisme at any time to have infected, or possessed a major part of Christianity. Which, because it is a thing much insisted on by Protestants, labouring thereby to prove, for some time, a defection of the major part of the Church Catholic from one of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith, I suppose it worth my pains, though stepping aside a little from my present Design. to give you a brief Narrative thereof. In which if already satisfied, you may, omitting it, pass on to §. 27. n, 4.  
[If we review the Changes that were made in the Church before the Councils of Ariminum, and Seleucia. 1st. For the East. Though several eminent Catholic Bishops, by Constantius his power, favouring the Semi-Arrians, were expelled from their Seats, upon several particular false Criminations, and among others, the pretence of their maintaining Sobellianisme, or confounding the Persons of Trinity; yet was nothing then declared against the Nicene Creed. And after this Expulsion, there were, in a Council, held under him at Antioch, A. D. 341, of 99 Bishops assembled, only 36 Arrian, the rest Orthodox 
‖ See Baron, A. D. 341. ; (though the Arrian party indeed more powerful with the Emperor): and the substance of the Form of Faith drawn up there, was though diminutive to the Nicene, yet Catholic; and such (saith Sozomen 
‖ l. 3. c. 5. ), ut neque Arriani, neque Concilii Niceni fauteres, compositionem verborum, quòd Sacrae litera ejusmodi minimè complecterentur, insectari possent. After this, upon the calling of the Council at Sardica, A. D. 347. the Eastern Bishops, assembled at Philippopolis, and, though they condemned Arrianisme, yet maintaining Semi-Arrianisme, were only 76. whilst the Orthodox Sardican Bishops were about 300.  
In the next Council following at Sirmium, convened for destroying the new Heresy of Photinus, both the first, and last Form of the Faith that was composed by the Eastern Bishops there, (for the second themselves disallowed) though defective, yet contained nothing in them, that might not well be taken in a Catholic sense. And in such a sense was the first explained by S. Hilarius, 
‖ lib. de Synodis.  writing in those very times. From which it follows; that it is not necessary, that all the Subscribers of these Creeds, should either be Arrian, or Semi-Arrian. And there seems to be a great hand of the Divine Providence in it, That it is Professed in these Creeds— That Filius did ex Patris Substantiâ constare; or, that he was Patri per omnia similis; etiam quoad substantiam, or Essentiam: Again, that he was ante omne tempus, aut secúlum; all which is most true; But not professed there, what these Semi-Arrians held further; That the Son, though he had altogether the like, yet had not the selfsame, essence with the Father; [which they thought could not consist with the distinction of the Persons].— And, that the Son, though ante omne tempus, yet was not coeternal with the Father; [for this they thought consisted not with his Generation] this, I say, in those Creeds is not mentioned; they, it seems, either thinking it enough, as to the abatement of the former Nicene Decree, if they could free themselves, and others from being forced to profess any more in the public Faith, than consisted with their private Opinion; or else knowing the party, that reverenced, and contended for the Nicene Faith, so considerable, as that, if their own Tenants were inserted, they would not have been at such times by a Major part subscribed. Thus things stood in the East, till the Council of Seleucia there, and of Ariminum in the West.  
2. Next. 
§. 26. n. 4,  As for the West; till that Council of Ariminum, though, some chief Bishops, and among the rest, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, suffered Persecution for some three or four years before it, for not subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius, unheard, (against whom the Emperor was much incensed, as supposing him the chief cause of the enmity between his Brethren, Constance, and Constantine, and himself 
‖ See Theodocet l. 2. c. 16. ) yet the main Body thereof both remained Catholic, and possessed of their Chairs, till the Meeting of this Council. And Liberius, being by the importunity of the Roman People recalled from his Banishment, (where he is said, * to have subscribed to one of the Sirmian Forms of Faith; but, as I said before, expressing nothing in it but what was Catholic;) & * interdixisse Ecclesiâ illis, qui Filium Patri non substantiâ & caeteris rebus omnibus similem asseverarent [i. e. the Arrians] 
‖ Sozom. l. 1. c. 14.  was now as constant an Oppugner of Arrianisme as any other, denying also his Consent to the Decree of this Council 
‖ See Theodl. 2. c. 22. . Now also the Roman Clergy were very famous for their Constancy in the Nicene Faith, and their refusing the Admission of Felix, supposed an Arrian, into Liberius his Chair. And of the Orthodoxness, at this time, of the other Western Prelates, see what Hilarius saith in the beginning of his Book De Synodis, directed in his Exile to these Bishops; and lastly, S. Jerom's new wonder,— Ingemuit totus Orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est spoken upon a strange, and unexpected issue of this Council at Ariminum, shows, there was no such thing before it.  
To come to the Council then. 
§. 26. n. 9  1st. As this Meeting of about 400 Bishops assembled, there appeared not above 80. or, as Athanasius 
‖ Athan. de Sydno.  saith, 50. addicted to Arrianisme, though some of these indeed, the Emperor's Favorities; accordingly, the Decree of this Council, confirming that of Nice, and condemning Arrianisme, was sent by them, (though never delivered), ●o the Emperor; and a dismission desired; which long delayed, several of them without leave departed; the rest, hindered from dissolving, upon much solicitation of the Emperor's Agents, and the specious pretence of a firm Peace, and Union, so to be attained, of the Western, and Eastern Churches; yielded at last to subscribe a Form, in which was (not rejected, but) omitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon these terms,— Quod vulgo parùm intellectum, offendicula pareret; & quia in Scripturâ nusquam memoraretur;— And— Neque adeo necessarium esset, de Personâ Patris, & Filii & Spiritus sancti, unam Substantiam nominari 
‖ Theodoret. l. 2. c. 21.  [where you may observe, the truth of it is no way denied]. This I say was omitted, but nothing affirmed in the Form, which was not well capable of a Catholic sense. If there was, let it be named: For this Expression— Credo in Filium Dei similem Genitori suo Patri secundum Scripturas, I suppose, none will say contains any Error, or untruth in it; nor opposeth Identity any more, than S, Paul's Imago invisibilis Dei, Col. 1.15.— Or Christus aequalis Deo, Phil. 2.6. (Which Texts were also then urged in defence of it) Especially, when 1st. the Arrian Forms usually joined per omnia in explication of it; as may be seen in the third Sirm●an Form of Faith. (with which this w●s much what the same:) And so, the Emperor Constantius exacted this Subscription of similis per omnia from Valence himself, the chief Leader of the Arrian party 
‖ See Epiph. Her. 73. ; leftblank; And 2. Next; the Semi-Arrians, in the per omnia, included also— Similis Deo Patri secundum Essentiam, or Substantiam; (from which the Catholics rightly inferred Identity of Essence) And also, went so far, as to admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too; and to profess vocem illam in Concilio Niceno, ad perversam Arrii doctrinam expugnandam, sanctè, pièque positam.— And— Se eandem Fidem, & antehac servasse, servare, & ad extremum servaturos 
‖ Socrat. l. 4. c. 11. . Only they understood this word of the Nicene Fathers in a diminutive sense 
‖ Socrat. l. 3. c. 21. . leftblank; And thus speaks S. Basil 
‖ Ad maximum Philosophum Ep. 1.  of their Expression [Similis (ecundum Substantiam] Si quid ipse sentiam, dicendum est quantum ad similem secundum Essentiam (siquidem huic dicto adjunctum fuerit, prorsus citra ullam ipsius essentiae variationem) eam ego amplector; probroque vocem, ut quae idem significet, quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But yet because this Form, though in some sense true, was general, and suspicious, the Catholic Bishops at Ariminum refused to subscribe it, save upon some Additions to be annexed; so to secure the Church's Faith from Arrianism, and other missconstructions, after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was now left out. In which Additions, to give you Severus his words 
‖ Hist. l. 2. — Primùm damnatus est Arrius, totaque ejus perfidia; deinde Filius Deo Patri aequalis, & sine initio, sine tempore pronuntiatur [which things infer the Son's Eternity, and either Consubstantiality with the Father, or Polytheisme, denied by the Arrians]— Tum valens (saith he) tanquam nostros adjuvans, subjecit Sententiam; Filium Dei non esse Creaturam, sicut caeteras Creaturas, [i. e. (as he was understood by the Council) sicut caetera omnia sunt Creaturae] To these, S. Jerom adds, (as he saith, out of the Records of the Council itself), several anathemas pronounced, and consented to by the Arrians; amongst which this is one,— Si quis Filium Dei non dixerit aeternum cum Patre, Anathema sit. These things then being so submitted to be the Arrian Party, and the Catholic Faith now thought secure, the Council was dismissed. These things you may see related more at large by S. Jerom 
‖ Dialog. advers. Luciferian.  in defence of the Catholic Bishops in this Council, for the satisfaction of the Luciferians; a Sect, that, after the reflourishing of the Catholic Religion, would not admit those Bishops, who voted at Ariminum, or had afterward communicated with the Arrians, into their Communion (who likewise urged then, as well as the Donatists afterward, and the Reformed now, of the times before Luther, that Christ had no Church [except generally corrupted]; And the Text 
‖ Luk 18.8. — Cum venerit Filius hominis, non inveniet Fidem super terram; to which see S. Jerom's Answer in the same place.  
This for Ariminum. At the same time, and upon the same Motive (the concluding a firm Peace in the Church Universal) was another Council held in the East, 
§. 27. n. 1.  at Seleucia. Where, by the Divine Providence, S. Hilary, than an Exile for the Catholic Doctrine in the East, was present; informed the Council of the constancy of the Western Bishops in the Nicene Belief; and in the Council himself earnestly contended for it; being also assisted by the Egyptian Bishops (except Georgius the Alexandrian Usurper) as himself saith, in his Book contra Constantium. This Council (supposed in a great part Semi-Arrian) proceeded no further, than only, to the confirming of the forementioned Antiochian Creed (in which I said nothing was contained not Catholic); and afterward, to the excommunicating of the Arrians. But, after this Council dissolved, the subscription, made at Ariminum by the Occidentals, being brought into the East, and the like, for a general union, with great importunity required by the Emperor, many of these Seleucian Bishops at last yielded to it; the Arrian Agents first pretending (but falsely) to the West, that the Eastern Bishops would by no means admit of Substantia to be mentioned in the Creed; and then urging to these Eastern Bishops professing it, the prescription of the West for omitting of it? Meanwhile, by the same deception, and fraud, was this subscription procured in the East from the Bishops, most of them Orthodox, or at most but semi-arrians, as at Ariminum. Of which Seleucian Bishop's Sozomen saith 
‖ l. 4.18. — that omnes, paucis exceptis, in eo uno dissederunt; quod pars filium Patri Consubstantialem, pars autem substantia similem, esse dicerent. And, of the fraud used there toward the Orthodox, see muchwhat the same complaint made by Nazianzen (his father, a Catholic Bishop, amongst others, being involved in it,) as is by S. jerom for the West— Impietati, (saith he 
‖ Orat. in land. Athana●. ) per script● dogmatis ambiguitatem, fenestram aperuit; [Concilium Constantinopolitanum] hoc quidem praetextu, quasi Scripturam vereretur, ac vocum probatissirnarum usum amplecteretur.— And— Ears permultos è nobis, invictos alioqui viros, in fraudem impulit; qui quamvis ment nequaquam prolapsi fuerint, subscriptione tamen transversi acti sunt, etc. See also Liberius his Letter to the Eastern Bishops, in Socrates l. 4. c. 11. Yet was not this subscription, (any more than the Western at Ariminum), so universal; but that, besides Athanasius, and most of the Egyptian Bishops, there were several others of note, that fully and openly professed the Nicene faith; as Cyril Bishop of jerusalem; Meletius, (who made that valiant confession thereof not only with his mouth; but, when that stopped, with his hands, before the people of Antioch); Ensebius Samosatenus, and others. Nor yet was it so grateful to the Arrians; but that, in a meeting of them shortly after at Antioch 
‖ Sozozem. l. 4. c. 23. , they grew bold to alter it, and at last to put in the Creed, not only what was general, or ambiguous, but false; i.e. their own Anti-Nicene Tenent.  
Thus passed Constantius his times; For some three years, 
§. 27. n. 2.  after the Ariminum subsicription, very severe. But, he dying, the face of the Church was suddenly altered; and, julian succeeding him, (equal to all, or rather less disaffected to the Catholics, though a friend to none) the Nicene faith flourished as formerly; nor so much by a new Conversion of the Arrian Bishops to the truth, as by a restorement of the formerly deprived Catholic Bishops to their honours, and the possession of their Churches. Of which thus S. Jerom 
‖ Adversus Lucifer. l. 2. ,— Periclitabatur navicula Apostolorum— Dominus excitatur, imperat tempestati, Bestia [Constantius] moritur, tranquillitas rediit. Manifestius dicam. Omnes Episcopi qui de propriis sedibus fuerant exterminati, per indulgentiam novi Principis [julian, who favoured at first the Catholics] ad Ecclesias redeunt. Julian slain, after some years, under Valens ruling the East, and siding with the Arrians, a new storm arose. there, against the Nicene faith; and a persecution, and expulsion of many of the Catholic Bishops; and these times it is, that S. Basil in his Epistles so sadly deplores? But 1st, This persecution extended not to the West, where Valentinian a Catholic Emperor ruled, and where was only a toleration of the Arrians; and so some of them, by seeming Catholic, as Auxentius Bishop of Milan before S. Ambrose, did some hurt. But then, by Gratian his Son, and Successor, this Toleration was revoked; and also, in the East, upon Valens his Uncle's death, were the Catholic Bishops restored again to their seats, and the Arrians crushed. 2ly In the East it never swollen so high, but that the Body of its Prelates also, though suffering much from the other favoured Party, remained Catholic, as may appear more particularly by Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops; 
‖ Apud Socr. l. 4. c. 11.  and the 75 and 293. Epistles of S. Basil, written in the same time of Valens his persecution In which 75th. Epistle thus S. Basil, Fuerat autem justius res nostras aestimare, non ex uno, aut altero eorum, qui ad veritatem baud recto pede ingrediuntur sedex multitudine totius orbis Episcoporum, qui gratiâ Christi conjuncti nobis sùnt.— Vnamines omnes, eodemque sensu praediti sumus. Itaque si quisque Communionem nostram fugit, ne prudentiam vestram lateat, ab universâ illum Ecclesiâsese divulsisse.  

§. 27. n. 3.  And now by this Relation may be understood the true sense of those places of the Fathers, that are urged for a defection of the greatest part of the Church in these times from the true faith; which, as they are now pressed by many Protestants against the Roman Church, so some of them were anciently by the Donatists against S. Austin; to whose 48. Epistle I refer you, to peruse his Answer. When therefore S. Hierom saith 
‖ Dialog-adv. Luciferianos. — Tunc [after the Council of Ariminum] usiae nom●● abolitum est, tunc Nicaenae fidei damnatio conclamata est— And— Nomine unitatis, & fidei infidelitas soripta est, he meaneth, I●fidelit●s, etc. according to that sense, and gloss, as the Emperor and Arrian party made of the decree, after the Council ended. Saying also, — Ingemuit totus Orbis [totus Orbis, because the Eastern Bishops at Constantinople, as well as the West before them at Ariminum, by the same fraud made the same subscription], & miratus est se esse Arianum (see the like Comment in Galat. 5.9.) Arianum i. e. quite contrary to their intention, and sense, and by an Interpretation of some part of the decree so, as it contradicted another: therefore also (ibid.) he saith: how, afterward, Concurrebant Episcopi qui Ariminensibus do lis irretiti, sine conscientiâ Haeretici ferebantur, contestantes Corpus Domini, & quicquid in Ecclesia sanctum est, se nihil mali in suâ fide suspicatos. Whence he expostulates with the Luciferians— Cur damnassent eos, qui Ariani non erant? Cur Ecclesiam scinderent in concordiâ fidei permanentem? etc. From which may be gathered the meaning of several passages urged 
‖ See Tillot Rule of faith, p. 167, etc. , out of his Chronicon, declaring the establishment of Arrianism in the Arimine, or Sirmian Council; and out of his Dialogue against the Luciferians, of the Confessors, (but a few,) admitting all the rest to their Communion; which (he saith, there, expressly) was done— Non, quod Episcopi possent esse qui Haeretici fuerant; sed quod constaret eos, qui reciperentur, haereticos non fuisse. So Liberius his words 
‖ apud Socr● l. 4. c. 11. ,— Omnes illi ferè Episcopi, qui Arimini convenerant, quique vel fallacibus inescati illecebris, vel vi compulsi, à fide tum quidem desciveraut; etc. with whom he also joins the Oriental Orthodox Bishops, to whom he writ [Quibus item vos per versutas blanditias, &c] are to be understood only of their failing from such a plenary confession of their faith, as their Christian duty obliged them to, (whom I do not go about here to excuse from all fault, but from heresy). and such expressions as these— subscriptionem pristinam damnabant— fidei formulae Ariminensi Anathema denunciârunt; to be understood, that they condemned it, not as in their own former sense, false; but as, by the later Arrian sense, perverted. In the same sense are those things, said by Vincentius Lirinensis ‖, Severus ‖, and others, to be expounded; and those passages of Nazianzen 
‖ Hist. l. 2. ; 
c 6.  where he speaks of the complying lapse of many of the too-credulous Eastern Bishops, and among the rest of his father, yet always constantly Catholic. As for S. B●sils sad complaints 
‖ In Orat. de laud. than. & d● sunere Patris.  of the overflow of Arrianism, (to which may be added several in Nazianzen 
‖ Epist 71. etc. ) they were made concerning the times of Valens; and then, concerning the East, subjected to his power; 
* Orat. in Arrian.  when can be no question as to the Church universal; of the major part of its Prelates, their professing the Catholic faith; (Of which see his forequoted Epistles 
‖ Epist. 75.293. .) As neither can there be, of the times before Ariminum, as to the West; the persecution, then, being in the cause, of Athanasius, not, of the Nicene faith; so that, how long soever the Arrian error may be said to have continued (as it hath to this day in the Mahometans, and, of late, the Socinians;) yet the great eclipse, which the Nicene Faith may be thought to have suffered thereby, was only from Ariminum to the restorement of the Catholic Bishops made by Inlian, i.e. for the space of three years: though, then also the Lights of the Church were not extinguished, but only obscured, because removed out of their Candlesticks; And what hath been said here of the Catholick's subscription to the Arrian form of faith, may be said of their communion also with them; which lasted only for that small time, that they imagined them, from the additions made to the form at Ariminum, and before the manifesting of their equivocation, good Catholics.  
Lastly, one thing more in this Arrian defection is very considerable: that the Anti-Nicene faction divided presently into two Sects (as is usual to those who leave the unity of the Church,) the Arrians, and the semi-Arrians. Which Sects persecuted, excommunicated, ejected out of their Chairs, one another. Now one of the properties of the Church-Catholick in the Creed being its unity (Credo unam, etc.) for the discerning of it always from other Societies, by its more eminent magnitude and extent, it is sufficient; if, of all those Bodies or Churches, that can any way pretend to this property, and that are any way united within themselves, and contradistinct to others, it be the greatest still, and most diffused (as, if of the two divided parties, neither the Arrian, nor semi-Arrian equalled the Catholic) though by the whole mass of all these Bodies, that fight with one another, cast up together, it should be exceeded. Of which see what is said before §. 26. n. 1.  
I have, contrary to my first intention, related this matter more at large; as well knowing, this defection of the Church in the time of Arrianism to be the main, or only instance wherewith Protestants seek to countenance that later, and more universal defection which many of them charge upon it since the times of Antichrist; from A.D. 600. or sooner, till the coming of Luther: a defection (as some say) of above a thousand years' durance. Now to return to the matter in hand.]  
13. From these things Catholics infer: 
§. 27. n. 4. Prop. 13.  That both the Decrees in a Council, and acceptation of them out of it, made by a much major part of the Church-governors, (especially, this major part also being joined to the supreme Pastor of the Church) ought; undeniably to conclude the whole; and that all the obedience (forementioned) is due to this much greater, though some smaller part dissenting; and that an Opposition of their definitions in matter of faith becomes heresy; and a separation from their Communion, upon their requiring an approbation of, and conformity to, such their decrees, becomes Schism; if an opposition to, or separation from, the whole, be so.  
§. 28 14. As for that way, or those marks, that are given usually by Protestants 
‖ See Calv. Instit. l. 4 c. 1. §. 9 , by which Christians are to discern, 
Prop. 14.  in any division of them, the Society of the true Church Guides (whether these happen to be more, or fewer; of a higher, or lower rank, than the other; as they say sometimes they may be the One, sometimes the other) from the false; namely these two, 1 The right teaching of the Christian doctrine; 2 And right Administration of the Sacraments.  
1st, If any are directed to find out by these marks those Guides, not only whose Communion they ought to join with; but from whose judgement they ought to learn, which is the same true Christian doctrine; and which the right administration of the Sacraments; i.e. are by those marks, first known, to find out those persons, by whom they may come to know these marks; (as for example; if one that seeks a Guide to direct him, what he; is to believe in the Controversy of the Consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father, is first to try, if Consubstantiality be true: and then to choose him for his Guide in this point, that holds it.) The very Proposal of this way seems a sufficient confutation of it, For what is this, but to decide that first themselves, for the decision of which they seek to another's judgement? And there is no question, but, after this, they will, in a search, pitch on a Judge that decides as they do: but then, this is seeking for a Confederate, for a Companion: not seeking for a Guide, for a Governor. When they can state the true doctrine themselves, their search for a Guide to state it is at an end; and they may then search rather to whom to teach it, than of whom to learn it.  
'tis granted indeed, 
§. 29. n. 1.  (supposing the marks  were only to be found among the right Church-Guides (which is not so 
‖ See §. 29 n. 2. ) that these right Guides may be discerned from false by this mark, i.e. by the truth of that doctrine which they reach, by so many, as can attain the certain knowledge of this true doctrine by some other means, or way; as, by the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, etc. Nor is private men's trying the truth of the Doctrine of these differing Guides (by these) denied here to be lawful; nor denied, that the Proposal of such a trial to the People, may, by the true Guides, even by the Apostles, be made use of with good success; because the Scriptures, etc. may evidence, to some persons intelligent, in some Controversies less difficult, the truth of those Doctrines, which some of the learned, out of great passion, or interest, may gainsay. But then, for all such points, wherein a private man's trial by Scripture is very liable to mistake, and the sense thereof not clear unto him, (as no private person hath reason to think it clear in such points of Controversy, wherein the Church-Guides, examining the same Scriptures, yet do differ among themselves, and perhaps the major part of them from him;) here, he must necessarily attain the knowledge of his right Guide, by some other Marks prescribed him for that purpose; and not by the truth of that doctrine, or clearness of those Scriptures, for instruction in the truth, or sense, of which he seeks such a Guide. Unsound therefore is that Position of Mr. Stillingfleet's. (Rat. Account, p. 7.) That of necessity the Rule, [I suppose he means, and by it, the Truth] of Faith and Doctrine must be certainly known, before ever any one can with safety depend upon the judgement of any Church: And very infirm that arguing of his, and so all, that, he afterward builds upon it, where he deduceth from this Proposition conceded— That, a Church, which hath erred, cannot be relied on [in matter of Religion]; therefore men must be satisfied, wh●ther a Church hath erred, or no, before they can judge, whether she may be relied o●, or no: for, though this be allowed here, that such Church as may be relied on, hath, amongst other properties, or sure marks, this for one, that she doth not, or cannot err; yet many other Mark, or Properties she may have, by which men may be assured, she may be relied on, who are not first able to discern, or prove all her Doctrines for truth, or demonstrate her not erring. Such arguing is much-what like to this. That Body, which casts no light, cannot be fire, therefore a man must first be satisfied, whether such a body gives light, before he can judge whether it be fire. Not so; because one blind, and not seeing the light at all, yet may certainly know it is fire, by another property; by its scorching Heat— Or like this: No Book than contains any false Proposition in it can be the Book of Holy Scripture; therefore men must be satisfied, whether such Book contain any false Proposition in it, or no, before they can judge, whether it be the Book of Holy Scripture, or no. Not so; for men ordinarily, by another way, viz. universal Tradition, become assured that such Book is Holy Scripture; and thence collect, that it contains nothing in it contradictory, or false: and so it is for the true Church, or our true Guide; that though she always conserveth Truth, yet men come to know her by another way; and, of her, first known, afterward learn that truth, which she conserveth  
But 2ly, These Protestant Marks, viz. Truth of Christian doctrine, and right Administration of Sacraments, 
§. 29. n. 2.  if we could attain a certain knowledge of them another way, and needed not to learn them from the Church, yet are no infallible Mark of that Catholic Body, and Society, to which Christians may securely adhere, and rank themselves in its Communion: because such Body, when entirely professing the Christian Faith, yet still may be Schismatical; and some way guilty of dissolving the Christian Unity, as Dr. Field, amongst others, freely concedes. Who 
‖ Of the Ch. l 2. c. 2. p. 31. 33.  therefore to make up (as he saith)— the Notes of the true Catholic Church absolute, full, and perfect, and generally diginguishing this Church from all other Societies, adds to these two (the entire profession of saving Faith, and the right use of Sacraments), a third Mark, viz. an Union, or connexion of men in this Profession, and use of these Sacraments Under lawful Pastors, and Guides, appointed and authorized to direct, and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation. Which Pastors lawfully authorized, he 
‖ l. 1. c. 14.  grants those not to be, who though they have power of Order, yet have no power of Jurisdiction, neither can perform any Act thereof (quae Jurisdictio descendit Ordinatis à Superiore, as he notes in the Margin out of Bonavent.): And then, we for the trial of the lawful Jurisdiction of such Pastors, leaving these other Marks, must return to the former Rule, delivered. §. 23.   

CHAP. IU.  
An Application of the former Propositions in a search, which of the opposite present Churches (or Ecclesiastic Governors thereof) is our true Guide. §. 30.  
Several Motives persuading, that the Roman, and other Western Churches, united with It, and the Head thereof, S. Peter's Successor, are It,  
1st. Their being the very same Body with that, which, Protestants grant, was 150 years ago this Guide, §. 33.  
2ly. That Body, to which Christians ought to submit, if the Rule delivered, Prop. 12. 
‖ §. 23.  be observed. §. 35.  
3ly. That Body, that owns, and adheres to, the Definitions and Decrees of all those former Councils, which the Church of preceding Ages hath received as General, or obliging; as well those since, as those before, the sixth, or seventh Century. §. 37.  
§. 30 A Perpetual being of these Spiritual Guides infallibly directing in necessary Controversies; and the due subjection Christians have to, and dependence on them, being thus asserted in the former Propositions. The next Enquiry will be which, or where now is this present, visible Society, and Church consisting of such a governing Clergy, and right instructed People; of which learned Protestants 
‖ See before Prop. 3. §. 3.  seem to accord with Catholics, that some where now it is; that in no age, nor at any time it ceaseth; and that it always hath been hitherto, and ever shall be, infallible in necessaries,  
Now General Council, or Representative of the present Church Catholic, united in one body, we see there is none at this present. but the same present Governors there are, that do constitute, and sit in, these Councils when called; only these now not united, but dispersed through the several Nations of Christendom.  
And these present Governors, as to this Western part of Christendom, (which indeed is by much the more considerable, the Eastern being so greatly debilitated, and consumed by the heavy yoke of Mahometans) are divided into two chief Bodies, or Communions.  
One body of them there is, * which adhereth to the Prime Patriarch of the universal Church, the Bishop of Rome; and so hath done from their first Christianity, acknowledging a due subordination unto him; and * which also generally admits, for its present Tenants, and Belief, the Doctrines of the Councils, which have been celebrated in the Church in former ages; not only those of a few of the first Councils, which stated matters of ancient Controversy concerning the Trinity, the Natures, and Person of our Lord, etc. now fixed in the common Creeds; but those of all the rest since, which have stated Matters of later Debate, and many also of those Points, which are at the present disputed by Protestants; 
‖ Disc. 1. §. 50. n. 2.  * which admits I say the Doctrines of all these Councils, even to the present times (some few only excepted, either which the Roman Patriarch, with the greatest part of the West, never approved; or which greater Councils coming after them, have annulled) and, in particular, of the last Council that hath been held in the Church, that of Trent; which was purposely assembled about, and hath decided most of the present Protestant Controversies,  
To which great Body in the West I may join the Eastern Churches, as agreeing with it; and not remonstrating against its Conciliary Decrees, in most of the Doctrines questioned by Protestants 
‖ See Disc. 3. §. 158. ; and in their present public Service, and Rites, all as dissonant (if not more) from the Protestant's present Doctrines, and Practices, as the Roman is; and I think, (all considered), of the two, the Union of the Reformed more difficult to the Oriental Churches,  
§. 32 Another Body of present Governors there is (that is within the profession of Christianity, but not allowed by the former to be within the bounds of the Church Catholic; (as the Church Catholic, all grant, is, or may be, much narrower, than Christianity, because all Heretics, or Schismatics are Christians, but not Catholics) Who having heretofore, together with the rest, in their Forefathers, held a Communion with; and acknowledged a subordination to, the Western Patriarch, and having also submitted to all those later Councils, to which the rest, till a little before the last Council, that of Trent, yet have since (now somewhat above a hundred years) renounced external Communion with the said Patriarch, and the Churches adhering to him; i. e. to continue therein any longer, upon those terms, upon which their Forefathers formerly enjoyed it, and have withdrawn their Obedience from the former Councils, preceding their Reformation, that have been held in the Church for almost this 1000 years. I mean such as have been of Note, and whose Decrees are extant, and which have stated any matter of Controversy; the entire Acts of none of which they can own, and stand to: Even those two Councils 
‖ Conc. Constantinop. sub Copronymo & Francoford  which they urge as favouring them in matter of Images, being against them in some other points; and the Doctrine also of those times, wherein most of these Councils were held, being, as they say, much corrupted. Many of them chief supporting, and justifying this their strange discession from their Mother the Church, with a strong conceit, that she had been, for many former Ages, turned a Whore 
‖ Rev. c. 17  and out of a strange imagination they had of an Antichristian General defection▪ happened, not from the Church Catholic, (though that but too apparent in Mahometanisme) but in it, ever since the fifth, or sixth Century; or, some also say, higher; according to the time, wherein the Church's common Doctrines, or Practices began first to displease them. Yet this Fancy, after that, by divine permission, it had had its full influence in encouraging so great an Innovation, and change in Religion, as would hardly have been so vigorously prosecuted upon any other Motive whatever, (Luther, the first Reformer; helping himself more with these words, Antichrist, and Babylon, continually dropping from his Pen, than by all his other Arguments) This Fancy I say, now of late gins to be, by the more wise, and learned amongst them, laid aside; After they had discovered the Mischief also it began to work in the shaking of Episcopacy, and several other Necessary, and Apostolical Constitutions in the Government of the Church, which they, more sober, would have to be retained still in the new Model of Religion; but the other, more zealous to be ejected with the rest. To satisfy yourself in which matter, you may view H. Grotius 
‖ Notes on the Apocalypse. , and Mr. Thorndike's 
‖ Right of Church, in the review p. CLVI, etc. , and Dr. Hammon'ds 
‖ In his premonition concerning the Apocalyps  new Schemes of Antichrist, and his Kingdom, they removing it again (with the Catholic Doctors) quite out of the Pale of the Church, and freeing the Reformed of their former Fears. Which rectifying of so pernicious a Mistake of the first Reformers by a more sober posterity, well considered, may I hope in time much conduce to the Reunion of that Body, which, by this Great Engine of Satan chief, hath been heretofore so unhappily divided.  
§. 33 In such a Division then, to prosecute our Enquiry: viz. who, or where, these Governors be, that are our present Guide, and that seem so much authorized by both sides in the former Propositions.  
First: If this Question had been made by any 150 years ago, there had been no difficulty to resolve it. For, that Body, here first named, was then the whole, or the only Catholic Church, as to the West (further than which he, that would then have gone for choice of his Religion, would have fared worse 
‖ See Disc. 3. §. 26. &c, . That Body therefore, then, must have been conformed to, or the whole deserted; as indeed it was 
‖ See 1 Disc. §. 55. n. 4.  Now this Body is not changed in its Liturgies, in its common Doctrines, in its Rites, since that time, from what the whole was then: Witness the Reformation itself, which was made against these very Doctrines, and Practices that are now 
‖ 1 Disc. §. 47.— 50. n. 2.— 36 n. 5.  as imposed on them, before the being of the Council of Trent; though some, 
‖ Stillingf. p. 268 370— Field p. 880. 187, 224.  perhaps to lighten the charge of Schism, would fain persuade the contrary; and I wish, the only contest between the two present Churches were put upon the trial of this.  
§. 34 It is here apparent then, which of these two, at that time, (when as yet one of them was not) had been our lawful Guide, and Mother, Church; and easily cleared, what then were its doctrines: Of which Guide Protestants also testify; That, then, it erred not in Necessaries. See before Prop. 3. §. 3. etc.— Disc. 1. §. 41. And that also, in all other points, Christians were to believe it, so many as could not demonstrate the contrary: See Prop, 9, 10. §, 20, 21. We therefore may promise the same security to ourselves in following this part of the Catholic Church, (as the Protestants call it, though, it calls itself the whole still) now, as our Forefathers had in following the whole then. And this, resting still in this Body remaining the same with what once was the whole, seems security enough to all those, who, if this Body were now so entire, and universal as it was then, durst not now attempt a separation from the whole; or to those, who are not able to demonstrate the former separation, that hath been made, just, and necessary; the tie of Obedience to, and acquiescence in the doctrines of these Guides, Being dissolvable by none, save demonstrators of their Errors 
‖ See 3 Disc. §. 44. ; which, among the Church's Subjects, can never be but a very small Number.  
§. 35 2ly. But, besides this main Motive of submission to the first Body, as our right Judge, and Guide, because we find it the very same with the Church Catholic that was 150 years ago: [whereas the second Body confess themselves a Church, that is since separated from the external Communion of that other, and a body reform from the pretended Errors, and Corruptions found therein; i. e. from the Errors, which some of the Subjects, and of the Flock (for, such I reckon a particular person, or Church, in respect of the whole) found in their Guides, and Judges, when themselves also were inferior to them, both in their paucity of number, and quality of place]: I say, besides this, in the second place, If we will follow the Principle laid down in the 12th, Proposition 
‖ §. 23. ; i. e. in any Contradiction happening, to adhere to the Superior persons, and Synods, as our true Guide; and, amongst these, to a major part as our Guide sooner, than to a Minor;  
By which Rule the Christian world hath been preserved hitherto from all those, which both sides agree to have been, Heresies; and which Rule unless we follow, we dissolve all Government, and all Unity of this Body of Christ, and introduce flat Anarchy, and Confusion; whilst, for a Monarchical Government of the Church, Protestants will not hear of it; and, in an Aristocratical, or Government consisting of many, it cannot be presumed, but that there will be some Dissenters; which, if they may be followed against the others, I ask by what Rule of Government was it, that the Arrian, Eutychian, and Nestorian Bishops shops were forced to yield, and were divested of their Pastoral authority, or guiding, any longer, by the rest of the Bishops, in the Council of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon?]; Lastly, if we will be guided by the Church Catholic out of Council, as we are in it; Thus also we must needs acknowledge the first of these Bodies for our true, and rightful Judge. For, it is apparent, that this first is a much major part of the Church-Governors, joined also with the prime Patriarch of Christianity; and so to be preferred by us before a minor, separated. If you would know then, which of these two present Bodies of ecclesiastics you are to obey out of a Council; First, do you imagine them now met in a Council; and next, that in this Council every one delivers, concerning things debated, that which is his present judgement, when called to the Council; [and this is but reasonable; since there is no likelihood of new demonstrations to be made in the Council, which already, in so much writing on all sides, these Bishops have not seen; and since former tradition, and not argument, is the chief rule of their proceed: and no example is found in any Council past, wherein its members have concluded any thing contrary to the preceding common faith of that Age, wherein such Council was held]. Especially imagine, what their sentence might be concerning this point; whether the former Councils that have been, may have erred in their Definitions, which one point, stated negatively, ruins Protestantism. And then, if your conscience, weighing the present persuasions and practices of Christian Prelates doth convince you, that the Votes of the one side would be very inconsiderable in it to the number of the other, as likewise that S. Peter's Chair (concerning which Chair the Church's ancient Maxim hath been, Sine Pontifice Romano nihil finiendum 
‖ See in Athan. Apol. 2. Epist. Julii— & Innocentii. Ep. 91. apud August. ) would join with this major part, against the other; what remains, but that you here follow the same Body in the Interval of a Council, which you must have followed in the time of a Council; unless also you will reverse the common Laws of Councils?  
§. 36 Note, that this is spoken of the Great Body of the Western Churches contained under the Roman Patriarch, which do yet by God's permission enjoy all the privileges of an undisturbed Ecclesiastical Government, and which seems, by reason of its numerous Clergy, and populacy, and extent of the arms of this body, & propagation of its faith, into all the other quarters of the world, to be the greatest part of Christianity, & that which hath been always the most dignified, by reason of S. Peter's Chair. From which for any of the Western Body to make an appeal, out of these bounds, to the present Eastern Churches, now hindered, by the great oppressor of Christianity there, & disturbed in the Exercise of any such Judicature, and also much divided among themselves and who have not met in any Council for this eight hundred years, save, by sending at several times, their delegates, into the West, For any, I say, to make an appeal from a Church flourishing in Government, and discipline, in learning, and records of Antiquity, the City still on a Hill, and Candle on a Candlestick, to seek for Votes among the Jacobites, Maronites, Caphtites, Armenians, Abyssines, or Greek Churches, etc. several of them being suspected of ancient Heresies, and, if Heretics, no members of the Catholic Church, appears nothing else, but the refusal of a trial; and avoiding the sentence of any such Guide, and judge, as God's Providence hath afforded us; and, besides this, is an Appeal, where could those Churches now freely deliver their sentence, and were now set on the Bench as this present Judge, the Appealants can have no hopes of any success to their cause. For that these Churches, or at least the greatest Body of them (as is showed elsewhere 
‖ Disc. 3. §. 158. ) appear to keep as great a distance from the reformed, as the major part of the Western Body doth.  
§. 37 3ly If the Councils, that are extant and reputed for General, since the first six or seven hundred years to the times of Luther's reformation shall be by any acknowledged, either for General: 
3.  or for the most universal, that could well be convened; or, at least, that are found actually to have been convened (a thing, which I think, though the testimony, the present Church gives to them, be made no use of, the common veracity of History will clear to us; besides that, none hath any other Councils of an equal authority in these times to nominate, and set up against them; and those, who demolish them, do it, without erecting, or discovering to us any better, or any besides): I say, if any think meet, to rely on the judgement of these past Councils in the present matter, these also will sufficiently evidence to us, that the first of these Bodies forenamed is our present rightful Guide, and Judge. For, since the Acts, and Laws of such Councils are not only of force, and obligatory, to those present times, wherein they sit, but to all future Ages; with the execution of which Acts, and Decrees, the succeeding Pastors, and chief Governors of the Church, in their several stations, and residences, in all following times, stand charged, till these are by an equal authority reversed, It seems clear, that in any division (happening afterward) of these Pastors, those are to be acknowledged our right Guides, who own, adhere to, and propagate, the Definitions and Laws of these former Councils. Now this we see, the first of these two Bodies doth; as the latter renounceth them; yet renounceth them without the producing of the patronage of any Councils at all in their stead; pulling down as it were all the Church's, Castles, and Forts, (if I may call her Councils so) against the incursions of errors, and heresies, that have been built in several Ages for near a thousand years; and yet showing none other at all, for Christians, in the many points that have been disputed, to repair to, but leaving the sad Spectators of these their demolitions quite disheartened; as diffiding in the Church's judgement (so much decried for error); and having yet more reason to distrust their own; and so not knowing, in this case, whither to betake themselves, for the settling of their Religion, and conscience. For surely, this unerringness, which the late Reformers have denied to those great Bodies of the Church. they cannot, in reason, assume to those lesser Conventions of their own.   

CHAP. V.  
The Pretended security of those Protestants, who deny any certain, living or personal Guide, infallible in Necessaries: Affirming That all necessary matters of Faith are, even to the unlearned, clear in Scripture: and the Controversies in non Necessaries needless to be decided §. 38.  
Necessaries clear in Scripture: Because God hath left no other certain means or Guides for the knowledge of them §. 39 n. 1.  
1 No Guide, which is infallible. 2 Which the unlearned, in any Division can discern from false, or know and understand their decrees better, than the Scriptures. 3 Or, which the Scriptures direct them to, for learning Necessaries §. 39 n. 2. The Reply, 2. That Evidence of the Scriptures hath been the usual Plea of former Heretics, in their dissenting from the Church §. 40. n. 1.  
2. That, as to the main and principal Articles of the Christian Faith, the sufficiency of the Rule of Scripture is not denied, by Roman Catholics; But only the clearness thereof, as to all men's capacities, questioned: and another Guide held necessary §. 40. n. 2. It is replied then, 1. * Concerning the clearness of Scripture 1 That some of the Controversies in Religion, since the Scriptures written, have been concerning Points necessary §. 41. 2 That the more clear all Necessaries are in Scripture, the more security Christians have in the Church's judgement § 42. 3 That there is no necessity, that all Necessaries be revealed in Scripture, clearly, to all. 1 Because it is sufficient. If the Scriptures, for the things doubtful therein, direct to these Guides §. 43. 2 Sufficient, if such things be cleared to these Guides, by other Apostolical Tradition §. 44.  
3 Or, if the true sense of the Scriptures touching these matters, be cleared to them, by Tradition §. ib. 4 Or, if such sense be clear, in the Scriptures themselves (well examined, and compared), to them; though not, to all §. 45. 2 y, Concerning the Guide, 1 That Scripture, in what it is ambiguous, cannot be a Guide §. 49. n. 1. 2 That it is not necessary, that Christians, be in, or by, the Scriptures, directed to another Guide ib. n. 2. 3 Yet that th●y are, in the Scriptures, so directed §. 47. n. 3. 4 And may, in many points, more easily understand the sense of their decisions, than of the Scriptures §. 48.  
§. 38 THe usual security that some of them give their followers, 
α.  is this [α] That all Controversies that arise in matters of Faith, or in matters very profitable 
‖ Chillingw, p. 54. , are so clearly decided, or determined in Scripture, that none, learned, or unlearned, using that industry, which humane prudence, and ordinary discretion (his condition considered) adviseth him to, can err in them 
‖ See Chiling. p 115.92, 19.58, 59 Pref. §. 30. etc.— Archbishop Lawd. p. 196. n. 3.— Sillingst. p. 149.— Whitby p. 441.— Tillois. Rule of Faith p. 20.86. . [where the unlearned seem also to be put in, lest these at least, for their ignorance, should be referred from the Scripture to a Guide, for the ending of their doubts; and using ordinary industry added, lest private men, jealous of not using their utmost industry to understand aright the Scriptures, should upon this account be persuaded, that it is safest for them to repair and adhere to a Guide] Next, That, for all other Controversies, that arise in non-Necessaries, neither is it necessary, that they should be ended. So that, as one briefly states the case 
‖ Chillingw. p. 59 ,— Those places of Scripture, which contain things necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need no infallible [Judge, or] Interpreter, [or rather cannot but have every one an infallible Interpreter, upon supposition of a due diligence used], be-because they are plain: and those that are obscure need none, because they contain not things necessary; neither is error in them dangerous. Or as another 
‖ Tillots. p. 86. — Of the true sense of plain texts every one may be certain, and for the obscure ones it is not necessary, every one should. [And thus, having no living Judge to decide controversies, they make those controversies so much the fewer, that need deciding].  
And if we here further question; 
§. 39 n. 1.  why all controversies in necessaries are affirmed to be clearly decided in Scripture? or, yet more; why, so clearly decided there, as that even the unlearned cannot mistake in them? Mr. Chillingworth answers, they are so, because the Scripture must be, to all, sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible, in all things necessary. And my reason hereof (saith he) is convincing, 
p. 92.  and demonstrative, because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. [Which is granted him: But he must add; plainly revealed in Scripture; and plainly there to the unlearned also; otherwise it will not serve his purpose]. This Proposition therefore they also maintain; that all points necessary to salvation must be plainly revealed in Scripture to learned, and unlearned: and ground it on this reason; because God, who requires from all Christians, even the unlearned, belief of such necessaries, yet hath left them no other certain means of the knowledge thereof, save only the Scriptures 
‖ See Chillingw. p. 71. Whitby p. 441. . And, if it be replied here: That God hath appointed and referred them to a perpetual living Guide the Church, for the expounding and declaring to them the true sense of ambiguous Scriptures. Many things they object against it. 
§. 39 n. 2.   
[] 1st, 
.  they earnestly dispute; that this Guide, the Church, that they are referred to, is not infallible but that theirs, the Scripture, is so. 
γ.  [γ] ●ly they ask many questions about such Guide (as they conceive unanswerable) How in a division of these living Guides, 
ξ See Mr. Stillingft. p. 101.508, &c— Chillingw. p. 93. Whitby p. 430. etc.  the unlearned may come to know, which are the right; and which is the true Church? Or, this found, how to know, what are her definitions, and decrees? what the sense of these decrees, & c? see many of them collected in 3 Disc. §. 86. contending, that the unlearned, in any such division of Guides, have no certain means to know the true from the false; nor the sense of their definitions more easily, than the sense of the Scriptures. 
δ.  3. [δ] Lastly they say; 
‖ See Mr. Chillingw p 61, 104, 171.  That, if God had left Christians in all Ages to learn Necessaries from their other Guides, he would at least, in the Scriptures, have directed Christians to repair to these Guides, for learning of them. 
ε.  [ε] And again, for the divisions happening among these Guides, (well fore-seen by him), he would have told them in the Scriptures, what party, in such a case, they ought to follow, and adhere to; as, that they should always adhere to the Church of Rome; or, to the Vicar of Christ; or to the most General Councils; and in dissenting votes here to the major part thereof, etc. And indeed this assertion that God hath left no other, certain, or sufficient means to any sort of Christians, since the Apostles times, whereby to attain the knowledge of necessaries to salvation, save only the Scriptures, seems to be the main pillar on which Mr. Chillingworth, and his followers sustain the Protestant Religion, and the Reformation 
‖ See Chillingw. pref.   
Before I return an answer to these, 
‖ 30. etc. comp. c. 2. §. 155.156.  I have two things to note to you. 1st, That the devolving the decision of Controversies, not upon the sufficiency only, but upon the clearness, 
§. 40. n. 1.  of the rule of Scripture, 
1.  and declining any constant adhesion to the Church's judgement in the Exposition of it, seems not a little prejudicial to the Protestants cause; in that this is observed of old by Tertullian, Austin, Vincentius Lirinensis, and other Fathers 
‖ Tertull. De p●aescriptione adversns Heretic.— S. Aust. Ep. ●22.— contr a Maximinum. l. 1.— Vincent Lir. c. 35. , to have been the way, that all former heresies have taken, declining the Church, and its Tradition, and pretending the Scriptures as the support of their Doctrines.  
[Of the old Heretics, thus Vincentius Lirinensis,— Sive apud suos sive alienos, etc. nihil unquam penè de suis proferunt, quod non etiam Scripturae verbis adumbrare conent●r Lege Pauli Samozateni opuscula, Priscilliani Eunom●i▪ Joviniani, reliquarumque pestium; cernas infinitam Exemplorum congeriom; prope nullam omitti pag nam, quae non novi, aut veteris testamenti sentent●i, fucata & colorata sit. Then enquiring in this case 
‖ Contra Haereses. c. 35. — quonian modo in Scriptures sanctis ●atholici homines veritatem â falsitate discernent? He answers 
‖ c. 38. — Hoc scilicet facere magnopere curabunt, ut divinum Canonem, secundum universalis Ecclesiae Traditiones & juxta Catholici dogmatis regulas, interpretentur.]  
And the same thing is also observable in that new-revived, most dangerous, Heresy of Socinianism; which draws up for itself, against Church-authority, much-what the same Plea, as is here above made by these Protestants some of which, that you may compare them, I have transcribed you here out of Volkelius, 
De vera Religione. l. 5. c 7.  a little contracted. There than he saith,— Quae de fido in Christum statuenda sunt, ex sacris literis patere. Cha●itatem quo que in sacris literis ita descriptam esse, ut quicunque eam ex animo colere, mentemque advertere velit, ignorare non possit, quid sibi sit in omnibus vitae partibus sequendum; praesertim si sapientiam a Deo petat, quam ille nemini denegat Again— Deum, qui religionem Christianam usque admundi finem vigere voluit, cuirass etiam, tale aliquid perpetuo extare unde ea, quatenus omnino ad salutem est necessarium, cognosci indubitatò possit; At nihil tale extare, praeter sacras literas. Nam si dicas, Ecclesiam esse, unde ea cognitio semper peti possit: primum statuendum tibi erit, Deum etiam decrevisse, ut Ecclesia vera (falsa enim ad eam rem inepta est) semper usque ad mundi finem extet.— Sed ut Ecclesia vera extet, à quâ omnes salutaris v●rit●tis notitiam indubitatè pevere queant, requiritur, ut homines complures coetum aliquem, qui in omnium ●oulos incurrat, constituant— At non est, quod quis certam aliquam Ecclesiam hoc privilegio a Deo donatam esse contendat, ut fide excidere nequeat. Deinde non posse Ecclesiam veram certo cognosci nisi prius cognoscatur, quae sit salutaris Christi doctrina— praeterea indipsum saltem debuisse alicubi in sacris literis clarè ac perspicuè scriptum exta●e, debere ab Ecclesia peti omnia, quae ad salutem scitu sunt necessaria; & quaenam ea sit Ecclesia, ac unde debeat cognosci, clare describi, ne quis in câ cognoscenda facile errare posset. Nam si quippiam scriptu fuisset necessarium, hoc sane fuisset, sine quo reliqua omnia, quae cripta sunt, nihil, aut parum admodum prodessent— Denique eam Ecclesiam, quam isti [Pontificii] perpetuo extitisse volunt, constare, multis in rebus, atque adeo in iis quoqu●, qu● ad salutem sunt necessariae, gravissime errare, [Things usually pleaded by Mr. Chillingw. and his followers, but whether borrowed from these I can say nothing 
‖ See below § 47. n. ] Thus the Socinians lay the platform of their Religion: and when the Protestants for confuting their error, urge Fathers, and Church-authority against them, they reply, That they have learned this from them, to receive nothing besides Scripture, and to neglect the Father's. 
‖ See Simlerus de Filio Dei, & S. Spiritu Prafat. . Meanwhile; Appeals of the Fathers, in Controversies of Religion, to the trial of the Holy Scriptures I acknowledge frequent; and that also sometimes, waving Church-authority 
‖ See S. Austin contra Maximinum, l. 3. c. 14. , but never made in opposition to it, former, or present. Their great humility (which also kept them Orthodox) hindered them from presuming this; and had any of them done it, posterity would not have styled him a Father.  
The second thing is, 
§. 40. n. 2.  that, as to the sufficiency, or entireness of the Scriptures, 
2,  for the containing all those points of faith, that are simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining salvation, Roman Catholics deny it not; but only deny such a clearness of Scripture, in some of those, as Christians cannot mistake, or pervert. Catholics contend indeed▪ that there are several things necessary to be believed by Christians, according as the Church, out of Apostolical Tradition, hath or shall declare, and propose them; (as, touching the Government of the Church: several Functions of the Clergy; Administration of the Sacraments, and some other sacred Ceremonies; and particularly concerning the Canon of the Scriptures), which are not contained in the Scriptures, at least, as to the clear mention therein of all those appertinents, which, yet, have been ever observed in the Church. And touching the obligation of believing, and due observing of several of these Traditions, as descending from the Apostles, learned Protestants also agree with them 
‖ See Dr. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. Dr. Tailor Episcopacy asserted § 19— Reasons. of the University of Oxford against the Covenant 1647. p. 9 : and in particular, concerning the believing of the Canon of Scripture, though it be a thing not contained in Scripture. See Mr. Chillingworths' Concession p. 55. 
‖ See also p. 114  where he saith,— That when Protestants affirm against Papists, that Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith, their meaning is not, that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed; For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer, that there is a God▪ or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God. For he that will deny these Assertions; when they are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more, because you can show them written: But their meaning is; that the Scripture to them, that presuppose it divine, and a Rule of faith (as Papists, and Protestants do), contains all the material objects of faith; is a complete, and total, and not only an imperfect, and a partial, Rule. Where in saying, all material objects of faith, he means only all other, after these he names presupposed, and pre-believed. But though (I say) Catholics maintain several Credends, that are not expressed in Scriptures, necessary to be believed, and observed by Christians, after the Church's Proposal of them, as Tradition Apostolical, amongst which the Canon of Scripture; Yet they willingly concede, that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salvation, and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto, either ra●ione medii, or pracepti, (as the doctrines collected in the three Creeds; the common Precepts of manners, and of the more necessary Sacraments, etc.) are contained in the Scriptures; contained therein, either in the Conclusion itself; or in the principles, from whence it is necessarily deduced 
‖ Bellarmin. de verbo Dei non scripto lib▪ 4. cap. 11.— Illa omnia scippta sunt ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem— Stapleton Relect Princip Doctrinae fidei Controver. 5. q. 5. art. 1— Doctrinam fidei ab omnibus, & fingulis explicitè credendam, omnem, aut ferè omnem, scripto commendarunt Apostoli.— The main and substantial Points of our faith, (saith F. Fisher in Bishop White pag 12.) are believed to be apostolical, because they are written in cripture.— S. Thom 22. q. 1. art. 9 primus, & ad primum— art. 10. ad primum— In Doctrina Christi, & Apostolorum [he means, c●p●a weritas fidei est sufficienter explicata; sed, quia pervesi homines Scripturas pe●vertunt, ideo necessaria fuit temporibus proce●encibus explicatio fides contra insurgentes errores. . Therefore the Church, from time to time, defining any thing concerning such points, defines it out of the Revelations made in Scripture. And the chief Tradition, the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the Church, is not the delivering of any additional doctrines, descended from the Apostles times extra Scripturas, i. e. such as have not their foundation at least in Scripture; but is the preserving, and delivering of the primitive sense, and Church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures, but many times not there written so clearly. (which traditive sense of the Church you may find made use of against Arianism in the first Council of Nice 
‖ See Theod. Hist l. 1: c. 8. )— Or, as Dr. Field— It is that form of Christian doctrine, and Explication of the several parts thereof, 
‖ Of the Ch. P. 375.  which the first Christians, receiving of the same Apostles, that delivered to them the Scriptures, commended to posterity. Thus he. This then being the Tradition, that is chief vindicated by the Roman Church, it is not the deficiency of Scripture, as to all the main, and prime, and universally necessary-to-be-known Articles of faith, as if there were any necessity that these be supplied, and completed with other not written traditional Doctrines of Faith, that Catholics do question: but the non-clearness of Scriptures (for several of these points) such, as that they may be miss-understood (which non-c●earness of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tradition for a true exposition and sense)▪ is the thing that they assert: and wonder, that, after the appearance of so many grievous Heresies, and should deny. For, as to the Scriptures containing all the chief, and material Points of a Christian's belief; what Article of Faith is there, except that concerning the Canon of Scripture, (which Protestant's also grant cannot be learned out of Scripture;) and excepting those Practicals, wherein, the Church only requiring a Belief of the Lawfulness of them, it is enough, if they cannot be showed to be against Scripture; I say, what Speculative Article of Faith is there, for which Catholics rest merely on unwritten Tradition; and do not, for it, allege Scripture; I mean, even that Canon of Scripture, which Protestants allow?  
[A thing observed also by Dr. Field 
‖ l. 4. c. 20.  but too much extended— This is so clear (saith he); That there is no matter of Faith ['tis granted, no principal point thereof] delivered by bare, and only Tradition; that, therein, the Romanists contrary themselves, endeavouring to prove by Scripture the same things they pretend to hold by Tradition, as we shall find, if we run through the things questioned between them and us, [they contrary not themselves, in their holding several things to be delivered clearly by Tradition, which are also, but obscurely, or more evadably, contained in the words of Scripture] Again 
‖ Ib. p. 377. — So that for matters of Faith (saith he) we may conclude, according to the judgement of the best, and most learned, of our Adversaries themselves; that there is nothing to be believed, which is not either expressly contained in Scripture, or at least by necessary consequence, from thence, and by other things evident in the light of Nature, or in the matter of Fact, to be concluded. Thus he.]  
I say then; not this, whether the main, or if you will, the entire, body of the Christian Faith, as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly believed, be contained there; but this, whether so clearly, that the unlearned, using a right diligence, cannot therein mistake, or do not need therein another Guide, is the thing here contested.  
§. 41 For a particular Reply then to what is here said. To α 1st. I ask; if all Necessaries be clearly revealed, 
R. to α  and all necessary Controversies clearly decided, in Scripture, even to the unlearned, how have Controversies in Necessaries (as concerning the Trinity, our Lord's Deity, and Humanity, etc.) in several Ages arose, and gained many Followers? Here, will they say; that such Controversies are not in Necessaries? How then came the first General Councils (extolled by Protestants) to put them in the Creed, or to exact Assent to them upon Anathema; which Councils they affirm in non-necessaries fallible; and in what they are fallible, unjustly imposing Assent? Or will they say, that they are in Necessaries; and that the unlearned may easily discern, and decide them; and that, not by Tradition, but only Scripture? How happened it then, that heretofore, so many, (learned, unlearned), when forsaking the Church's guidance, erred in them? But if they say, this happened for want of a due diligence in the search of the Scriptures: thus they leave men in great perplexity, when the Scripture is plain (and only obscure to them through their negligent search); and so, when the point perhaps may be necessary. Thus an illiterate Christian not discerning from clear Scripture, whether Sociniansme, or Antisocinianisme be the Catholic Faith, which he is very solicitous to live, and die in; and consulting them concerning it, they tell him, there is no other director left him besides Scripture, whose Judgement he may securely follow (the judgement of the Church, or Councils here being waved by them, because this judgement allowed, or authorized, will infer the Belief of some other points which they approve not): Only this satisfaction they seem to leave him, that if neither side be clear to him in Scripture, neither much matters it, which side he holds for truth; For God say they, hath there, clearly, revealed all necessaries. But he enquiring further; whether they do not firmly believe Anti-Socinianism? and also ground their Faith of this upon the Clearness of Scripture in it? And then: it appearing to them clear in Scripture how they know, but that it may be a necessary truth; and so his salvation ruined, if he believe the contrary? Here, what they can answer that will not more perplex him, I see not. Since so long as he may; possibly, fail in a due diligence, though only required according to his condition, he cannot be satisfied, whether the point, to every due Searcher, be not clear in Scripture; and also be not a Necessary. Nor yet will they allow him any other certain Director in it, but the same Scripture, which appears to him ambiguous.  
Hear what Mr. Stillingfleet interposeth in this matter— It seems reasonable (saith he 
‖ Ration. account. p. 58. ) that, because Art, and Subtlety may be used by such, who seek to pervert the Catholic Doctrine, and to wrest the plain places of Scripture, which deliver it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves to such Mists, as are cast before their eyes; the sense of the Catholic Church in succeeding ages may be a very useful way [But, why not a necessary way, I pray, upon the former supposa] for us to embrace the true sense of Scripture, especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith. As for instance, in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity. [Therefore you see in the greatest Articles, Scriptures confessed not so plain, especially to the unlearned, and ordinary capacities.]  
§. 42 2 , If all Necessaries so clearly revealed in Scripture; may we not so much the more securely. and certainly rely on the judgement of our Ecclesiastical Guides, and Teachers in them; to whom they must needs be as, or more, plain, than to us; especially, on their Judgement, when assembled in a General Council; on it, for these Necessaries at least. It seems, no; and that the case is now altered. Even now; Necessaries were so plain in Scripture, as the unlearned, using ordinary diligence, could not mistake in them. Now Necessaries are not so plain in Scripture, but that a General Council, as to the major part of them (the highest Authority by which the Church Catholic can direct us), at least, if not in their sense universally accepted, (for this Exception is put in by the more moderate 
‖ See Disc. 1. §. 32. etc. ) may mistake in them so far, as that the unlearned have, even for these Necessaries, no security to rely on their judgement.— I must tell you (saith Mr. Chillingworth to F. Knot 
‖ p. 150. ) you are too bold in taking that; which no man grants you; that the Church is an infallible Director in Fundamentals [or Necessaries.] Now this also he was (considering his Engagement) forced to say; and gives the reason that made him say so (I suppose for satisfying his own Party, rather than his Adversary) in the words following.— For (saith he) if she were so; then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her; but also learn of her, what is fundamental, and take all for fundamental, which she delivers to be such. And what harm in it, say I, if you did? But this, he well saw, would have destroyed the Reformation which was contrary to the Doctrines, which the public Director, that was then in being, delivered. But. if these Necessaries, at the last, are not so few, or so plain in Scripture, but that the judgement of the Church-Guides, even when met, in their supremest Consults, may err in them. will he allow us then to follow some other's judgement. that is, in these points fallible? If so; why not to follow theirs still? But if not so; whose judgement will he direct us to, that shall less err than these Guides, or that shall certainly not err, in the undrstanding of these plain Scriptures. wherein these Guides mistake? Methinks he should * forbear here to name to us our own Judgement; even when we unlearned too; and yet none else can he name: And * much more forbear here to allege Passion, Faction, Interest, &c, as great Blinders of this public judgement, unless he could first show the private not at all, or less, liable to them; which corrupters of a clear understanding seem indeed more incident to persons of a lower rank, and that have much relation to, and dependence on, others: and therefore what more common, than, for avoiding those, to make Appeals from inferior to a more general judgement, as expecting, in the most general, the most impartial dealing? And what private person can we produce, thot doth not range himself with some party: and that hath not, in matters controverted, a strong secular Interest for one side to be truth, rather than the other, according to the Church, and State he lives in?  
§. 43 But 3ly As it is necessary, that God, some way, or other, do clearly reveal to all, even the unlearned, using their due Industry, that which he requires necessarily to be believed by them; so it is not consequent at all, that God should do this, (as to every thing necessary) in the Scriptures.  
First; Because God cannot be said to have been deficient in a competent revelation of Necessaries to all men, if he hath left, (as indeed he hath) sufficient evidence, and clearness in the Scriptures (that are first generally agreed on to be his Word), to every man rightly using his private judgement, or common reason, as to one point only; viz. this: That it is his divine Will, that private men, for all those Scriptures, the sense whereof is any way dubicus, or controverted, should constantly be guided by, and adhere to, the judgement of those spiritual Superiors, that he hath set over them; and, in any division of these, should still hold to the Superiors among these Superiors, according to the Subordinations by him established amongst them. For thus we see, after a Christian's private judgement, or common reason used only in one point, for all other points private judgement is now discharged; and in stead thereof, obedience to Authority takes place, so far as its stating of any point thinks fit to restrain, therein, other men's Liberty of Opinion. The testimony of which Church-authority, as a thing clearly demonstrated and ratified by the Scriptures, S. Austin, in more difficult matters of Controversy, often appealed to. See Disc. 3. §. 82. n. 4.— Puto (saith he) si aliquis Sapiens extitisset, cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet [that we should be directed by his judgement]: & de hac quaestione consuleretur à nobis; nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere quod ille dixisset; ne non tam ipsi, quam Domino Jesu Christo, cujus testimonio commendatur, repugnare judicaremur. Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae. And by this, (which is so often retorted by Protestants▪) that Catholics also are forced to allow to Christians the necessary use of their private Judgement, will be verified only in this one point, The Choice, or the discerning of their Guide; whereas the Protestants make it necessary for all Points; and who sees not a vast difference between these two, for the hazard which a Christian incurs therein, ¹ The being, in all controverted matters of Religion, and sense of Scriptures, merely cast upon his own reason, and skill, to steer himself aright therein. And ² The being left to it only in one matter; and that one, as Catholics contend, in the Scriptures very clear; after which, examined, and judged by him, all the rest, wherein he may want a resolution, are, without his further solicitude, to be judged for him; by another. So▪ there is a great difference, when a person falls sick, between his being left to the use of his private judgement in making choice of a Physician, according to certain Rules prescribed unto him by a wise, and experienced man in that behalf; and then, this once done, submitting himself afterward to this Physician in all things, that he shall prescribe for his cure; and between this sick person's undertaking, by Hypocrates his Aphorisms, or other Physic Books, to prescribe all particular Remedies to himself, upon this reasoning: that if his private judgement serves for directing in the one, making choice of a Physician: why not in all the other, fit Medicines for his Disease? Which Argument is only good, where all the Objects, about which our judgement is exercised, are equally easy, and clear to it: And therefore, unconsequently seems that Question to be asked 
‖ Stillingf. R. Ac. p. 7.  [If the Scripture may, and must decide one Point, that of the Church, why may it not as well all the rest?] If the Scripture be not in all other Points equally clear, and not-mistakable. This then is one way of sufficient Revelation, besides Mr, Chillingworth's way [I mean that, of all necessary Truths being clearly revealed in Scripture): viz. a sufficient Revelation of one point, in Scripture; concerning that Guide, from whom we may securely learn all the other points, not clear to us in Scripture.  
§. 44 2 , Because God, besides, and before, the New-Testament Scriptures, left these doctrines sufficiently revealed to the then-appointed Ecclesiastical Guides; from whom both the present people, and the future successors of these Guides, both were, and might rationally know they were, to learn them; and so had there been no Scriptures, might by mere Tradition have learned them sufficiently to this day for their Salvation. This is a second way then of sufficient Revelation, besides, or without that in Scripture: viz. All necessary Truth, since the penning of the Scriptures, only so manifested clearly to, and so delivered clearly by the Church-Guides, as they were manifested to them before Scripture.  
3ly. Because, as all the Christian Doctrines might, before, so, the true meaning of some part of the same Scripture might, after the writing allo of the New-Testament-Scriptures, have been clearly enough delivered by Tradition, and by the first Scripture-Expositors, to the Christian people that were then, and so to Posterity, though, meanwhile the Letter of such Scripture doth not so necessarily enforce this traditive sense, as not to be possibly, or sometimes probably, capable of another. This is a third way of sufficient Revelation: viz. by the clear descending Tradition of the sense of those Scriptures, which are in their Letter ambiguous.  
§. 45 But 4 lie, Supposing it needful, that all such Necessaries must be clearly revealed in the Letter of Scripture; yet is this sufficient, to save God's proceed from tyranny, if that they be with sufficient clearness revealed therein to the Church Guides alone, and to the Learned, that diligently read, and compare the Scriptures together, and use the helps of the comparings, and comments of others; and if that the illiterate people be remitted by God, in all ages, to learn these Necessaries from their Guides. This is a fourth way of sufficient Revelation of Necessaries; i. e. a revelation of them in Scripture, such as must be clear to the Church-Guides; in stead of that other revelation, there, of Mr. Chillingworth's, such as must be clear to all.  
To . I answer, 
§. 46. n. 1.  that where the sense of the Scripture is ambiguous, 
R. to β.  and in Controversy, (which sense, and not the Letter only, is God's Word) here their Guide to know this true sense of Scripture cannot be this, by all allowed infallible, Scripture▪ which Protestants pretend; but must be either the Church's judgement, which they say is fallible; or their own, which all reasonable men, I should think, will say, is more fallible.  
To γ. See many of their Questions solved, 
R. to γ.  Disc. 3. §. 86. and, concerning our understanding the sense of the Church's. Definition better, than the sense of Scriptures. See below. §. 48. etc.  
To δ. 1st. It is not necessary, 
§. 46. n. 2. R. to δ.  that God should direct Christians in this matter by the Scriptures; since they were sufficiently directed herein, also, before the Scriptures; (I mean, before the writing of those of the New-Testament); and since they might be sufficiently assured, from those, who were sent by our Lord to teach them Christianity, in this point also, that they were sent to teach them.  
But 2ly. It is maintained that God in the Scriptures hath done this; 
§. 46. n. 3.  and * hath told us 
‖ Eph. 4.11 etc. — That, he hath set these Guides in the Church, for the edifying, and perfecting thereof; and for this in particular, that the Church should not be tossed to, and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine [with which Winds of contrary Doctrines, the Subjects of the Church, as Experience shows, from age to age, would have been grievously shaken, and dissipated, but that these Governors, from time to time, by stating her Doctrines, have preserved her Children from it]. And * hath told us again 
‖ 2 Pet. 3.16. — That, the unlearned wrest some of the Scriptures [that are plain it seems to the Learned, in that these wresters are the unlearned] to their own damnation. [therefore these are such Scriptures also, as speak concerning Necessaries].  
And * hath therefore given us a charge, to obey these guides, to whom is committed the Care of our Souls, and to follow their faith 
‖ Heb. 13.7, 17.  * And declared— that he, that heareth them, heareth him 
‖ Luke 10. ; add that he will be with them to the end of the world: especicially when gaehered together 
‖ Mat. 18.17, 20.  and would have the refractory to them excommunicated 
‖ Mat. 18.17. . And, accordingly to this Warrant in Scripture, and (out of it), in primitive Tradition, the Church-Guides, from age to age, have met together; settled the Churchches Doctrines; exacted Conformity; excommunicated Dissenters, &c,  
Next to ε. Where they say: That God foreseeing, 
§. 47. n. 1.  that Divisions would happen among these Guides, 
R. to. ε.  would have told us in the Scriptures, which, in such case, among the several Parties of them, we ought always to follow, and adhere to: As: that we should adhere to the Church of Rome; to the Vicar of Christ; to the most General Councils, and, in dissenting Votes, to the Major part thereof, etc. To which purpose are those words of Mr. Chillingworth 
‖ p. 61. — If our Saviour, the King of Heaven, had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be, by some visible Judge, finally determined; who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? He would have said plainly: The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies. For, that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome [I add, or a General Counci] to this Office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written— ad rei memoriam— by any of the Evangelists, or Apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles, by 13, or 14. more uncertain Consequences, He that can believe it, let him. And p. 104. He saith— It would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible, that in some Book of Scripture, which was to be undoubtedly received, this one Proposition had been set down in terms, The Bishops of Rome, with their Adherents, shall always be the Guides of Faith, etc. And p. 171. he argues thus— Seeing God doth nothing in vain; and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a Judge of Controversies, and not to tell us so plainly who it is; and seeing (last) he hath not told us plainly, no not at all, who it is; is it not evident, he hath appointed none?— See the same thing urged by Mr. Stillingfleet, Rat. Account, p. 465. And see all this as it were translated only out of the Socinian Books, before, §. 40. n. 1.  
To this 1st, I answer: 
§. 47. n. 2.  That negative argning from Scripture, 
1.  such as this [a thing of so great concernment to all Christians, if it were true, would have been clearly expressed in the Scripture, but this is not found clearly expressed rherein, therefore it is not true,] as it is very plausible, and much used, especially against Church-authority; so is it very fallacious: by which the more Orthodox party of Protestants also have suffered much from several Sects. Whenas it cannot be denied; that there are many things, granted most true; and of most high concernment, which are, for those excellent ends of God's infinite wisdom which we cannot fully discern, nor so clearly expressed there, for preventing disputes, as they might have been.  
Our Saviour's Sermon made (partly, at least) concerning the Eucharist, (amply set down in the 6th. of S. John, and therefore perhaps mention of the Eucharist omitted afterward by that Evangelist in the Story of his passion) was delivered by him in some expressions so obscure, as that (as St. Austin observes) not only his enemies, the blinded Jews, but his own disciples misunderstood it, and some of them deserted him upon it, calling it durus Sermo: and yet saith that Father 
‖ In johan. Tract. 27. — Sic oportebat, ut diceretur, quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur. And what contentions, and also persecutions, think we, might a declaration of the abrogation of Circumcision, and the Mosaical Ceremonies have saved in the Apostles times, if it had been any where delivered expressly by our Lord, (who well foresaw those troubles) in the Gospel he preached? Or what contentions would the Athanasian Creed have prevented in the times that followed, had it been written verbatim in one of S. Paul's Epistles; or had the points of modern Controversy been set down, there, in as express terms, as they are in a Protestant- Catechism, in the 39 Articles, or in the Council of Trent. 
1 Cor. 1.23, 25.  If we will give humane wisdom (in respect of which God's Wisdom is often thought foolishness) liberty to devise what is best, or fittest, had it not been much more to purpose for Conversion of the jews to Christianity, that our Lord, upon his Resurrection, should have openly manifested himself to all the Nation, at that great Festival, on the top of the Temple, with a Trophy of victory in his hands? And, for the salvation of mankind (God-willing, that all should be saved 
‖ p. 103. ); had it not been better to have made the devil at first close prisoner, 
1 Tim. 2.4.  and prevented the temptation of Eve, and fall of Adam? Hear Mr. Chillingworth himself, where it concerned him, reprove the folly of such arguing:— In humane reason (saith he) it were incomparably more fit, and useful, for the decision of Controversies, that the Apostles Successors should do miracles; will you now conclude they have the Gift of doing miracles?— It had been most requisite (one would think) that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of reading, which makes men very uncertain in many places, which is the Word of God, and which is the error, and presumption of man; and yet, we see, God hath not thought fit so to provide for us. Who can conceive, but that an Apostolic Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture, would have been strangely beneficial to the Church, especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them, as is by you pretended, etc. And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter. Thus Mr. Chillingworth.  
Supposing then, that a General Council, or the Bishop of the prime Apostolic See were constituted by God the Supreme and Final Judge of Controversies in Religion, and of all Appeals from inferior Ecclesiastical Courts: yet God's wisdom might think meet not to register this, in these or the like short and clear expressions, in Scripture, for many excellent reasons tending to the manifestation of his greater glory, who makes darkness as well as light, to bring light out of darkness; and leaves many arguments of contradiction to humane reason, 
See Disc. ●, § 16.  the more to show the power of the operation of his grace; who discloseth the things belonging to our salvation, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, evidence, (yet this always sufficient) for the necessary preserving of truth, on the one side; and for the exercise, and greater merit of faith, on the other.  
But 2ly, to come closer to the matter in hand. God hath in the Scriptures not only left a General Command of following their Guides, 
§ 47. n. 3.  but also sufficiently directed Christians to know, in any division of these Ecclesiastical Guides, 
2.  
‖ See before  which are those they ought to follow, in that he, 
‖ 46. n. 3.  being in all things the Author not of confusion, but of order, and peace 
‖ 1 Cor. 14 33 , hath not left these Guides in the Church without a due subordination, from the very first, and Apostolical, times; and also hath authorized the Church-Governors, to make afterwards such wholesome laws, for the Regency, peace, and unity thereof, as do justly, and unappealably, oblige all inferiors, and subjects. Hence there is not wanting both Precept and Example sufficient, both in the Holy Scriptures, and primitive Church-constitutions, and practice, whereby the inferior Clergy are subjected to the Superior; and a part unto the whole Body. i.e. one, or a few parts to the many parts; or to all the rest of the Body); and by this also is our obedience directed, whenever an inferior, and a Superior; a part, and the whole, differ: Nor can any justly raise a dispute; in this divided Body, whom they should obey, when both the Number, and Primacy, are unequal. See for these things what is said before, Prop. 12. §. 23.— And 1. Disc. §. 15.— Therefore: In a division between any single Guide, and that Corporation of them whereof he is a member, this body justly claims both the Laics and that Guide's obedience. As the decree of the whole in the Acts 
Act. 5.  was to be obeyed by the Antiochians, before the orders of one, or a few members of it, that were zealous of the Law, though these should have been the proper Pastors, and Guides of the Church of Antioch, because of the subordination of these Pastors to the other supreme Representatiué of the Church. And again, in any great division happening in this Body itself, our obedience follows the fuller Body of them still; which, in respect of the rest being fewer, bears the name of the whole; Especially, when the supremest Ecclesiastical Governor that is upon earth, the chief Precedent of this Body, joins with it, (upon which term, only obedience to these Guides is demanded feom those of the Reformation.) Thus it is, before that any be excluded, by heresy, from this Body: But when any, in its former lawful Councils, are so cut off, than our obedience follows the fuller Body of them, these other, how numerous soever afterward, excepted.  
Now this fuller Body at this day, joined with the chief Pastor of Christ's Sheep here on earth, §. 48 if any one seeketh after, for his safe conduct to future happiness, he cannot but discern it from all other Christian Societies, that pretend to guide him. And, this found; again he, using the ordinary care of persons desiring instruction, cannot but come to know its Councils, and their definitions, its doctrines, and Laws, (which, we find, as the Leaders of all Sects do theirs, so those of the Church Catholic are studious to divulge, and publish), so far as, they are by him, considering his condition, necessary to be known, and the profession, or practice thereof, required of him.  
For Example: In the Church of England, who is there using the ordinary care necessary in matters of his salvation, that first cannot easily discern this Church, from the several other later, and unheaded sects, that are in this Kingdom? and, this Church known, who may not easily attain, therein, to a knowledge also of its Articles of Religion, and Canons, its Synods, or Convocations, delivered by the common Tradition, and by the Church-Guides, and public Writings daily inculcated, so far as the understanding of them is to him necessary. The same evidence therefore in these things must be allowed not to be wanting to those, who have once found, among the many Societies of Christians, that Church, which is their right Guide.  
§. 49 And little reason have the reform to affirm a necessity, that all Necessaries should be made most evident, even to the unlearned, in the Scriptures, if asserted on this account, because such people have no means of attaining any certain knowledge of them from the Ministry of the Church. And with little reareason seem Mr. Stillingfleet and others to affirm (which yet is used by many late Protestant-Writers, as a main ground of evacuating the authority of the Church) * that it is no easier a thing to know, what the Church defines, than what Scripture determines, and, That the same Arts, that can evade the texts of Scripture, will equally elude the Definitions of Councils; 
Tillots. Rule of saith p. 21.  [as if all writings were equally plain, or equally obscure; or, if none free from, therefore all equally liable to, cavils]; Again: * That the Argument of the willingness of all Protestants to submit their judgements to Scripture, will hold as well (or better) for their unity; as that of the readiness of all those of the Church of Rome to submit their judgements to the sense, and determination of the Church. will hold for their unity: And this unity to be effected by the Scriptures he speaks of, as to those matters, wherein the sense of the same Scriptures is controverted amongst Christians; for in such only it is, that Christians for their unity seek to the decisions of the Church. [As if they undertook to defend this: That a living Judge, set up for the expounding of the dubious places of the Law, to the sentence of which Judge all are agreed to assent, yet is no more effective for ending controversies about the sense of the Laws, and for uniting parties; than the Laws themselves are without such Judge,] Mr. Stillingfleets words are, 
‖ p 101. — Your great Argument for the unity of your party; because, whatever the private opinions of men are, they are ready to submit their judgements to the censure and determination of the Church; if it be good, will hold as well (or better) for our unity, as yours, because all men are willing to submit their judgements to Scripture, which is agreed on all sides to be infallible. If you say, that it cannot be known, what Scripture determines, but it may be easily, what the Church defines. It is easily answered, that the event shows it to be far otherwise; for how many disputes are there concerning the power of determining matters of faith; & c? [concluding thus.] so that upon the whole it appears, setting aside force and fraud, (which are excellent principles of Christian unity) we are upon as fair terms of union, as you are among yourselves. Where; doth he not say this in effect; that the true Church being known, and its authority granted infallible (as that of the Roman Church is, by its subjects) Yet, we can no more know, what this Church defines (suppose what the Church of Rome, or of England defines concerning Transubstantiation, St-Invocation, Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.) than what Scripture determines concerning these points; and that Canons, Catechisms, etc. authorized by a Church, can no further clear any point to us, than Scripture did formerly; and that only the Church is so unfortunate, in her public interpretations of Scriptures, that her Expositions are no plainer, than the Texts; and that only force, or fraud unites her subjects in their opinions? And, if so; what fault hath the Council of Trent made, in its new definitions, if, after these, it seems 
‖ Stillingf. p. 102.  there is as much division, (and then liberty also) of opinions, as was before them? Why do they accuse its decrees, as plain enough, but erroneous; and not invalidate them rather, as dubious, and uncertain? Why dispute they not, whether these, we have now extant, be its genuine Acts? Would it not be advantageous to the reformed, to show, that this Council makes nothing against them? In such unreasonable Contests hath Mr. Chillingworth, by inventing many captious questions to weaken Church-authority, engaged his followers. As if, though Catholics allow several things in Councils obscurely delivered; some proceed in some things unjust; the legality of some Councils disputed, &c, yet there could not remain still enough clear and unquestionable both of Councils, and their Canons, both * to establish the most illiterate subjects of the Catholic Church in all such, as is thought necessary, faith, (whose obligation is not to believe all things defined, but all things sufficiently proposed to them to be so); and * to overthrow the past Reformation.    

THE THIRD DISCOURSE.  

CHAP. I.  
roman-catholics and Protestants agreed.  
1. That the Scriptures are God's Word. §. 1.  
2. That in these Scriptures (agreed on) it is clearly declared; that the Church, in no age, shall err in Necessaries. §. 2.  
3. That the Church-Catholick is contra-distinct to Heretical, and Schismatical Churches. §. 4.  
4. That Christ hath left in this Church Pastors and Teachers, to keep it from being tossed to and fro, and carried about, with every wind of Doctrine. §. 5.  
§. 1 1st. BOth Roman Catholics, and Protestants are agreed; That there is sufficient certainty, in the General Tradition of the Catholic Church descending to the present Age; that the Bible, or Holy Scriptures, are the Word of God.  
2ly. They are agreed. That it is clearly declared in these Scriptures, that, the Catholic Church, §. 2 in no age, shall err in Credends, or Practicals necessary for obtaining Salvation.  
From which Christians seem to be secured; That, in their approving, §. 3 and conforming to what is granted generally to be held by the Church-Catholick, (of any age whatsoever), they shall incur no Error, or Practice, destructive of Salvation. Whereas a hazard herein may be, in their departing from the Doctrine, or Practice, of the Church-Catholick, or of all the particular Churches, of any age; all, or some of which must be the Catholic.  
§. 4 3ly, Learned Protestants consent with Roman Catholics 
‖ Hooker p. 124.— Field l. 1. c. 10. p. 14.15.— D. Fern. Divis. Engl. Rom. §. 10— Archb. Lawd p. 140. , That, the Holy Catholic Church (which we believe in our Creed) is a visible Church in all ages, consisting of Pastors as well as People, in external Profession, and Communion contradistinct to Heretical, and Schismatical Churches, when such there happen to be in any age. See before, Disc. 2. §. 5.  
§. 5 4ly. They are also agreed: That, Christ hath left in this Church-Catholick these Pastors, and Teachers to the end of the world, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ; that we may not be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, by the slight of men. 
‖ Eph. 4.11, 14.  Thus far they agree.   

CHAP. II.  
Roman Catholics further affirming 5. That, the Church-Guides, at least assembled in Lawful General Councils, shall never err in their determining Points of necessary Faith. §. 6.  
6. Points necessary, not as taken only for, those absolutely required, but all very beneficial, to Salvation. §. 9  
7. shall never err in them; not as infallibly inspired to teach any new, but as divinely assisted in delivering of the former, Revelations and Traditions. §. 10.  
8. That, for knowing, what, or how many of former Councils have been lawfully General, or Obliging, a Christian may safely rely on the most general judgement of the Church, since the sitting of such Councils. §. 11.  
9 That, in the absence of a considerable part of the Church Governors from some Councils, yet their acceptance of its decrees, or concurrence with its Doctrines renders it equivalent to a Council General. §. 13.  
10. That, particular, Persons, or Churches, Parts of the whole, are obliged to submit their judgement to the Decrees, and Definitions of the whole. §. 14.  
BUt, here, the two Parties divide, in their Superstructions.  
§. 6 For 5ly. The Catholics go on, and affirm further; That these Pastors, and Governors of the Church, at least when assembled in a Lawful General Council (or in so general, as the present times of the Church, according to the several Requisites of such great meetings, are well capable of) universally accepted, (I mean in the sense before explained, Disc. 1. §. 31, 36, 38. And below §. 12.) shall never err in their Determinations, or teaching of Credends, and Practicals necessary for obtaining salvation: and therefore that Christians, in their assenting to such Determinations, remain secure from all such Errors.  
§. 7 First. The Reason, why the Teachers are affirmed, thus, unerrable, is 1 Because most of those places in Scripture, from which is gathered the Church's Indefectibility, or inerrability in Necessaries (Prop. 2.) [as Mat. 16.18.— 18.17.— comp. 20.— 28.20.— John 14.16.— 1 Tim. 3.15.— Luke 10.16.— Eph. 4.11, 14.] do appear to relate, more especially to these Guides thereof, than to the Common people. And, 2 Because, this seems no more than necessary, Since God hath required nothing to be externally professed by us as Truth, or acted by us, in obedience to Command, but what our Judgement, or Conscience first internally assents to, as Truth, and as Lawful; It seems (I say) no more than necessary, that, in the many doubts which may arise, especially to the more ignorant sort, both in Credends and Practicals, there be some sure and unfailing Directors of these our interior Judgements herein, as to all Necessaries: which Director, in such doubts, can neither be the Scripture, the sense of which is ambiguous unto us, and the thing wherein we seek direction; nor yet is the Civil Magistrate, in these spiritual Matters, but only the Ecclesiastical: to whose Guidance of Souls also, we are committed, and enjoined Obedience. Heb. 13.17, 7. (See, before, §. 5.— And Disc. 2. §. 4. Chillingw.)  
§. 8 2. Next. The Reason, why these Guides are affirmed unerring, at least, when joined in a General Council is; because 1st. It cannot reasonably be questioned; but that, what authority every one of them singly hath from our Lord, the same all of them retain in this Body united, without the need of any new Commission from the Church- Catholic. 2ly. Because, if there be any Promise, made to them in any capacity, of indeficiency in Necessaries; then, of all manners, or ways deviceable wherein they may be so, it is in this Conjuncture of them, and that the most universal that can be procured (used in all ages, as the Supreme Court of Appeals), that they appear to be most capable thereof, and least liable to defect 
‖ See Mat. 18.17, 20. 1 Cor. 5.4, 15.— See below §. 94. . In which the Catholics are also * confirmed, by the Apostolic practice in the Acts 
‖ Act. 15.2, 6. , where, for solving a great difficulty, they called an Assembly of the Church-Governors, and passed some Decrees therein, to which all particular Churches, and their Pastors stood obliged. Seeming (there) to fortify their Authority with these two Expressions, Visum est Spiritui Sancio, & nobis (v. 28.) And— Nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, collectis in unum. v. 25. As also the Holy Ghost descended on them at first (Acts 2.1.) when so assembled. To which Assembly also the great Apostle St. Paul, notwithstanding that his Doctrine was immediately revealed to him by our Lord Jesus, and confirmed to others, by his Miracles, yet was sent by God's immediate appointment, (for he saith, he went to this Council by Revelation, Gal. 2.2.): that so his Doctrine might both be the more authorized to his Auditors; and his Converts more readily obey it, (and so he not run in vain, nor lose his labour), when they knew it to be confirmed, and established by this General Council [With which, thus, Theodoret gins his Epistle to Leo.— Si Paulus praeco Veritatis, Tuba sanctissimi Spiritus ad magnum Petrum cucurrit; ut iis, qui Antiochiae de Institutis Legalibus contendebant, ab ipso afferret solutionem; multo magis nos, qui abjecti sumus, & Pusilli, ad Apostolicam sedem vestram currimus, ut Ecclesiarum, ulceribus Medicinam, a vobis, accipiamus,— And St. Austin 
‖ Contra Faustum. l. 28. c. 4. — Ipse Apostolus Paulus, post ascensionem Demini, de Caelo vocatus, si non inveniret in carne Apostolos, quibus communicando, & cum quibus conferendo Evangelium, ejusdem Societatis esse appareret, Ecclesia illi omnino non crederet. Sed cum cognovisset, eum hoc annunciantem, quod etiam illi annunciabant, & in eorum communione, atque unitate viventem, etc. meruit authoritatem, etc. And again * confirmed by the Primitive Practice, afterward, in the first General Councils universally allowed; who required Assent under Anathema to their Definitions; and inserted them, as it was thought meet, into the Creeds: which sufficiently declares, that they held themselves infallible, or (which is all that is here meant by it) actually unerring, therein, 3ly. When any Division happens in this collective Body; it being certain, that some Clergy for ever must be so infallible (the Church-Catholick being ever so; and never consisting of People only, without Pastors); It is necessarily devolved also upon the much major, and more-dignified, part of this united Body of the Clergy to be so: Because else, the Catholic Church would not be One in its Constitution; but a Body divided in itself, and so, which could not stand, if two several Parties in such Council, without any just subordination to one another, might both pretend themselves to be the unerring Guide.  
6ly. For these Church-Guides being affirmed unerrable in Necessaries, Catholics here do understand Necessaries, §. 9 not in so strict a sense, as to be restrained, and limited only to those few points of Faith, that are so indispensably required to be of all explicitly believed, as that salvation is not possibly consistible with the disbelief, or ignorance, of any of them: But affirm; they ought to be understood in a sense more enlarged; comprehending at least, all such points as are very requisite, and beneficial to salvation, either in respect of Christian Faith, or Manners; either for the direction of particulars, or Government of the whole Society of Christians. (Of which see what is spoken more largely in the 2d. Disc. §. 9)  
§. 10 7ly. Concerning the particular Manner, or Measure, of these Church-Governors, when assembled in a lawful General Council, their being affirmed unerrable, or infallible.  
1st. As Catholics do not hereby understand them absolutely unerrable in any matter whatever, which they may attempt to determine; but only in such matters as appear to them of necessary Faith, taken in the sense  
‖ §. 9 & Disc. 2. §. 9 ; So neither do they hold, touching these necessary points, * any inherent habitual infallibility, residing either in the whole Council, or some Members thereof, whereby they perceive, and know themselves infallibly inspired, as to such points; after the same manner, as the Apostles, or Prophets did; but only * an actual non-erring in those things, which they define; * from the promised Divine Assistance, and superintendent Providence constantly directing their Consultations into the Truth, (by what several ways, or means, it matters not to know): or also * from the clear Evidence of former Revelation, and Tradition of the point defined: from which Evidence Protestant's also grant, that those may be certain for some divine Truths, who are not infallible in all.  
2ly. Catholics affirm, These Guides, in all ages, since that of the Apostles, equally infallible: and that the present Church doth not, or way not, pretend to any infallibility; or exercise any authority consequent thereof, which the ancient Catholic Church did not claim, and also practise, in the four first, or other General Councils. But yet; as this ancient Church also required Assent under Anathema to its Definitions, and inserted some of them into the Creeds; and some of these also points of great difficulty, and subtle discussion; that so may the present, or the future Church do the like.  
§. 11 8ly. Catholics affirm. That, of the several Councils that have been assembled in former ages, to know which, or how many, of them have been lawfully general; or in their obligation equivalent thereto; any Christian (without going about to satisfy himself in all those curious Questions, moved by Protestants; several of which are considered, below. §. 86. etc.) may securely rely on the acceptation, and acknowledgement, or non-opposition, of them, and their Decrees, * by the Church-Catholick, of that age, wherein they were held, and of the ages following; i. e. by the Teachers, and Writers therein unanimously maintaining, or not gainsaying the Doctrines of such Councils; and, by the Church's practice, conforming to their Injunctions: Or, where some persons, or Churches descent from the rest, * by the Major part of these Churches accepting them, when these are united also with St. Peter 's Successor, (the always Prime Patriarch, and Supreme Bishop of the Christian world), the Bishop of Rome.  
As for Example; Catholics hold; that a Christian may securely embrace, and obey the Decrees of those Councils as General; or, in their obligation, equivalent thereto, the Decrees whereof were accepted by the whole Church-Catholick (tacitly at least, in their Liturgies, Writings, Practices, being conformable thereto, or not dissenting therefrom,) at the Appearance of Luther, and are accepted still, both by the much major part of the Christian world; and also ratified by the Supreme Pastor of the Church-Catholick.  
§. 12 The Reason of this. 1 Because, if a Christian may not securely rely on such an Acceptation, a few persons, or Churches, resisting, or standing out (perhaps those who are condemned also of Heresy, and Schism, by such Councils); This will void the obligation of all Councils whatever. And, upon the same terms the Arrian Bishops, and their Churches, that dissented, will void the Obligation of the first General Council of Nice; and those dissenting Persons, and Churches of the Nestorians, and Eutychians, or Dioscorites, (some of which continue in the Eastern, or Southern parts of the world unto this day) will void that of the third, and fourth General Councils of Ephesus, and Chalcedon. (See more of this, Disc. 2. §. 25. etc.)  
And 2 Because, considering the nature of a multitude, such thing can hardly be, but that some will descent from the rest; and therefore it seems as necessary to proceed according to the same Rule in the Church-catholic's accepting the Council's Decrees, as in the Council's making them, [viz. that the Vote of the much major part conclude the whole,] to render the actions of such great Bodies valid.  
§. 13 9ly. Concerning the Acceptation of Councils by the whole, or major part of the Church-Catholick, this seems reasonable; That, though the representatives of some considerable part of the Church-Catholick should be wanting in some of these Councils, (especially when they are assembled for deciding some Controversies arising only in that of Christianity, where the Council sits); yet the certain concurrence of that absent part of the Church-Catholick, in their doctrines, with the decrees of such Councils, should pass for a sufficient acceptation of them; and such absence no way prejudice the obligation of such Decrees. For it may well be presumed, the members of such Churches, if present, would have voted in the Council, what they hold, out of it; hold, before it; contradict not, after it.  
§. 14 10ly. Catholics do hold, all particular persons, and Churches, taken divisim, as being only a part of, and subordinat●●● to, the whole 
‖ See Disc. 2. §. 23. , (as also all particular Bishops are only single members of the whole Body of them, assembled in a Council), to stand obliged in submission of their judgement, and in obedience of assent, to the Definitions and Decrees of the whole, in these Supremests Courts thereof, wherein it can give its judgement, viz. it's lawful General Councils; when these accepted also by the Church-Governors absent, in the manner forementioned.  
§. 15 The Reason, Because these Supreme Courts are secured for ever by our Lords Promise, that they shall not err, or misguide the Church's subjects in Necessaries, (§. 6, 7) I mean Necessaries taken in the sense above explained, 2 Disc. §. 9 And next: because, what, or how much, is to be accounted, thus, necessary, the judgement of this belongs also to these Church-Governors, not their subjects; as is showed before 2. Disc. §. 6, 7.   

CHAP. III.  
R. Catholics proceeding to affirm 11. That all persons dissenting from and opposing, any known Definition of the Church, in a matter of Faith, are Heretics §. 16.  
12. All persons separating, on what pretence soever, from the external Communion of the Church-Catholick, Schismatics §. 20. But yet: that difference of Opinions or Practices between  Churches, may be without Heresy or Schism on any side; where no obligation to these lying on both, from their common Superiors, or from the whole §. 23.  
§. 16 11ly. TOuching the two great Crimes of Heresy and Schism, dividing such persons, or Churches, as are guilty thereof, from the Catholic, Church, and Communion (See before Prop. 3. §. 4.) 1st, For Heresy: the Catholics affirm, That any particular, Person, or Church, that maintains, or holds the contrary to any to him made-known Definition (passed in a matter of faith,) of any lawful General Council; (i. e. of those Councils, that are accepted by the Church-Catholick in the sense, mentioned before 
‖ See §. 12. , as such), is Heretical: [Not meddling here; whether some others also, besides these, for the opposing some Doctrines clearly contained in Scripture, or generally received, by the Church, and such as are by all explicitly to be belived, may be called so.] 2ly. They affirm, That those may become Heretics in holding an error in the faith after the Church's Definition of such a Point, who were not so, before.  
§. 17 Where, The Reason, why the certain judgement of Heresy; is made not from the testimony of Scripture, but of the Church; and why all holding of the contrary to such definition known is pronounced Heresy, though sometimes the same error, before it, was not so; is, because no Error in Faith can be judged Heresy, but where there appears some Obstinacy, and Contumacy joined thereto. Neither can such Obstinacy, and Contumacy appear, especially as to some Points of Faith, from the Scriptures; because the sense of Scripture, as to some matter of Faith, may be, as to some persons, ambiguous, and not clear. But the sense of the Church, (or her General Councils), which is appointed by God the Supreme Expositor, and Interpreter of the sense of the Scriptures, that are any way doubtful, and disputed, is so clear, as that any rational or disinteressed person, to whom it, and the authority delivering it, and the divine assistance of that authority, are proposed, according to the evidence producible for them, can neither deny her just authority over him; nor her veracity, and her Exposition of Scripture clearly against him: who yet cannot see, or at least hath not the same cogent evidence to acknowledge, the Scripture, in such point, to be so: and so, such person will thenceforth become in this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and self-convinced: and, if others happen, by their contracted fault, not to be so, their guilt, in general at least, is not lessened, but aggravated thereby. 
Tit. 3.10.  Therefore the Apostle writes to Bishop Titus: that, after a second Admonition, he should reject a man Heretical, or still adhering to his own Opinion, knowing that such a one sinneth, being self-condemned. [viz. that he disobeyeth the doctrine of the Church, concerning which Church he either hath, or might have, sufficient evidence, that he ought to believe Her] And our Lord commands: that he, who, in matters controverted, refuseth to hear the Church, should be withdrawn from, by the Christian, as a Heathen, or Publican was by the Jew. Thus, it seems by these Texts, is Heresy known, and Heretics to be rejected.  
§. 18 And the Fathers also are frequent in declaring those to be Heretics, who, after the Church Definition, continue to retain an opinion contrary thereto; whereas, themselves or others, in holding the same Opinion before such Definition, were not so. Thus St. Austin 
‖ De Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 51. — Qui in Ecclesiâ Christi morbidum aliquid, pravumque sapiunt, si, correpti [(i) by the Church], ut sanum, rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter, suaque mortifera, & pestifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defensare persistunt, haeretici fiunt. [It seems, one holding dogma pestiferum & mortiferum before the Church's corr●ption, may be no Heretic; who, yet, is so after it] And elsewhere of the Donatists he saith 
‖ De Haeresibus. — Post causam cum eo [Caeciliano] dictam atque finitam, falsitatis rei deprehensi, pertinaci dissentione firmatâ, in haeresim, schisma verterunt; tanquam Ecclesia Christi, propter crimina Caeciliani— detoto terrarum orbe perierit— Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos, ubi se amplius Haereticos esse firmarunt; cum Ecclesiae Catholicae universae placuerit, nec in ipsis haereticis baptisma commune rescindere, [Where observe, that they are charged by this Father for Heresy (which Hereticalness of theirs Protestant's would fain divert to other matters) in the point of rebaptisation; and that, because this point now settled by the Church] And so Vincent Lirinen, 
‖ c. 11. — O rerum mira conversio! Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici; consectatores vero haeretici, judicantur: absolvuntur magistri, condemnantur discipuli, etc. [the wonder here is, that, in holding the self- same opinion, the one are not Heretics, the other are; i. e. after a General Council had condemned the Tenent]. Again St. Austin 
‖ D. Haeresibus.  gives Quod-vult-Deus, for avoiding Heresies, this General Rule — Scire, sufficit, Ecclesiam contra aliquid sentire, ut illud non recipiamus in fidem. [It seems this was a Principle with the Father— Nihil recipiendum in fidem, or, credendam, contra quod sentit Ecclesia. And we know, what follows— Credendum, quod sentit, Where the contraries are immediate, & sublato uno, ponitur alterum: But this latter also is expressly said by him 
‖ Epist. 118. — Si quid horum per orbem frequentat Ecclesia; hoc; quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. This, concerning doing; and than it holds also for believing; the Church's Faith being (if either) more sure, than her practice. But, for believing too, he saith 
‖ De Bapt. l. 1. c. 18. — Restat, ut hoc credamus, quod universa Ecclesia, a Sacrilegio schismatis remota, custodit.— And— Quod in hac re sentiendum est, plenioris Concilii sententiâ totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmat] Therefore, after the Church's definition, he saith, One, in holding the contrary, than first becomes an Heretic, when he knows, or by his fault is ignorant, that the Church hath defined it; See the Baptism. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 16.— Constituamus ergo (saith he) duos aliquos isto modo, unum eorum, verbi gratiâ id sentire de Christo, quod Photinus opinatus est [i. e. in modern language, to be a Socinian, no small error] & in ejus haeresi baptizari extra Ecclesiae Catholicae Communionem; alium vero hoc idem sentire, sed in Catholicâ baptizari, existimantem ipsam esse Catholicam fidem; Illum nondum Haereticum dico, nisi manifestatâ sibi doctrinâ Catholicae fidei, resistere maluerit, & illud, quod tenebat, elegerit, etc.  
§. 19 And this is Dr. Hammonds Comment on the forequoted place of Titus (how consonant to, his own, or other Protestants doctrines, I know not)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
‖ P. 761.  self-condemned, signifies not a man's public accusing, or condemning his own doctrines or practices; for that self-condemnation, being an effect, and part of repentance, would rather be a motive to free any from the censures of the Church, who were already under them, then aggravate their crime, or bring that punishment upon them; Nor yet 2ly. can it denote him that offends, and yet still continues to offend against conscience; and, though he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the Church. For (besides, that there are very few, that do so, and these known to none but God; and, if that were the Character of an Heretic, than none but Hypocrites would be Heretics; and he, that, through pride, and opinion of his own judgement, stood out against the doctrine of Christ, and his Church in the purest times, should not be an Heretic) this inconvenience would further be incurred, that no Heretic could possibly be admonished, or censured by the Church; for no man would acknowledge of himself, that what he did was by him done against his own conscience; nor could any testimony be produced against him before any humane Tribunal; no man being able to search the heart. It is rather an expression of his separation from, and disobedience to, the Church; and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and without excuse. For he that thus disobeys, and breaks off from the unity of the Church, doth in effect inflict that punishment on himself, which the Church useth to Malefactors, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 13.10 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cutting off from the Church; which when he being an Heretic (and therein a Schismatic also) doth voluntarily, without the Judge's sentence, his very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a spontaneous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or excision.  
And, that this Doctor may not go alone, see Dr. Fernes Comment on the same place 
‖ The Case between the Ch. of Engl. and Rome. p. 53.  when he writ against Presbyterians, accusing them of Schism from the Church of England— The word Heretic (saith he), according to the use of it, then, implied one, that obstinately stood out against the Church, or that led any Sect— After the strictest Sect (or Heresy) of the Pharisees, (Acts 26.5.)— After that, which they call Heresy, Acts 24.14. a factious Company divided from the Church, so they called, or accounted of Christians,— and (Gal. 5.20.) we have it reckoned among the works of the flesh; Debates, Contentions, Heresy; So here, Heretic, that leads a faction, a sect, or that wilfully follows, or abets it. A man therefore, that is a Heretic, contentious, disobedient to the Order and authority of the Church, reject, for he is self condemned; having both past the sentence upon himself, by professing against, or dividing from, the Church: and also done execution, (like that of the Church's censure, and excommunication) upon himself by actual separation, or going out of the Church. A fearful condition. Thus he. And something to the same purpose saith Dr. Hammond, 
‖ Of Fundamentals, c. 9 §. 4.  concerning the guilt of those, who afterward deny, or oppose, the things defined, and added to the Apostles Creed, by the first Councils.— Though the Creed (saith he) in the ancient Apostolic form, were sufficient for any man to believe and profess; yet, when the Church hath thought meet to erect that additional Bulwark against Heretics; the rejecting, or denying the truth of those their additions, may justly be deemed an interpretative siding with those ancient, or a desire to introduce some new, Heresies.— And the pride, or singularity, or heretical design of opposing or questioning them, now they are framed, being irreconcilable with Christian charity, and humility, is justly deemed criminous, and liable to censures.— Again, §. 6. Though those, who believed, etc. [the matter of the Apostles Creed], had all those Branches of Christian Faith which were required to qualify mankind to submit to Christ's Reformation, yet (he grants) the wilful opposing these more explicit Articles [added by Councils] and the resisting of them, when they are competently proposed from the Definition of the Church, will bring danger of ruin on such persons.— Again §. 8.— This [(i) of one Baptism] and all the former additions [in the Nicene Creed] being thus settled by the universal Church were, and still are in all reason, without disputing, to be received, and embraced by the present Church, and every meek member thereof.— [Here than it seems that Heresy it is, or something criminous, equivalent thereto, to oppose the Church's definitions, and additions, though the former Creed was sufficient to have been believed, and professed in all times before them.] Lastly, King James, in his Answer to Card. Perron penned by Casaubon, seems to have the same Notion of Heresy, as also of Schism, with the Roman Church, and the Fathers; making Heresy any departing from the Faith, Schism, from the Communion, of the Church Catholic— Credit vero Rex (saith Casaubon 
‖ Letter to Perron. ) simpliciter sine fuco & fallaciis, unicam esse Ecclesiam Dei, & re, & nomine, Catholicam, sive Vniversalem toto diffusam mundo: extra quam ipse quoque nullam Salutem debere sperari affirmat: damnat & detestatur eos, qui vel jam olim, vel postea, aut a fide recesserunt Ecclesiae Catholicae, & facti sunt Haeretici; aut à Communione, & facti sunt Schismatici. [Difference hear about the Extent of the Catholic Church there is some; but none; that all opposition of its Faith is Heresy.] Again— Nullam spem Salutis superesse iis, qui à fide Ecclesiae Catholicae, aut ab ejusdem Communione discesserint, Rex ultro concedit. [I suppose, here is meant the present Catholic Church, and, in any difference, the main Body thereof: its whole and integral Faith, or any part thereof: and, its, external Communion. Otherwise if this meant of the Catholic Church collectively of all ages; when, in some ages, several points of Faith were not yet defined: and of every member thereof in those ages; when, in most points, may be found some dissenters: and of Points of Faith necessary (inferiors being Judges), a term applied, as any one pleaseth, to more points or fewer: Lastly of Communion internal; which may be said now to be deserted, now retained, as any diversely fancieth the true causes thereof; then, in all this said, nothing at all is said.]  
§. 20 12. 2 Again; for Schism; Catholics affirm— That any particular, Person, or Church, which (for what cause soever, and particularly for this, the Church's requiring his assent, and conformity to the Definitions of such her Councils) doth actually relinquish, and separate from the external Communion of the present Church-Catholick is Schismatical. [Meaning here, * by Catholic Church, the present true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides, and the Christian Congregations joined with them, in the sense explained before. Disc. 2. Prop. 12. §. 23. And * by External Communion, the Church's Public Prayers, and Worship of God, and the participation of her Sacraments. And * by actual relinquishing, and separating, either 1 the setting up or joining with, an Anti-communion; or 2 a Voluntary absenting one's self from the Church's Communion; or at least 3 the incurring of an Excommunication, or Separation, inflicted by the Church, for a nonconformity to her Decrees (of which see Dr. Hammond's Concession below §. 22. n. 2.)]  
§. 21 The Reason; Because 1 all separation from the external Communion of this Church, that is made out of a Nonconformity to any thing defined by these Superiors, is judged causeless, upon the former account, given §. 6. and §. 14. Since they can require no unjust condition of their Communion, (as, the assent, or subscription to an Error) that any Inferior can justly judge, or certainly know, to be so. And this; because in Necessaries these Church-Governors cannot misse-guide (§. 6, 9) And of what, or how much is to be accounted necessary, the judgement also belongs to these Guides, not their Subjects (see Disc. 2. Prop. 6.) Of whom also (divinely assisted) it is rationally presumed, that, to things judged no way necessary, they will never enjoin Assent upon the Church's Censures. But lastly; supposing, (not granting) that they should err in some non-necessary, to which notwithstanding they require Assent; yet cannot particular men have, in such matters, any sufficient ground of an infallible assurance of the contrary, (which the Church cannot discover 
‖ See Disc. 2. §. 15. &. 42. ); and therefore cannot justly, on any such account, withdraw their submission. And for this reason also these Superiors, in whatever decrees they make, or impose, do never fall actually, or causally, into Heresy, or Schism; as who are not, from others, but all others, from them, directed to learn, in spiritual matters, what is true, and lawful; and to what they are, or are not, to conform. But, 2 Next, If any separation from this Church, should be made for any Doctrine, or Practice in it, to which an assent, or a conformity is no way required by it; This will still be an higher Schism, because more void of any just Pretence.  
Of this matter thus S. Austin 
‖ Epist. 48.  (speaking not of the internal, but the external Communion of the Catholic Church, which, defining against Rebaptisation, was upon this, forsaken by the Donatists)— Fieri non potest ut aliquis habeat justam causam, quâ communionem suam separaret à communione orbis terrarum, etc.  
And (de unitate Ecclesiae, c. 3.)— Quicunque à Chri●ti corpore, quod est Ecclesia, ita dissentiunt, ut eorum Communio non sit cum toto, quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliquâ parte separatâ in●eniatur, manifestum est eos non esse in Catholicâ Ecclesia. [Cum toto, i. e. * with the Communion of that Body, which was totum integrum, before some separated from it; or after the separation, when now the former totum is divided, * with that part of the totum, from which the other part separates; which Body, that is parted from, is still the total Catholic Church, (of which total only S. Austin speaks); though the divided part, or parts (for the amplitude of this totum, is a casual thing, nor always the same) should in time swell to a greater magnitude, than it.]  
Concerning this matter also, thus Dr. Hammond 
‖ of Schism. p. 10.  in his Book of Schism, c. 1.— For the universal, or truly Catholic Church of Christ; it is not, in St. Austin's Opinion, possible, that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it, nor consequently Apology to be made for those, that, on any, whether true, or pretended cause whatsoever, have really incurred this guilt; and that it is not the Examination of the Occasion, or Cause, or Motive of any man's Schism, that is worth the producing, or heeding in this matter, The one thing that is of force, and moment, and by consequence pertinent to be enquired into, is the truth of the matter of fact; whether this charge be sufficiently proved, or confessed; i. e. whether he that is thus accused, stands really guilty of Separation from the Church of Christ? Thus Dr. Hammond. Where it would be ridiculous for any to say; that, by separation from the Church-Catholick, he means voluntary separation; and then, that by voluntary separation, he means a separation without any just cause, moving him to it; for this is only saying; there can never be just cause of a voluntary separation from the Church-Catholick without any just cause. Neither can the Doctor's meaning here be; that one indeed may not separate, but yet may by Excommunication be separated, for his nonconforming, in something, to the Church-Catholick, without Schism. For, elsewhere 
‖ Answ. to Cath. Gentlm. p 9 , he declareth— Continuance in [I add, or incurrin Excommunication to be actual Schism, supposing, that, if one will submit to that, which is lawful [not that which he thinks lawful] for him to submit to, he may be absolved, and freed from it. Now the Church-Catholick, he holds here, can never require unjust conditions of her Communion, because upon such terms (he alloweth) a departure may be, without Schism. Here then, taking his words in their plain sense, since the Church-Catholick cannot be denied to be such a Church, as gives Laws, and requires certain Conditions of her external Communion; and since the Doctor affirms, 
‖ Of Schism c▪ 2. n. 3.5, 12.  that, where a Church requires unjust Conditions of her Communion, one may departed from, or continue out of, it, without Schism, it seems to follow, that the Doctor holds here; that the Church-Catholick can never require such unjust conditions (which how it consists with what is quoted out of him. Disc 1. §. 5. I know not); and hence, that she did not require such at Luther's appearance. [Yet it is clear, that there was no Church then extant, (one, or more of which must be the Catholic), to the conditions of whose external Communion Protestants would submit; and from whose external Communion they departed not, See Disc. 1. §. 55. n. 4. And then we see what followers, upon these Principles of Dr. Hammond's.]  
§. 23 Mean while the Catholics grant, 1st. That, the several parts of this body may, without Schism, separate, or differ from one another in any doctrine, or practice, wherein they are obliged to no agreement or union from the Common Superiors of them both; and so long, as one part divides not from the other in any thing, wherein the other agrees with the whole against it; or, which the whole enjoins both to the other, and it. But in such case, the division of this part is, as from the other part, so from the whose; and so becomes, for its division from the whole (and not from the other part), Schismatical. 2 . They grant also; that one part may, lawfully, and without Schism, separate, or rather, absent itself from the external Communion of another, so often as either the Communion of the other part, suspected of Heresiae or Schism, (before any evidence of the contrary.) is thought unlawful; or as this part requires some condition of its external Communion, to which the other is not, by the whole, or by the Superiors of both, any way obliged. Thus the Catholics.   

CHAP. IU.  
On the other side, the Protestants, after the four first Propositions conceded, thus proceeding to qualify them.  
5. In their granting the Catholic Church unerrable in Necessaries, understanding thereby only such few Points, without which Salvation no way attainable. §. 24.  
6. Affirming the Church Catholic, or all particular Churches of some one age, or ages, errable in several other doctrines, dangerous to Salvation, gross, damnable, etc. §. 25. Because it appears, that many of the chief Points, from which Protestants descent, were the General Tenants and Practices, at the coming of Luther, §. 26.  
7.8. Affirming, * the Church's General Councils also, when universally accepted, to be unerring in Necessaries; but not so, in other (and that is in the most) Points. And, in the former, 1 Extending universal acceptation to all particular Churches; and 2 Restraining Necessaries (as before) to those absolutely so. Again: * The Councils not so accepted, to be errable also in Necessaries. §. 34.35, 36.  
9.10. Allowing Obedience also due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councils: But not, that of Assent; but only of Noncontradiction. §. 39 (Where, of the Quality of the Obedience yielded by the Church of England to the four first Councils) §. 40.  
11. Of Non contradiction: not generally; but where the Error of the Council not manifest, and intolerable. §. 43. Claiming also, where the Error manifest, a power, against such Council, to reform it, for themselves. §. 44.  
12. The judgement also (as for themselves,) when there is, or is not, such Error in Councils, left to particular Persons, or Churches, §. 47.  
§. 24 BUt the Protestants, after conceding the four first Propositions, labour to pull down these superstructures of the Catholics, which they see, else, would ruin their cause; and thus proceed. After the first four Propositions above, agreed on, 5 . They explain themselves, That, by the Necessaries, wherein (Prop. 2,) they grant the Catholic Church of all ages unerrable, they understand only those few Points (spoken of before Disc. 2. Prop. 6.) without the explicit Belief of which Salvation is not at all attainable.  
For, in their saying, that she is so unerrable, they thus declare themselves. That there always shall be a number of men professing Christianity in the world; So Mr. Stillingfleet. 
‖ Stillingf. p. 251. — A company of men that profess at least so much Truth as is absolutely necessary for their Salvation; So Mr. Chillingworth. 
‖ P. 15. — That Christ doth, and will so defend his Church, that there shall be forever till the end of the world, a Church Christian on the earth; So Dr. Hammond 
‖ Defence of Lord Fulkland, c. 1. §. 5.6. p. 23.  No more inerrability in Faith, you see, here affirmed, than that, without which Salvation is absolutely, on what terms soever, in the Profession of Christianity, not attainable; wherein, they straiten Christ's promises, as the Catholics enlarge them; by which they gain the liberty of reforming, as they think fit, from the universal Church of God, as to some age, or ages, in most of her Doctrines; as they granting her not, save in some few necessaries, unerrable, that may, as it were, still preserve life in Her; neither will they, concerning this Question, what are points necessary, (wherein our Lord hath promised an indefectibility to his Church,) what not, by any means stand to her judgement.  
§. 25 6 . They say: ‖ that though the Church-Catholick is preserved always from errors in absolute necessaries, taken in their sense (§. 24) (for, otherwise, there would cease to be a Church of Christ upon earth); yet the same Church, or at least any, or all particular Churches of some age, or ages (some one, or many, or all, which particular Churches must be the visible universal Church-Catholick of that age, or ages) may generally hold, and the Governors thereof impose upon their Subjects, such errors and corruptions, as are dangerous to Salvation; gross, damnable, etc. and therefore which, upon a general Reformation neglected, are corrigible, and reformable by any particular Church for itself [See what Archbishop Laud, §. 26 §. 37. n. 5.6.— Mr. Stillingfleet, Part 2. c. 2. p. 330.— and c. 4. p. 370.371.— and c. 8. p. 478 479. Mr. Chillingworth, c. 5. §. 64.49, 45, 27.— and the 31st. Article of the Church of England, have said to this purpose.]  
§. 27 And the Reason of this Assertion seems to be: because these great points of modern controversy.  
§. 28 1. A Corporal Presence and a Transubstantiation, or substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body.  
§. 29 2. Adoration of the Eucharist; i. e. of Christ's Body, and Blood, as present in it; which follows from the former.  
§. 30 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass; not only that of Prayers, Praise, and Thanksgivings; nor only of the Mysteries, in the consecrating of them, offered as a Commemorative of the Passion (a thing conceded also by learned Protestants): but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries (which thing follows from the first Point) offered in this Service, pro vivis, & Defunctis, etc.  
4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and Saints.  
§. 31 And 5. Such Prayer for the dead, as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement, (whatever their restraint, or sufferings be), to be conceived better able by the Intercessions of the Living,— Do appear to have been, universally, held, and practised; and the approbation, and conformity to them imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors, both of the Greek and Latin Church, at the coming of Luther.  
§. 32 The clearning of which, because it is a consideration of great importance, and not meet to be omitted; nor can be here inserted without making too great a Parenthesis, and distracting your thoughts from the matter in hand; I have rather chosen to annex it at the end of this discourse, Cap. 11. §. 158. referring you to that place, for the perusal thereof, if not in this matter already satisfied.  
§. 33 This then concerning the 6 th'. Proposition: The Protestants affirming, that the Catholic Church of some age may incur, and maintain dangerous, gross, damnable, errors; and the reason inducing them thereunto.  
§. 34 7 . They say. 1st. That though the Catholic Church cannot err in absolute necessaries; Yet the Governors, and Pastors thereof [Yet these are they who are appointed by Christ to instruct, and guide the rest] are not so included in our Saviour's promise of the Churches Indefectibility, but that they, (i.e. the much major part of them) even when met in a General Council (if this not such as is accepted by the Church diffusive) may err in their Decrees; and that, even in Credends and Practicals that are fundamental, and necessary for obtaining Salvation; even those necessary absolutely (for such inerrability in absolutely necessaries they allow only to the Church diffusive, not to her representative.) 2 ill. That as the Church diffusive, so her General Councils, though these by the Church diffusive universally accepted, may err in nonfundamentals, or non-necessaries; which non-necessaries, in their sense thereof 
‖ See before, §. 24.— and below, §. 52.  do extend to all points whatsoever, except those few, without belief of which, both the being of a Christian Church, and the attaining of salvation, absolutely faileth.  
§. 35 8 . Hence they say: That so many of former Councils, as are acknowledged to be lawfully general, by the general consent of the Christian World; or, whose decrees, when published, are universally, i. e. by the whole Church Catholic, accepted, they will allow, for truly Ecumenical [or equivalent thereto], So Mr. Stillingfleet 
† P. 536. : or [as the Archbishop further 
‖ P 346. ] for infallible also; i.e. as to necessaries; because the diffusive Catholic Church is held always in necessaries infallible] 
† Ap. Laud, p. 139 & 318— See §. 2. ; and, That they will make this consent of the whole Christian World their judge, in this case 
‖ Still. p. ●36.— Ap. L●●d, 195. l .  
§. 36 But then; here are two limitations (One, of allowing these Councils infallible, or unerring, in ncessaries only; the other: if such Councils be universally accepted,) which (as they understand them) seem to discharge them of all obligation of assent to the decrees of any, though reputed never so lawful, or general a Council; I mean as to any grounding such assent upon its absolutely not erring by virtue of our Lords Promise.  
1. For, from the first limitations of the Council's not erring only in Necessaries: 1st. they hold no assent, or submission of judgement, necessarily or absolutely due to a Council in such things wherein it is errable, as it is in all Non-necessaries. 2. Next they say, that these Councils that are unerring in Necessaries, may not prescribe to them, what points are necessary, what not? (for so a Council might oblige their assent so far as it pleaseth) and from whom else they should learn Necessaries, I see not. And till they can distinguish these, they have no means to know, whether such Council is unerring in those particulars which it defines, as being Necessaries. But, according to their restraint also of Necessaries, most conciliary definitions must be in Non-necessaries; wherein therefore these Councils are fallible; fallible, though universally accepted. But if such Council not universally accepted, then fallible, they say, it may be also in Fundamentals.  
§. 37 2 . For the second limitation, requiring the universal acceptation of such general Councils, or the consent of the Church diffusive to their Decrees; many of the reform seem to exact this consent so far extended to all particular persons, or Churches, as that scarce any of those Councils general, even which they do allow, have had one so entire. For the reason, why a general Council universally accepted erreth not in Fundamentals, being this, Because the whole Church, or its Clergy diffusive, that accepts it, can never so err; and they maintaining, that in the Church diffusive, not the much major part of it, or of its Clergy, (I mean of those whose judgement can be procured) but only some part or other thereof, shall never so err, (which part how small, or inconsiderable, mean while it may be in number, or dignity, to the rest, they know not;) hence, any consent, or acceptation of the Church, or Clergy, less than all, or what is near it, renders them not secure of its not erring: Because here the promise of not erring may possibly be verified only in the small dissenting party. See Doctor Hamond of Heresy, p. 156. n. 6. where he saith, That the promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, can no way belong to a Council unless all the Members of the Church were met together in that Council; for if there be any left out, why (saith he) may not the promise be good in them, though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council.? 
‖ See Chilling. c. 2. p. 139.— Stillingf. pag. 251.  And what he saith of the Council, holds as much in the acceptation of it, where some refuse this. So therefore, none can give faith to the definition (concerning Christ's Godhead) of the Fathers in the Council of Nice, upon our Lords promise of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against his Church; if some few oppose it, (as the Arians did) for in them, not those of the Council, may the Promise be made good. And hence, whilst they find in former ages a Berengarius, a Wicliffe, the Waldenses, an Hus, a Luther, and some Followers, varying from the judgement of the Councils called in their times, they are willing to believe the Orthodox and Catholic Faith, to have been preserved in these few Dissenters, and the Councils, though universally accepted by the rest, to have erred from it; nor to oblige them upon the account of so general an approbation: and thus, even the dissent of those persons, who have no power to vote in the Council, yet out of it, is effectual to void the obligation of the Council. So, though they usually name the Greek and Gallican, as well as Protestant Churches, as non-acceptors of the Council of Trent; yet, if a sufficient acceptation thereof, as to Protestant Controversies both of the Gallican and Greek Churches be proved to them, nothing is gained hence for securing its merrability even in a Fundamental; because the belief of all necessaries, and the verifying of the Divine Promises, they hold may be sufficiently conserved in the Protestants solely standing out against it. And, when they grant, that Councils universally accepted cannot err in necessaries; they say only this, That some or other professing Christianity shall never so err; and then conclude from hence, that neither doth or can the whole so err in those things, wherein it agrees with them. But next; admitting an infallibility in Necessaries to be allowed by the more sober and judicious Protestants to a Council accepted by a much major part of the Church-Catholick; though some persons, or Churches also, dissent, (without which nothing even in the first General Councils stands firm;) yet herein still is continued a contest, when the number of Dissenters is so great, and considerable, as to invalidate the ratification of the rest, when not: Nor see I, how it can be reasonably defided (yet a thing of greatest consequence) unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgement of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted, or rejected; which rule were it observed, then both, in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages, Protestants will be cast; and, by the determinations of those Councils, several of their Disputes ended.  
Mean while, upon these and other pretences so it is; that of 16. Councils, or thereabouts (reckoned up by the Cardinal 
‖ De Council. l. 1. c 5. ) whose Decrees all the Western Churches (wherein several of these Councils, the most General that those times could afford, were called, for ending of some Controversies, that both a rose in, and troubled, only the West) of 16. Councils I say, which the Western Parts generally accepted, when Luther appeared; and which all the rest of the Western Churches, except these Reformers, continue still to approve, they allow none of them, that have handled matters of Controversy, wherein the present times are concerned, after the four first, or the 5 th'. and 6 th'. but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo, even those, wherein both East and West consented: and so, do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years; there being none of the more famous of them, and the acts whereof are exstant, wherein something hath not been passed, that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenants 
‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. .  
§. 38 9ly. To the Decrees of these General Council. also, when universally acknowledged such, (which yet, when so, they say, may err in non necessaries), they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors, Persons, or Churches. And consequently, to those Decrees, in which they hold such Councils unerrable, i. e. in necessaries, if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so, they must allow due an obedience of assent.  
§. 39 But, 10ly. They allow not (absolutely) This obedience of assent to their decrees 
‖ Stillingf. p. 506. ; but only, where inferiors see just cause of dissenting (as sometimes they say they may, since all these Councils are liable to error in nonfundamentals, which also, it is not known, how far they do extend) that of silence, and non-publick contradiction.  
§. 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils; and Mr. Stillingfleet, (I know not on what Protestant ground) saith, 
‖ P. 375.  It is her duty to keep their Decrees, and be guided by the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by them. But you may observe: that this assent is not yielded to those Councils, because lawfully general; and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith (for they say, lawful General Councils, not universally accepted in their sense, may err in Fundamentals: and those Councils, that are universally accepted, may err in Nonfundamentals): but because the matter defined by them (the Church of England being, for Herself, judge hereof) ought to be assented to, as being agreeable to the Scriptures; and the Assent * is not yielded for the Authority defining, as infallibly assisted in necessaries, but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined; or (at least) for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary; * is not yielded, because that particular persons, or Churches, are to take that for the true sense of Scripture, which these Councils may, possibly, give of it; but because those Councils gave, in their Definitions, that sense of Scripture, which such particular Persons, or Churches judge the true; so that the reason, which they give for their Assent to these General Councils, obligeth as much their Assent to them, had they been Provincial; And upon the same terms, as one person, or Church, assents to these Councils, because they judge their Decrees consonant to God's Word, another, without withdrawing any due obedience, may descent, who judgeth the contrary; and the authority, or decision, lays on Christians no ground of obligation, as to belief, save the reasonableness, or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines: and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yielded by any, to whom the contrary seems evident: and by all others, is to be only conditional, viz. until the contrary shall appear evident.  
[To this purpose, 
§. 41. n. 1.  see the 21 Article of the Church of England— General Councils may err; wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to Salvation, have neither strength, nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they were taken out of holy Scripture. See the Act of Parliament, 1 Elizabethae, c. 1. wherein the determing, or adjudging any thing Heresy, by any Council, is thus limited; If, in such Council, the same is declared Heresy by the express, and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures. The words are— Provided, that such persons, etc. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresy, but only such, as heretofore have been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them; or by any other General Councils, wherein the same was declared Heresy by the Express, and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures. And see (in Soave. p. 344. 366.) the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent, for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers [fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura], as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil; That the Councils, Fathers, etc. conformable to the Scripture, should be Judges; by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat, when Councils appeared against them, that yet they were not obliged by them, because these Councils went also against the Scriptures. See Dr. Fern, Consid. p. 19— To all the determinations of the Church we own submission by Assent, and belief conditional, with reservation for evidence out of God's Word— and— In matters of Faith (saith he) we cannot submit to any company of men, by resignation of our judgement, and belief, or standing bound to receive for faith, and worship, all that they shall define, and impose for such; for such resignation gives to man, what is due to God. See Archbishop Laud, p. 245.— General Councils lawfully called, &c. cannot err, keeping themselves to God's Rule— And p. 239.— In all truth necessary to Salvation (saith he) I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err [if] suffering itself to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture; and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture, and the Spirit See Dr. Field, p. 666.— It is not necessary for us, expressly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it be true: unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and we be convinced of it in some other sort, than by the bare determination of the Council only. But it sufficeth, that we be ready expressly to believe it, if it shall be made to appear unto us. See Dr. Hammond, of Heresy p. 96. ‛ It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence, that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid, to the first four General Councils: Because, 1st., They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture. 2ly. Because they were so near the Apostles times, when the sense of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches, to whom they had committed it. [Thus he; though, besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years' distance; the reason of obedience to Church Governors, given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere 
‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903.  (viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetic, Pastoral, Episcopal office) infers, that the Church's authority in all ages is equally valid, and so voids this reason. He goes on.] 3dly. Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions, [yet he saith (see Disc. 1. §. 6.) that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals, and 
‖ Of Heresy p. 115. — that it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them, and the force of the testification, whereby they are approved, and acknowledged to be such, which gives the authority to the Council, and nothing else is sufficient, where that is not to be found.]  
See Mr. Chillingw. p. 118. Dr. Potter, 
§. 41. n. 2.  together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church, nay to particular Churches (and I subscribe to his opinion) an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture, and universal Tradition; and infallibility, whilst they proceed according to this Rule. And p. 200.— The Fathers of the Church (saith he) in aftertimes [i. e. after the Apostles] might have just cause to declare their judgement touching the sense of some General Article of the Creed; but to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation; what warrant they had I know not: He that can show, either that the Church of all Ages was to have this authority, or that it continued in the Church for some Ages, and then expired: He that can show either of these things, let him; for my part I cannot: Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive and obliging, that (without apparent reason to the contrary) it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission, for public peace sake. See Mr. Whitby, p. 92.— We do appeal to the four first General Councils, not because we believe them infallible, but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible; so that we make them secondary, not primary Guides; we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority, but into their agreement with Scripture; we do not say, we must believe this, or that, because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it; but, because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture, therefore do we believe it: And if we should find, that in any Article they dissented from Scripture, we should in that as much oppose them, as we do you— and p. 451.— I answer with Dr Taylor, that either these Councils are tied to the Rule of God's Word, or not, if the first, then are they to be examined by it; and to be followed no further than they adhere to this unerring rule [examined: He means by those persons, whom, yet, these Councils are to teach the sense of Scripture]— and p. 15.— We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent. [This the firm ground (i. e. his own judgement, what Conciliary Decrees agree, or disagree with Scripture) that this young man builds on, for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book] See Mr. Stillingfleet, p. 58. 59, 133, 154, 252. and 375.517. compared. There he saith on one side (p. 375.— That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils,— And— We profess (saith he) to be guided by the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the four first General Councils— And p. 56. he saith, That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sense of Scripture, which is contrary to the consent of the Catholic Church in the four first ages. [Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholic Church in the four first ages, and to the four first General Councils, as their Guide, for what is the sense of Scripture: which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils, only when, or as far as, they agree (in their Decrees), with the sense of Scripture: which last implies, that I learn the sense of Scripture not from them, but another; and assent to them, where they conform to that judgement, of which I learn it]— Ibid, He hath these two Propositions:— 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing, that can be alleged out of Scripture, that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture, if it appears contrary to the sense of the Catholic Church from the beginning.— And this,— 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith, which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholic Church within that time. [Where he allows not Christians to try, and so assent to, or descent from, the Decrees of Councils, by what appears to them the sense of Scripture; but refers them to learn the sense of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils]. But yet on the other side he contends (how consistently, I leave to the Readers judgement)— That the sense of the Catholic Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things, which concern the Rule of Faith— And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed, he saith,— It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things [therein], which are not Fundamental: it being Directly contrary to her sense in her 19th. and 20th. Articles. And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must, according to the sense of the Church of England, be resolved, either into the necessity of the matters, or into that necessity, which supposeth clear convictions, that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation. And p. 133.— He describes the Catholic Church, a society of such persons, who all firmly believe that Doctrine infallible, which Christ delivered; but yet judge themselves all fallible, and dare not usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven, in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned; but leave all [men] to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws, because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things, that tend thereto. Thus he. And generally Protestant's hold; that the Church-Catholick diffusive, of all ages; and therefore the Catholic Church, of the four first; and therefore also the General Councils of the four first ages, though universally accepted, may err in non necessaries; which is as much as to say; may give a wrong sense of Scripture, in them: notwithstanding that the Church of England obligeth Herself to the sense of this ancient Church; and this also, whilst she doth not know the necessaries from the other points, that are not so; and so neither knoweth, in what this ancient Church is not liable to error.  
§. 42 From these Quotations, I think, it appears; that, whatever fair professions are made, yet no Assent is given by them to the first four Councils on this account, that they could not err in their Definitions: Nor yet, because they are their Sovereign Judge, from whose sentence they may not descent, if they be persuaded, that it is repugnant to the Scriptures. And yet, of this repugnancy how they should come to any certain knowledge, I see no means. Certain I grant they may be; that the Scriptures are the Word of God; and again, certain of that, which the Scripture delivers, where the sense thereof is by all pronounced clear, and not ambiguous. But then: In a matter, where Scripture by several, and these in great numbers, and on both sides learned, is taken in a several sense; and the true sense thereof, is the thing in question; (as it is granted by Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ P. 58.  to have been, even in some of the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith): and yet further 
‖ See Stillingf. p. 59 , where, it seems, the Scripture may be so doubtful, that the sense of the Catholic Church, or its lawful General Councils (they say 
‖ Ib. ) can be to them no certain, or infallible, Interpreter of it: and lastly, where the judgement, or common Reason of a lawful General Council thinks itself so certain of the contrary, as to anathematise dissenters; On what grounds (here) any particular, Person, or Church, can assure themselves of their own sense of Scripture to be the true; they having left that of the Church's Councils, and of a major part of Christianity, who also judge their sense false, I understand not. Surely, they will not say, they have this certainty from the Scripture; because the true sense thereof is the thing so mainly questioned; & the certainty, or infallibility of the traditive sense of the Church they renounce; and then (which only is left) their own judgement, or their own, (which I see not how they rightly call) common Reason, when that of a General Council, or major part of Christianity, differs from it, one would think, should be a more fallible ground to them, than the judgement, or common Reason of the Church.]  
This, of the Obedience of Assent denied, and that of silence, or noncontradiction only allowed, by them, to the Definitions of Councils.  
§. 43 But 11ly. This obedience also of silence, and non contradiction they allow not, 1 as due to be yielded absolutely to all Decrees of such Councils. [For, if they would but stand to this, the Church's peace were kept safe enough; for, so, there could never be any reformation (or public teaching of the contrary) of such Decrees, as are once concluded by a General Council, but by a following General Council] 2 Nor yet as due to be yielded to all Decrees of such Councils, that do not err manifestly against some Fundamental verity.  
[The Archbishop 
‖ P. 226.  said this once, (repeated by Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ P. 534. ) in these words. [When private men know it, if the error of a lawful General Council be not manifestly against Fundamental verity, in which case a General Council cannot easily err, I would have A.C. and all wise men consider, whether external obedience be not then to be yielded. For, if Controversies arise in the Church, some end they must have, or they will tear all asunder]. This he said once, but did not hold constant to it: for after, in the same Section. 
‖ P. 227.  he saith; [Unless it err manifestly, and intolerably;— and— if the error be neither Fundamental [then he adds] nor in itself manifest, it is safer to agree, etc. For were noncontradiction thus far yielded, seeing that neither the Catholic Church before Luther, nor her Councils, have been held to have erred manifestly against any Fundamental verity (for so it would have lost the very essence of a Church), therefore all her subjects whatever would have stood obliged to her, and to her Councils, in the external obedience of silence at least; and thus her peace been always secure, and undisturbed.] But only this silence to be yielded to such Decrees, wherein the error of the Council is not manifest, or intolerable: Or (as Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ Still. p. 560.  expresseth it) where the error is not such, as overweighs the peace of the Church. Now they affirm: that many errors, that are not in Fundamentals, or necessaries strictly taken, may be such. For the Catholic (or if you will, the Roman) Church that was immediately before Luther, they hold, erred not in Fundamentals; and yet they made a Reformation from it, as, mean while, erring many errors manifest, and intolerable; and they see it necessary to add these manifest errors to the other Fundamental errors, so to justify the Protestant's (former) proceeding.  
§. 44 But here again: if a contradiction, and breach of external obedience, or of silence in respect of such (imagined) manifest, and intolerable errors, were only allowed so far, as to the making a peaceable complaint, and representation thereof to their Ecclesiastical Superiors in present Being, for the assembling of another Council of equal authority to reverse it: (which is also mentioned by the Archbishop 
‖ P. 227.  and Mr. Stillingfleet 
† 537. ): and then, that, if these Superiors see no force in their Reasons, these Plaintiffs should here acquiesce, and return to their obedience of silence; thus also, the peace of the Church would be still continued.  
[And this seems still the more equitable, because the Protestant Writers, 
‖ A p. Lawd p. 245.— Hooker prefat. p. 29.  For preventing the exorbitances (as they say) and capricious humours of fantastical Spirits 
† Still. p. 540. , and for the shutting out the whirlwinds of private Spirits from ruffling the Church 
‖ Ap. Lawd p. 245. , do oblige those, who thus break silence, to bring demonstration against such errors; and then, for the shutting out pretended demonstrations also, of which the world is full, define this demonstration to be such an evidence; as proposed to any man (and therefore to these Superiors) and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent unto it; And therefore hence, one would think, when these Superiors upon this proposal do not assent, the complainer ought to presume, his reasons, tendered to them, to be no demonstrations.]  
§. 45 But next; neither is this obedience of silence yielded obligatory in such a case; i. e. after that such complaint is made, and that the Superiors declare, they see no just cause for it, nor reason demonstrative in it; but they further maintain That a former General Council erring manifestly, and intolerably [i. e. in the imagination, and settled fancy of such a particular, person, or Church]; and the present Superiors (complained to) neglecting to call, or procure another General Council, to reverse such error, than an authority inferior may oppose, and publicly contradict such errors of a former General Council; and an inferior Synod, National, or Provincial, for themselves may rescind such Decrees, and reform against them 
‖ A p. Lawd p. 227. Mr. Still. p. 534.479.  [For indeed this gap must necessarily be left open, to let in Luther's reforming in the points mentioned §. 26. against the Decrees of several former Councils, that had found before in the Church a General acceptation (for they maintain 
‖ See before §. 34.  also, the whole Church liable to error in all such points, as they think fit to call Non-necessaries); and against the very public Service of the whole Catholic Church, which was in the Protestant computation, at Luther's appearance, of 900 years standing.]  
And if a National, or Provincial Synod may claim such privilege to reform against a former General Council; I see no reason, why (much more) a Province may not claim it against a National Synod; a Diocese against a Provincial; a Presbyter against his Diocesan, because these inferior Synods are still more liable to manifest, intolerable errors: And the Fundamental Reformation, by Luther, was the lowest of these, the Reformation of a Presbyter against his Diocesan.  
§. 46 Lastly, there remains yet one considerable more, as to qualifying this licence of public contradicting; which, as it seems most reasonable; so, if it were observed, the Church's Unity, and Peace would yet suffer, by such contradictions, or reformations, no great diminution, or damage: Namely, that those inferiors only, who think they can evidence, and demonstrate the errors of such Councils, may claim the privilege to speak, and teach publicly against them, or join with those that do so; but yet that so many, as do not pretend to have the like evidence, or demonstrations against the Superiors Doctrine, be instructed, that they stand so long obliged, in such case, to relinquish the Inferiors, and still to adhere, and submit to the Svperiors, judgement. [For Example: The Bishop, or a Provincial Council teaching one thing; the Metropolitan, or a General Council another; that so many of such Diocese, or Province, as cannot demonstrate what the Bishop, or Provincial Council maintain, know, that they are bound to continue their obedience still to the Metropolitan, or General Council, not to the Provincial Council, or Bishop]: For thus; there would be no more deserters of such Councils, and the former Church's Communion; no more Members of the Reformation, than are themselves pretenders of Demonstration; and those, I suppose, would not be many. But so it is, that these inferior Guides justify their reforming not only for themselves, but for all their Subjects too; so far as now, within their several Precincts, to impose an obedience of silence upon all, toward them, that cannot demonstrate against them.  
This concerning the Protestants claimed liberty, * of breaking the obedience of silence; * of complaining; * of reforming, for themselves, upon neglect of their complaints, errors of Councils, supposed by them manifest, and intolerable.  
§. 47 12ly. Since errors intolerable, and manifest (they affirm) may be in any Decrees whatever of Councils, if such Councils be not (in their sense) vinversally accepted; or, of such also, as are so accepted, if their Decrees be made in non-necessaries: Next they contend, That the judgement, when such Decrees of past Councils are errors, and those intolerable, and over-weighing a peace, and so these publicly contradictible and reformable, is to be left to every particular, person, or Church. 
‖ See Still. p. 539.292.   
But, because this may seem of very ill consequence; Hear, how it is bounded and restrained. This judgement (then) not so left to them (saith the Arch bishop); That every private spirit may fall on reforming, what errors he fancies such; but that they bring such Evidence, and demonstration, as is described before, 
‖ §. 44.  proving such to be manifest and intolerable errors: and then again, that the judgement of such demonstration, brought by them, be left to a future Council: which Council not allowing them for such, these inferiors a●e to acquiesce, as to silence at least, in its judgement. For (saith he 
‖ A p. Lawd p. 246. ) if the Demonstration be evident to any man [according to the former definition they give it] then to so many Learned men, as are in a Council, doubtless: And if they cannot but assent to it, it is hard to think them so impious, that they will define against it. And if that which is thought evident to any man, be not evident to such a grave Assembly, it's probable, it is no Demonstration; and the producers of it ought to rest, and not to trouble the Church. Thus he.  
But 1st. if the Ecclesiastical Superiors, upon this complaint neglect to call such Council, the Archbishop than makes every particular person, or Church, Judges, themselves, of their Demonstrations; upon which, he saith, They may proceed to reform, for themselves, such errors 
‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. & 227. comp. §. 33. Consid. 6. n. 1. with §. 32. n. 5. . But, say I, if the Demonstration be such, as is evident to any man, than so will it be to these Superiors complained to; and then, here the producers of it ought to rest. But this, he saw, would presently, stop the passage to all Reformation against Superiors; whereas the Council appealed to, (especially, such as they will allow) they see, is far enough off, from checking their pretended evidences: For what future Council can ever be hoped for, that will not be liable to most of their exceptions made against that of Trent; for the place; or for the calling of it; or for the Voters in it, & c? and, till then, every private man's or particular Church's demonstrations, as to reforming, stand in their full force, Power, and Virtue, in the Archbishop's stating this Point. But then 2ly. Imagine we such a second Council called; and this, for the lawfulness, and proceed thereof, void of exception; yet can it end no controversy any more, than the former; nor is it more free from appeals; for, so long as this future Council, as well as the former, is liable to errors manifest, and intolerable, even in necessaries, if it be not universally accepted; or in non-necessaries, though it be so; it follows, that such errors may be by private men discovered; and new evidences out of the Scripture, or new demonstration may appear against them; and so, upon the former terms, must be admitted a new complaint, and a new appeal to another future Council. For such resting of a former person in the conclusion of the Council, after his evidences heard and disallowed, infers not an acquiescence of all other persons whatever; or yet, of the same person, whenever any other evidence, or demonstration, may appear to them, either against any other Definition of that Council, or even against that, which others upon mistaken grounds, questioned causelessly; for why may not one bring a true evidence, or demonstration, against a point, and so ought to be heard; after that, another, or the same, person hath brought a false, and so is silenced? Thus is the freeing men from the Laws of their Superiors, like the breaking out of waters, by no device afterward to be stopped, where, or when we please. So, many evidences and demonstrations against a corporeal Presence, being long ago presented to several Councils, & rejected as false, yet still new ones (or indeed the same) are pretended, to keep the controversy on foot, and bring it to another trial, where the Judge may be better informed.  
§. 48 After the Archbishop, Mr. Stillingfleet speaks to the same matter, on this manner.— If you ask (saith he) 
‖ p. 539.  how it should be known, when errors are manifest, and intolerable, and when not? We here appeal to Scripture interpreted by the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church, the common reason of mankind, (supposing the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith); the consent of wise, and learned men; which certainly will prevent the exorbitances, and capricious humours of fantastical spirits which may cry out; That the most received Truths, ever since Christianity was in the world, are intolerable errors. If you are resolved farther to ask; Who shall be judge, what necessary reason, or demonstration is? His Lordship tells you, I think plain enough from Hooker, what is understood by it; viz. such, as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent unto it. And do you require any other Judge, but a man's own judgement, and reason, in this case? But you say; Others call their Arguments Demonstrations: But, let them submit to this way of trial, and they may soon be convinced, that they are not: Still you say; They will not be convinced, but will break the peace of the Church; supposing, they have sufficient evidence for what they do. But, if men will be unreasonble, who can help it? Thus Mr. Stillingfleet: I have set the place down at large, that you may better consider, what it amounts to. Here then: you see, he restrains this particular person's, or Church's judgement of the intolerableness of such Councils error so, That this judgement be guided, or made, ¹ According to the interpretation of Scripture, by the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church, ² According to the common Reason of mankind, supposing Scripture the rule of Faith, ³ According to the consent of Wise, and learned men. But first, methinks it is a very presumptuous thing for Inferiors to judge, by any of these three ways, against a General Council. As if (for the first) these Councils did not Guide themselves by the concurrent sense of the Primitive Churches; several of which Councils are reprehended by Protestants, for joining Church-Tradition with Scripture itself, as a Rule of their Proceeding. And again; as if the concurrent sense of the Primitive Church did either; for what is found to be generally held by it, or what is found not to be so, condemned by it, (according to the Protestants, or Mr. Stillingfleet's Principles) certainly clear any thing from being an intolerable error; when as they hold, such concurrent sense may err in Nonfundamentals: and again hold, that, amongst these not Fundamentals, may be intolerable-errors. See before, §. 25. Next, as if (for the 2 d.) General Councils did not use the same common Reason of mankind, and the same Rule of Faith, as a private man doth, for discerning errors: Or, as if he, by his common Reason Paramount, could discern, where their common Reason mistakes; and that, manifestly, and intolerably. Or, as if (for the 3 d.) in these Councils were not a consent of wise, and learned men: Or, he knew other men more learned, than they; or knew learned men better, than they.  
§. 49 But, to let these things pass: Yet, since the exorbitant, and capricious humours of some fantastical men may pretend any of these, Antiquity; common Reason of Mankind, grounded on Scripture; or the Learned, on his side, against a General Council, most falsely, and sillily (of which who seethe not many Examples?) Therefore, here it will not be enough for any, to say this; but they are in all reason to show some Evidence or Demonstration; that these 3. or any of them, are for them. And then, the same Question returns again on Mr. Stillingfleet, who shall judge of this pretended Evidence or Demonstration of theirs? And he, both taketh notice of it here, and answers it (if I understand Him aright) thus, That that man's own Reason, that pretends them, is also to be judge of them. For, if a Demonstration be such, as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose, but inwardly assent to it, than his mind also, that proposeth it, is thus convinced by it, and so knows it to be a Demonstration. And— Do you require (saith he) any other Judge, but a Man's own Judgement and Reason, in this case? But such collection is very faulty: Because if it be true, that Demonstrations such as can be made in Divine matters) do always convince the mind, or effect its full assent: Yet it is not so, that Demonstrations only do this; but so also do many other false, though specious, Arguments, I mean, so convince the mind of some, as to produce a full assent, free from doubting, though not from erring. But, to warrant any thing a right Demonstration (according to the former Definition of it), not one, but all men's Reasons, that hear it, must assent to it; and then, amongst these, the reason also of our Superiors; and then, any one man's reason, as to a Demonstration, is sufficiently disproved, whenever all other reasonable men, to whom it is related, judge not the same with him. But, if some men's reason, when at any time opposing the more common, may be pretended a sufficient judge of Demonstrations: Then we stick still at our former Question, How will this prevent the exorbitances, and capricious humours of fantastical Spirits? And how will not some break the peace of the Church still, supposing that they have sufficient evidence for what they say, when they have not? Therefore, after many wind, his utmost answer is.— If mwn will be unreasonable, who can help it? And so Mr. Chillingw 
‖ P. 59 .— If, through his own default, any man judge amiss, he alone shall suffer for it.— And— Such person endangers both his temporal and eternal happiness 
‖ P. 100 . Well: for such persons, at their peril be it.  
§. 50 But meanwhile; how is the Church's peace, or her wholesome, or also necessary, and Fundamental Doctrines, to be preserved among her Subjects? How these poor Sheep delivered from harkening to, and being seduced by, these new Demonstrators; if such public Contradictors may not justly be punished, and restrained by her? Or, how may they justly be restrained, if all aught to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each Member of the Christian Society is bound take care of his Soul, and of all things that tend thereto, as Mr. Stillingfleet tells us 
‖ P. 133. . How restrained, (I mean, even as to external obedience, or silence), if the judgement, when or in what things her Councils intolerably err, is rightly left to them; and if, so often as they judge them to err, and persuade themselves they have demonstration for it, they may lawfully contradict? Can the Church-Governors justly punish Luther, and He justly do that, for which he was punished? Well: To give some satisfaction also to this [the preserving of the Church's peace], thus goes on Mr. Stillingfleet— We appeal (saith he 
‖ P. 340. ) to the common Reason of Mankind; whether it be not a far probabler way, to end Controversies, to persuade them, in disputable matters, to yield external obedience to a lawful General Council; than to tell them, they are bound to believe whatever they decree, to be infallibly true. But here he hides, and nimbly passeth over one half, and the more scandalous part, of his Doctrine; and that, which ushered in the Reformation; that, where a Doctrine of a General Council is intolerable, where it seems to any, not a matter disputable, but error manifest (of which he knows, who must judge; and how many of the common Doctrines of the Church, before the times of Luther, are by Protestants charged to be so: so that such errors are not to be numbered amongst the raro contigentia 
‖ See Mr. Stillingfl. p. 535. ) so often private men, or particular Churches, instead of yielding the external obedience, he here makes show of, may publicly contradict such Councils; and reform (I say not, without them; for that, Protestants 
‖ Ap. Laud p. 153.  do bring several proofs, or Examples, in Antiquity; but) against them: (for which they bring none.)   

CHAP. V.  
13. Suitably to the Precedents, Protestants declaring Heresy to be an error obstinately maintained against some Fundamental Article of the Faith; without allowing any certain Judge, what Articles are Fundamental, and consequently, what is Heresy, §. 51.  
14. Declaring Schism, in respect of inferiors to be a separation causeless (§. 55.); Or, also (as some more straiten it, a separation in Essentials, (§. 57), from the Communion of other Churches, or of the Church-Catholick: But leaving us no certain Judge, what points are Essentials; or, when the separation causeless; and consequently, when Schism: (Unless, perhaps, he that separates be made by them this Judge). Again, enlarging Schism to Superiors also, so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion, they give their Subjects just cause of a separation, §. 61. Where is examined: Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors, when departing from no other their Superiors, can become, in respect of their Subjects, guilty of Schism, §. 63. n. 1.  
§. 51 13. LAstly; concerning their stating of Heresy, and Schism. 1st. For Heresy, They do not enlarge it so far, as Catholics do, 
‖ See before, §. 16.  to all errors knowingly, or obstinately maintained against any Church Definitions made in matters of Faith: But (which helps to remove the charge thereof the farther from themselves) restrain it 
‖ Chill. 271.332.— Stillingf. p. 11.  only to those errors, that are against some essential part of the Gospel, or some Fundamental Article of Faith, or such as is plainly revealed by God with a command that all should believe it 
† Chill. p. 332. §. 12. , or is absolutely necessary to the Salvation of a Christian, and essential to the being of a Church.  
§. 52 Which Fundamentals, or necessaries, they will not allow to extend so far, as to all the Articles contained in some of the Creeds 
‖ See before, § 41. n. 2.  and some fetter them with so many conditions of an universal attestation from the Church of all times, as that scarce any former universally accounted Heresy can be found to oppose a Divine Truth, that is, in every circumstance, so qualified; viz. such conditions as these 
‖ See Still. p. 57 :— That all Catholic writers agree in such a Doctrine, and none of them opppose it; and agree in the necessity of it also to all Christians; and that no later Writers, and Fathers, in heats of contention, and opposition of Heretics, judge it then an Article more necessary, than it was judged before. That all Writers, that give an account of the Faith of Christians, deliver it, not as necessary to be believed by such, as might be convinced, that it is divine Revelation; but as necessary also to be by all explicitly believed; That, what all these Writers consent in, be also undoubtedly the consent of the Church of those ages, wherein they writ: Lastly, that it be made appear to be universally embraced at all times, and all places, by the Members of the Catholic Church: and the opposers thereof, to have been presently disowned as any Members of it.  
[Somewhat a like Caution Bishop Taylor hath put in the beginning of his Dissuasive 
‖ c. 1. §. 1. p. 7. , to secure Protestants from receiving any detriment to their cause from the Fathers, and Antiquity; where, after he hath first collected,— That the Roman Tenants were not believed, or practised in the three first ages, because the Writers of those ages [few, and compendious] are silent therein; [which is a faulty, Negative, arguing, though the antecedent were granted for true]; and then; thus prejudiceed the fourth age [i.e. the time of Athanasius, Basil, the three Gregory's, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, the first General Councils, and the first free exercise of Religion, and copious Records thereof] prejudiced it, I say, and the ages succeeding, That in those times secular interests did more prevail; and the writings of the Fathers were vast, and voluminous; full of controversy, and ambiguous senses, fitted to their own times, and questions; full of proper opinions, and such variety of Say, that both sides eternally, and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively. After such prejudices, I say, he adds, that it is impossible for those of the Roman Church, to conclude from the say of a number of the Fathers, that their Doctrine, which they would prove thence, was the Catholic Doctrine of the Church; Because (saith he) any number, that is less than all, does not prove a Catholic consent; and the clear say of one, or two of these Fathers, truly alleged by us to the contrary, will certainly prove, that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three, as good Catholics as the other, do deny, was not then matter of Faith, or Doctrine of the Church; for, if it had, these had been Heretics accounted, and would not have remained in the Communion of the Church. Thus, with him, if one or two of the Ancients, that are not therefore at that time accounted Heretics for it; can be showed to descent, the concurrence of all the rest is held not sufficient to prove a Catholic Doctrine in a matter of Faith; nor such an accord of them sufficient to be called a Catholic consent; or such, as that all maintaining the contrary thereof, after it is declared by a Council to be such a Catholic Doctrine, will be Heresy: Whereas (contrary) it is manifest; both, that some Dissenters from a Catholic Doctrine of Faith (especially if not so universally evident, as some others are, or a consequential that is, in those times, not so much considered) are not therefore guilty of Heresy, before a more public declaration and clearing of such points by a Council; (witness S. Cyprian, in the Point of Non rebaptisation:) and yet, that the Doctrine may be truly called Catholic before the Council; and the Dissenters also perhaps not free from a culpable ignorance therein: For, if the dissent of some few Fathers in the Council (as in that of Nice, or Chalcedon) hinders not, that a Point may be declared (then) a Catholic Doctrine, neither doth the dissent of some few Fathers before the Council hinder, that then it was not a Catholic Doctrine. But to return to Mr. Stillingfleet.]  
Such conditions, they say, must the Point have, in which the Church-Catholick is unerring; and the obligation to believe, and conform to which is universal; and the opposite whereof is Heresy; which conditions if you please to apply to the Articles of Faith, opposing the Arrian, Nestorian, or Pelagian Heretics, you shall find scarce any of them; but, that the Opposers thereof, upon a deficiency in some of these requisites, may withdraw his obedience thereto without any guilt of Heresy.  
But, 2 . They leave us also still uncertain; which, or how many these Fundamentals, or necessaries are: Or, who shall judge what points have, or have not, such an universal attestation, as they require from the Church? and therefore they leave us also uncertain, what is, or is not, Heresy; leave us also uncertain, by whose sentence, and judgement such Heretics may be restrained, proceeded against, and punished; since they hold Councils no certain Judge concerning these Points, what are necessary, and Fundamentals, or universally attefted, what not: and likewise, since they hold these Fundamentals, as to private men, varying according to a sufficient proposal of them; more Points being Fundamental to one, than to another 
‖ Chill. p. 137. Still. P. 98.99. ; and consequently Heresy in opposing them, varying accordingly; they having cast off also that of the Church, from being a sufficient proposal of any one's conviction therein.  
§. 53 And indeed, if, 1st. Protestants maintain that no Councils or Church, without tyranny, may require belief, or internal assent from their Subjects to their Definitions, or Articles of Religion, (a practice much exclaimed against in the Church of Rome, and, if I misunderstand them not, denied to be lawful, by several reform); And 2 . this be granted, that the holding of a Tenent contrary to some Fundamental Point, and not only the outward profession, and public maintaining of such a Tenent, is Heresy; I see not, how the reformed Churches, though they should declare a particular Tenent to be an Heresy, yet can discover any Heretic whatever, unless he voluntarily publish his Heresy; nor how they can, or do, remove any such out of their Communion, or also sacred Orders; if, 1 neither those, who hold such Heretical opinions, stand anathematised, by their Canons; nor there may be the exacting from such, entering into Orders, a confession of their belief, or an acknowledgement of any internal assent to their Articles of Religion: Both which, for such Points, are the practice of the Catholic Church. But, if it be maintained, that this also is the practice of the reformed Churches, or at least this of England, why is the requiring of such assent to, and belief of, the contrary of that which she deems Heresy, blamed in the Roman?  
§. 54 Lastly, the description which is made by Mr. Stillingfleet, 
‖ p. 153.  of that Catholic Church, which our Blessed Saviour instituted in the world (mentioned before §. 41.) seems to take away all such Judge upon the earth, by whom Heresy can be discovered, or made known: for, if the Church-Governors cannot prescribe infallibly, [i.e. infallibly without mistake; for there is no need, that infallibly here signify any thing more] in any Controversy, on which side is Divine Truth; but— That men are to be left herein to judge for themselves according to Scripture [that is, what seems to them out of Scripture to be truth] because (saith he) overy one is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things that tend thereto; Then neither could the Fathers of Nice Judge concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son (a thing strongly questioned) and put it into the Creed. Nor those of Ephesus and Chalcedon judge so concerning one person of our Lord, and 2. natures, and put these in the Creed; Judge I say, so, as that others can be obliged to hold that to be Heresy in these points, which they pronounce so. Nor was there then any way to convince the Arrians infallibly of Heresy: but that they are still to be left to judge for themselves,— as bound to take care for their own souls, and of all things that tend thereto. The same may be said, much more, concerning Pelagianism, and other errors formerly condemned for Heresy, which do expressly oppose no Articles in our Creeds. By this way then, an Ecclesiastical restraint of external profession there may be, but none of belief, or opinions; nor obstinacy in holding them, where no Obligation acknowledged to hold otherwise.  
This of those, who express Heresy as an obstinate error against some Fundamental, or necessary article of faith universally attested such by the Church in the manner before mentioned.  
But Dr. Hammond 
‖ Of Heresy §. 2.11. n p. 70.  somewhat more condescending, and enlarging the compass of Heresy, though he makes it indeed to be an opposition of the Faith (in any one, or more branches of it) by way of Emphasis, and excellence, that was once delivered to the Saeints, and that was set out by Christ (or his Apostles from him) to be by all Men believed to their Righteousness, and confessed to their Salvation. And an opposition of such faith (saith he 
‖ §. 5. n. 2. ) as descends to us from the Apostles by a Catholic Testimony truly such, i. e. universally in all respects; 1 of place, 2 time, and 3 persons. Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony, 
‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10.  as to signify only the consent of the most, in most places, in all, or most times; For else (saith he 
† §. 5. n. 2. ) there would be no Heretics at any time in the World: [Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith, which all, none excepted, in all times, do hold.] And again, 2 he makes use of the Church's Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith; Viz. of the four 1st. General Councils; saying, That all the parts of this faith are completely comprehended in the Scriptures, as explained by the Writers of the three first ages, and definitions of the ●our first Councils; so that in sum, he who embraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them, embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered, (which cannot come to the fifth age, etc. but through the fourth and third;) and so can be no Heretic. (See 7. §. 6, 7, 8. n.) His words there (n. 7.) are, Of the Scriptures, of the Creed, and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm; that the entire Body of the Catholic Faith is to be established, and all Heresies convinced; or else, that there is no just reason, that any Doctrine should be condemned, as such. And, see what is cited out of him, concerning these Councils, before, §. 19 and of Heresy, §. 14. n. 10. But here, since he admits Councils for convincing Heresy, why rests he in the four first? and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age, (that are of equal authority); for the same discovery, since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first, and the Church's later▪ Councils, accordingly, may testify, and declare the same Faith (as occasions are administered) against them? If it be said, that what is traditive in any latter age, wherein some later Council is held, was so in the third or fourth; and so all Heresy is sufficiently convinced by those ages; then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first, second, or third age: And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresy, these four first Councils, which were held after the three first Centuries. The sum is: For convincing Heresy, either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical; or not that of the four first. But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so, (as something seems said by him to this purpose, Heres. §. 14. n. 1.2.), Catholics are at accord with him herein, concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresy; and the dispute only remains, whether any of those Councils, that have heretofore defined, or testified any such Point of Faith traditive, which is opposed by Protestants, be such a lawful General Council. Concerning which, see in 1 Disc. §. 36. n. 3. etc.— §. 50. n. 2.— §. 57 etc.  
Thus Dr. Hammond; restraining conviction of all Heresy within the time of the first Councils. But Bishop Branhall 
‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102.  seems to be yet more free.— I acknowledge (saith he), that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary to be believed; that is, whensoever the Reasons, and grounds produced by the Council, or the authority of the Council (which is, and always aught to be, very great; with all sober, discreet Christians) do convince a man, in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition. And in vindication of the Church of England, p. 26.— When inferior Questions, not Fundamental, are once defined by a lawful General Council, all Christians, though they cannot assent in their judgements, are obliged to passive obedience; to possess their souls in Patience. And they who shall oppose the authority, and disturb the peace, of the Church, deserve to be punished as Heretics. Here, though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councils definition, for the reason of opposing it, Heretics, because he holds that no error, but that, which some way overthrows a fundamental Truth, can be Heretical; and though, in his holding, that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental; nor oblige any to assent to their judgement in what they do define, further than their reasons convince them; He as the rest, leaves Heretics undiscoverable; yet he grants, that all are to submit, for noncontradiction, to the determinations of L. G. Councils, even in all inferior points not fundamental; and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Heretics; which, if observed by Protestants, would sufficiently keep the Church's peace; and then, concerning the past definitions of such Councils, see what is argued with him, in 1 Disc. §. 36. n. 3. etc. This for Heresy.  
§. 55 12ly. For Schism. Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholics. That any separation upon what cause soever, from the external Communion, of all particular former Churches; or, of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors; or, of the whole Church Catholic; is schism. but restrain it to a separation culpable, or causeless; 
‖ Chillingw. p. 271.  (holding that some separation from them may not be so.)  
§. 56 But they leave us here again, in uncertainty, between these Superiors, and Inferiors, which of them shall judge, when such separation is causeless, when otherwise: and so uncertain of Schism: or also they affirm, that the Inferiors are to judge, when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion; and so, when a separation from them is lawful, or culpable. Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet, 
‖ p. 292. — Nothing can be more unreasonable, than that the society imposing [certain] conditions of Communion should be judge, whether those conditions be just and equitable, or no? And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents; For they hold, that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries, or Fundamentals; errable in other matters of faith; that its Governors, collected in their supremest Councils, may also enjoin such errors as conditions of their Communion; that these errors, at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernible by Inferiors; and, these complained of, and not amended by Superiors▪ that they may lawfully separate, in the sense explained before, § 20. from such Communion, wherein these are imposed: Here therefore inferiors judge, when the separation is just, when causeless; and upon this account surely no separation will ever be, I do not say Schism, but discovered to be Schism, if the separatist is to Judge, when it is so. But if the Superiors are to Judge, when a separation from them, and from their definitions imposed, is culpable, or causeless, it will either be always judged such (which is the Catholics Doctrine); or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiors; and so there will be no separation at all. This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable, or causeless separation.  
§. 57 Again; some of them there are, who straiten Schism yet farther; 
‖ See Stillingf. p. 331.357.359, 251, 290. compar. p. 54.56.— Whitby, p. 424.  and, making it, a separation only, from other Christians, or Churches, in such things, wherein it is absolutely necessary to be united with them, (which is thus far true); then state this necessary union to consist only in the belief of those Fundamental Articles of Faith, or Doctrine, which are absolutely necessary to Salvation, or essential to the being of a Church.  
§. 58 Where they hold it not Schism, to separate from all particular Churches of the present age for a Doctrine universally held, and imposed, as a condition of their Communion, because they say, an error may be so imposed. But only Schism, to separate from the Primitive and Universal Church for Doctrine, 1st. That can be made appear to have been Catholic, and universally received (in the manner expressed before, §. 52.) by the Church of all ages, successively, from the Apostles to the time of such separation. And 2 . That can also be proved a Doctrine necessary to Salvation, and essential to the being of a Church.  
* For the first of these; Mr. Stillingfleets words 
‖ P. 371.  to this purpose (in answer, to the unlawfulness of reforming former Catholic Doctrines) are— It is not enough (saith he) to prove any Doctrine to be Catholic; that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one age; but it must be made appear, to have been so received from the Apostles time; not to say, that A. D. 1517. such, and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholic, and therefore they were so: But that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so; and then (saith he) we shall more easily believe you: And p. 357. he saith, That we are not to measure the Communion of the Catholic Church, by the judgement of all, or most of, the particular Churches of such an age. And * for the 2 d. In the 2 d. Part, c. 2. proving Protestants not guilty of Schism, (p. 331.) he saith,— Whoso separates from any particular Church (much more from all) for such things, without which that can be no Church, separates from the Communion of the Catholic Church; but he that separates only from particular Churches [any, or all], as to such things, which concern not their being, is only separated from the Communion of those Churches, not the Catholic. And therefore (saith he) supposing that all particular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them, though I should separate from them all, [for such errors; but what if for some truth, though this not Fundamental?] I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church, unless it be for something, without which those could be no Churches,— And p. 358.— No Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholic Church; but what may be proved to separate itself in something necessary to the being of the Catholic Church; and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials, it cannot cease to be a true Member of the Catholic Church. This is freely granted: But what are these Essentials to the being of the Church-Catholick? p. 357. he saith,— That the Communion of the Church-Catholick lies open to all such, who own the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith: And (p. 251.) he saith,— All that is meant by saying; that the present Church [he means Catholic] is infallible in Fundamentals; is, that there shall always be a Church; for, that which makes them a Church, is the belief of Fundamentals; and if they believe not them, they cease to be so. That therefore, which being supposed, a Church is; and, being destroyed, it ceaseth to be, is the formal constitution of it; but thus it is, as to the Church; the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church, and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church. Well: But what are these necessaries, or Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, that we may know, how long a person, or Church, retaineth the Communion of the Catholic: See (then) concerning this, p. 53. 54, 55.— These are such points (saith he) as are required, by God, as necessary to be explicitly believed by all, in order to attain salvation. And which are they?— p. 56.— Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith, but what hath been believed, and received for such by the Catholic Church of all ages.— And afterward,— What hath been admitted into the ancient Creeds. Here than I take his Tenent to be— That not more is necessary to render any person, or, Church free from Schism, and a true Member of the Catholic Church, and continuing in its Communion, than the true belief of all Fundamentals, or points absolutely necessary to be believed for attaining Salvation.  
§. 59 But here also: 1st. These leave us uncertain, how particularly to know, and distinguish these Fundamentals and Essentials, wherein only is Schism, from other points that are not so; or they do enfold them all within the compass of the Creeds; where also they contend, that they must not be extended to all the Articles thereof; whence it will follow, that one departing from the Church's Communion, for requiring his assent, as a condition thereof, in respect of some of these Articles, yet will be no Schismatic, as they state Schism: Nor none a Schismatic, that is not, even in a Fundamental, an Heretic. Again, since several Doctrines there are, that are delivered by all former ages, which yet are not Fundamental, or Essential to Salvation, or to the being of a Church, thus the separating, from all particular Churches, or from our spiritual Superiors, for any doctrine taken for such, will not be Schism. So one, that separates from the Communion of his Superiors, for their requiring his assent, and conformity to the Episcopal Government of the Church, though he is a Schismatic in Dr. Hammonds account 
‖ Schism, p. 163. , yet must be none, in Mr. Stillingfleets; unless he will make Espiscopacy, essential to the being of a Church; (concerning which I refer you to his Irenicum) and so pronounce the Presbyterian, and Transmarine reformed Congregations, no Churches of Christ. The same may be said of any, separating from the external Communion of his Superiors, requiring of him consent, and conformity to the Definitions of the first four allowed General Councils, and the constitutions of the universal Church of the first, and purest Ages, whether in Government, or other, the like observances, and practices; which separation is by Dr. Hammond 
‖ Schim, p. 156. 160.  declared Schism; but cannot be so upon Mr. Stillingfleets theses; unless all these will be maintained by him Fundamentals, and Essentials to the being of the Catholic Church, I mean as to faith necessary for her attaining Salvation. Lastly, Mr. Stillingfleet saith, 
‖ P. 356.  a Church, enjoining some dangerons errors, as necessary conditions of her Communion, upon Excommunication to those who do not submit, by this becomes divided from the Communion of the Church-Catholick; but then, it is so, without its denying any Fundamental point of Faith; its crimes only being the imposing of some Non-fundamental errors to be believed, upon pain of Excommunication.  
2 . By their restriction of Catholic Doctrines to those only, which can be made appear to have been so received, 
§. 60. n. 1.  not only by the Catholic Church of the present, but also of all former ages from the Apostles, they may separate from a lawful General Council of the present age, universally accepted, without any guilt of Schism, or opposing, by this, any Catholic Doctrine in their sense: (unless they will say; such Councils can define, or the present age universally accept, no Doctrine, but what hath been the explicit Faith of all former ages.) And by such restriction they seem to require most unequal conditions of their obedience and conformity to the present Church-Catholick; when they will allow a necessity of such conformity to no Doctrine of hers, upon any cheaper terms, than the producing a written evidence [and that, I suppose they mean, not of some principles thereof; but of the Conclusion itself] for it, in all ages for 1600 years. A large field chosen, wherein to continue the dispute. Now all Church-Tradition is not necessarily written; all former writings, not necessarily descending to the present age; and so, many Doctrines may be universal, that cannot be made appear in the Church-Records of every age to be so; and it seems enough, to infer the obedience of Inferiors, if the Inferiors cannot show, in the former Church-Records, the contrary doctrine held in any age, to that maintained in the present.  
3 . If the Catholic Doctrine of the present age be in a matter necessary; 
§. 60. n. 2.  the Church of the present age must be unerrable in it; and its Testimony sufficient to enforce a conformity, upon pain of Schism, without farther search into former ages. (For the Catholic Church of every age is unerring in necessaries.) If in some matter not necessary; the testimony of the Church of all ages (excepting the Apostles only) with them is not sufficient; which (as they say) may mistake in it; and therefore the retiring to these former ages will not be sufficient to prove it a Truth; or a departure from it, Schism. But if they say; in the testimony of former ages, they include the testimony of the Apostles also; then, that alone will be sufficient to authorise a Catholic Doctrine, without the Churches witness given thereto in any age; or, without that the Church's witness is nothing worth: and then, why press they this universal Testimony of the Church?  
4. But lastly, 
§. 60. n. 3.  this their affirming, the Constitution and Essence of the Catholic Church, to be only a right belief in Fundamentals; and allowing the Communion of this Church, and a security from Schism to all such persons, and Churches, as are in these Fundamentals no way deficient, is very faulty, and contrary to the ordinary notion, which both the ancient Fathers, and Learned Protestants have of the Catholic Communion, and of Schism.  
It is true; that as the Catholic Church is a company of right Believers, as to Faith absolutely required for attaining Salvation; no more is necessary to its constitution, or being, than the Faith only of some points, which, for this reason, are called Fundamentals; but, as it is also One Society, or Body, wherein the several Members are united in the Bond of Peace, under lawful Pastors and Guides, and subjected to certain Laws of Government and Discipline: So, many more things both in respect of the Plenitude of Faith, and Sanctity of Manners, according to the divine Revelations, and Commands made known by these his Ministers, are necessary to the Being, and Constitution thereof; all which being put, any particular Person, or Church is a true Member of the Church-Catholick: But, any of them wanting, though the rest be present, it ceaseth to be Catholic. And such a Church-Catholick is affirmed to be always extant, not only as shall believe aright in all Fundamentals, but the Members of which shall always be united also in all other points of Faith, and practice of holiness, conducing to Salvation; and the subjects therein obedient to their Superiors, in all their lawful decrees, and injunctions. So that a person, or Church, most fully Orthodox, as to all Fundamental Faith, yet may want some Essentials of Unity, necessary to the being a Member of the Catholic Church, if such person, or Church shall divide from the Communion thereof, for any lawful Definition made, or practice enjoined, by his Superiors, even in Nonfundamentals. So, the Novatian, and Donatist-Churches perfectly agreeing with the Catholic, as to all Fundamental Faith, yet became non-Catholick, and Schismatics for relinquishing the Communion of the whole, in opposition to some matters not Fundamental, when once defined, and stated by it; the one, for the reception into the Church of great sinners after Baptism, penitent; the other, for non-rebaptizing of Heretics, converted. Therefore of these later, S. Austin saith, 
‖ Ep. 48. — Nobiscum estis in baptismo, in Symbolo, in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis: In spiritu autem unitatis, & in vinculo pacis, in ipsâ denique Catholicâ Ecclesiâ, nobiscum non estis. In Symbolo, & Sacramentis they agreed; but yet, not in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ, because not in Spiritu unitatis, & Vinculo pacis, i. e. not in a due subordination, and subjection, as to some other universal decrees of their Mother, the Catholic Church, in which they were Heretical, and Schismatical (of which see before, §. 18.) To the complete Being and Essence of the Church qua Catholic (than), there is required; not only, that there be unafides, but unum corpus (Eph. 4.4, 5.) under subordinate Governors (verse 11.); not only unitas in Symbolo, & Sacramentis, but it in vinculo patis; as it extends to all obedience, and subjection of Inferiors to their Superiors, of the parts to the Laws, and constitutions of the whole: for want of which later the Donatists, Orthodox as to all Fundamentals, yet are said not to be in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ.  
And these other necessary properties of a true Member of the Church-Catholick, 
§. 60. n. 4.  besides that of a right belief in Fundamentals, are freely also confessed by learned Protestants. which thus, Dr. Field. 
‖ L. 2. c. 2. — This entire profession of the truth revealed in Christ, though it distinguish right Believers from Heretics, yet it is not proper [quarto modo] to the happy number, and blessed company of Catholic Christians, because Schismatics may, and sometimes do, hold an entire profession of the truth of God, revealed in Christ.— And afterwards— The notes (saith he) that perpetually distinguish the true Catholic Church from all other Societies of men, and professions of Religions in the world, are these: First, The entire Profession of those supernatural verities, which God hath revealed in Christ his Son. 2 lie. The use of such holy Ceremonies and Sacraments, as he hath instituted and appointed. 3 . An Union, or connexion of men in this Profession, and use of these Sacraments, under lawful Pastors and Guides, appointed, authorized, and sanctified to direct, and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation. A particular person, or Church therefore, having the two first properties, yet failing in the last, a due union, and connexion with the whole under its lawful Superiors (of which see 2 Disc. §. 24.) wants something necessary to the Being of a Member of the Catholic Church. And see also, l. 1. c. 13. where he denies Schismatics, to be of the Church [i. e. Catholic]; because,— Though they retain an entire profession of the truth of God, as did (saith he) the Luciserians, and some others, in the beginning of their Schism; yet they break the Unity of the Church, and refuse to submit themselves, and yield obedience to their lawful Pastors and Guides: and their Communion, and conjunction with the rest of God's people, is in some things only; and not absolutely in all wherein they have, and aught to have fellowship. Thus Dr. Field, and much what the same you may find in Dr. Ferne 
‖ The Case between two Churches, p. 48.  quoted before in 2 Disc. §. 24. who, on this account, makes Presbyterians, Schismatics. Next see Dr. Hammands Treatise of Schism: where, he makes, * that Unity of the Catholic Church, of which Schism is a breach, to consist,— In the preserving all those Relations, wherein each Member is concerned one towards another, amongst which is that of subordination; the Unity whereof consists in a constant due subjection, and obedience of all inferiors to all their Superiors, etc. 
‖ C. 3. §. 3. — and * the denying this obedience, in any particular lawful command of these Superiors; or the casting off all obedience together, dethroning them, etc. to be Schism. 
‖ C. 3. §. 9  [But this lawful command, and so Schism, in disobeying it, may be in no Fundamental point] Lastly, thus Bishop Branhall; 
‖ Reply to Chalced p. 8.  That all Schism is about Essentials of Religion is a strange paradox! Many Schisms have arisen in the Church about Rites and Ceremonies, about precedency, about Jurisdiction, about Rights, and Liberties of particular Churches, about matters of fact. Obstinacy in a small matter, is enough to make a Schism. From all these I think it is clear; that a separation from the Communion of the Church Catholic, or our lawful Superiors, for any thing true, or lawful, the practice or belief of which is enjoined by her as a condition of her Communion, though this be not in Fundamentals, is Schism, and inconsistent with being a true member of the Catholic Church: learned Protestants consenting.  
And then; to learn, in matters controverted, and doubtful, what is true, and what is lawful, we know to whose judgement, Inferiors, and Subjects are directed to repair: and if they will sit in Moses' chair themselves and judge it, and happen to mistake, I leave them to read their doom in D. Hammonds c. 2. of Schism § 8.— Now, which way soever they turn, [sure to Sin; remaining in Error and Schism on the one side [if they desert upon this judgement, the Church's Communion] and, by flying from that, advancing to lying and Hypocrisy on the other side [i. e. if they externally profess contrary to their persuasion] This (from §. 75.) concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to a departure in the Essentials of Religion.  
§. 61 But the same persons, though they contract Schism thus, in the case of Inferiors; yet in another way they enlarge it, where Catholics do not admit it; namely to the Church Governors themselves. Affirming 1st. ' That they (even in the supremest Body of them, Lawful General Councils) may err in non-fundamentalls; and impose unjust conditions of their Communion, followed with an Excommunication, of non-conformists: And 2 . That, so often as they do so, they, in giving such just cause of separation, incur the guilt of Schism 
‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142. : and thereby do become divided, themselves, from the Communion of the Catholic Church from which they would divide others 
† Stillingfleet P. 356. etc. 359.   
For instance; should a General Council consisting both of the Eastern, and Western Churches, and Generally accepted, §. 62 before the times of Luther require assent to a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist; to the lawfulness of St. invocation; to the Sacrifice of the Mass &c. (as they must grant, that, if both these Churches did not, yet possibly they might, because Protestants say; 1 That the whole may err in nonfundamentals; and 2 That these points are such); they affirm, That thus, the Governors of the whole Christian world would become Schismatical, and no longer members of the Church Catholic [Mr. Stillingfleets words to this purpose are these: 
‖ p. 356.  ' Suppose any Church (though pretending to be never so Catholic) doth restrain her Communion within such narrow, and unjust bounds, that she declares such excommunicate, who do not approve all such errors in doctrine, and corruptions in practice, which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to; i. e. when the errors, and corruptions are such, as are dangerous to Salvation, that Church becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholic Church: and all such who disowne such an unjust enclosure, do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so enclosing; as return to the Communion of the primitive and universal Church. And (p. 359.) he saith, Whatever Church makes such extrinsecall [opposed so essential] things the necessary conditions of Communion, so as to cast men out-of the Church, who yield not to them, thereby divides itself from the Catholic Church; and the separation from it is so far from being Schism, that being cast out of the Church, on those terms only, returns them to the Communion of the Catholic Church; and p. 617. he saith, That he cannot possibly discern any difference between the Judgement of the Catholics concerning the Donatists [which Catholics pronounced them Schismatics, and no members of the Church Catholics] And of the Protestants concerning the Church of Rome. Thus he]  
But here 1st. from this assertion, that that Church, which requires unjust things as conditions of her Communion, doth hereupon divide herself; and so becomes divided, from the Church Catholic, and again: that those are unjust conditions of Communion, which Protestants have styled to be so; It follows. 1st. That, since de facto the present Eastern and Greek, as well as Western and Roman-Churches do require as conditions of their Communion, and even in their public Liturgies, several things, which Protestants call unjust; therefore the Eastern as well as Western according to their thesis must stand divided from the Church Catholic: and therefore now, only the Reformed are that Church Catholic, the perpetual existence of which Church we believe in our Creed. 2 . Since both these Eastern, and Western, required the very same conditions of Communion, as they do now, before Luther's days, it follows; that then they were also, no less than now, Schismatical; and so fall'n from Catholic; (for this, that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions, or some not conform, altars not their guilt, who then imposed such things; or if it do, it seems then the greater, when all do conform, and are misled by them): and upon this again, it follows; that there was then (the Protestant Church not yet born) no Catholic Church at all (contrary to the Articles of our Creed), the whole being involved in Schism, if all then conformed. [Of which conformity the Archbishop saith, 
‖ p. 296.297.  (and Mr. Stillingfleet the same 
‖ p. 618 )— That he that believes, as that Church believed [speaking of the Roman] and so may all those be presumed to believe, that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live, and die in it, is guilty more, or less of the Schism, which that Church first caused by her corruptions, and now continues by them, and her power together, and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief, and of all other sins also, which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into. And afterward— That he, who lives in a Shismatical Church, and communicates with it in the Schism, and in all the Superstitions, and Corruptions, which that Church teacheth, nay lives, and dies in them, if he be of capacity enough, and understand it, he must needs be a formal Schismatic; or an involved one, if he understand it not. Thus he] Or if some (then) did not conform to what these Guides required, yet it follows at least, that there were (then) no known Ecclesiastical Governors, and leaders, no Bishops, in, or of, that Church Catholic, that then was, (for we know of none such, that, in the age before Luther, opposed such a conformity) and, that it was made up of Laics, and Inferiors; i. e. made up only of some Sheep, that were departed, and strangled from their shepherds; or rather the shepherds from them; absurdities, that need be no further aggravated.  
But 2 lie. to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholic in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion (of which see before §. 21. 
§. 63. n. 2. ) And what St. Austin 
‖ Epist. 118.  saith of general Church practices, is as, or more, true of her doctrines— Si quid horum per orbem frequent at [or cred it] Ecclesia, hoc, quin it a faciendum [or credendum] sit disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. 2. Nor, though this should be granted, and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conform, can they thereby become guilty of Schism. For 1 Schism, (I mean, such as separates, and divides from the Catholic Church, can never be of a much major, and more dignified part, in respect of a less, and Inferior, subject to it; i. e. the main body be a Schismatic from some single member thereof: for this main body, in any division, is rightly taken for that whole (see 2 d. Disc. §. 25.); from which a separation is Schism; and to which every member ought to adhere, as to the body, and the head here upon earth to which it belongs. The sin of Schism, I say, is of a member departing from the Body, not of the Body separating, from a member, (or separating a member from it) to which each member ought to conform; otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen; but, on what side the crime of Schism is, cannot, by any certain Index of it, be known; And St. Austin's 
‖ De unitat. Ecclae. c. 4.  mark of Schismatics— Quorum communio non est cum toto, sed in aliquâ parte separatâ, will be fallacious, and nothing worth. Meanwhile it is not here denied, that the dividing of one or several Superiors from an Inferior part, if it be for any thing, wherein such part, not they, doth agree with the whole, may be Schism; but then that, which makes this Schism, is the departure of such Superiors from their Superiors, or from the whole, with which this part coheres; and when any Superior makes any such division from his Subjects, he is no longer their lawful Su●eriour; but that larger body and those Superiors of his, to which his Subjects are joined; and from which he divided. 2 Again, since Schism is always a relinquishing of and departure from, the external, and visible Communion of the Church, these Governors cannot be said to departed from that Communion, which they still retain in the same manner, as formerly, and which is the only visible Communion of the Church, at the time of such excommunication. External members of the Church therefore they still remain, and so no Schismatics; though all the same persons, or many of them, by some other mortal sin, may be, at the same time, no internal members of it.  
3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismatics, or persons divided from the Church-Catholick: 
§. 63. n. 3.  So neither can such Superiors, by imposing some error on men's belief, or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication, be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism, or an actual separation in others, as they are often charged 
‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142. ; unless to be excommunicated be such, for the Church concurs to no other separation. If any, so Excommunicated, doth not quietly submit thereto, and acquiesce therein with patience, but proceed so much further, as to set up, or join himself with, a Communion divers from that of the former Church, which he is expelled from; or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions, which she hath (though wrongfully) suspended, here indeed gins a faulty separation, and a Schism; but by the fault of the excommunicated, not of the Church, that unjustly Excommunicates him; but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal, or discession from it. Had he rested in the place, where the Church left him, the Church had been faulty indeed, he innocent; but on no hand a Schism: and if he will not stay here, but set up an Anti-communion, and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him, here he cannot defend the doing a wrong, because he hath suffered one; or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his, to which no fault of theirs necessitated him. Saepe sinit divina providentia (saith St. Austin 
‖ De verâ Religione, c. 6. ) expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros. Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint, neque ullas novitates, vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint, docebunt homines, quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit etc. Neque ullas novitates, vel Schismatis; Therefore, whilst only an unjust excommunication passed, there is no Schism, as yet. This, that the Church-governors, by an unjust excommunication, do make no external division of themselves from the Church Catholic, nor yet, necessitate any active separation of others.  
4. Lastly, Neither doth it hold, 
§. 63. n 4.  that those Governors do internally divide themselves from the Church Catholic by every such act, whereby they do externally (but not internally) cut off another person innocent from it: Supposing indeed, that after all such Ecclesiastical excision whatever, the two parties can no longer remain members of the same body, this were most true, that he (as being innocent) remaining still a member of Christ's body, they must cease to be so; but so it is, that the Excommunication of an innocent may happen by many accidents, without any fault of the Excommunicators; or, if a fault, no mortal one, and such, as internally separates from the Body of Christ. Thus much be said of the Protestant Notion of Heresy and Schism.   

CHAP. VI  
A Reflection onthe former different Theses, of the two Churches concerning Church-Authority, and the Obedience due thereto. §. 64. And a Review, which of them most resembles the ancient Catholic Church §. 67. The face * of the ancient Catholic Church, Ibid. * Of the present Roman Church, §. 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches, §. 76.  
§. 64 THus much of the chief Differences of the two Churches concerning Church-authority, 
Reflection.  and the obedience due thereto. Where I think the disinterressed, and considerative may clearly see. 1st. That; for that, wherein the Archbishop, and others, have appeared to Catholics not able to extricate themselves [viz. in their maintaining a Church-authority for deciding all Controversies, and suppressing all Sects; and, with it; the liberty of Inferiour's publicly contradicting, and reforming against this authority, whenever in their judgement, thought manifestly erring.] Mr. Stilling fleet's new defence hath no way relieved them, but left their difficulties in their former state.  
§. 65 2ly. That the one, the Catholic way here above mentioned, maintains obedience, and constant submission of private judgements, and so tends effectually to preserving Christian Religion, and Faith still the same, and united, as it descendeth through several ages; but the other maintains liberty of private judgements, and so continually varies, and divides it; That the one builds, and sets up Ecclesiastical authority, and its supreme Tribunals, the Councils; The other, by several ways, goes about to weaken, and frustrate it, and them; whilst it makes Councils Judges, and deciders of Controversies; and then private men Judges, whether the Councils have judged right, or erred in their decisions; and whilst, by ask many questions, and moving many scruples, (some of which I have set down below 
‖ §. 86. etc. ), they * endeavour to make a General lawful obligatory Council, in the former ages, to be a thing very rare, and difficult to be found; or certainly known: [Have Pastors, & Doctors met in Ecumenical Councils in all ages? I wish you could prove a truly Ecumenical Council in any age, saith Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ P. 253. . And— It is evident, we never had a general Council.— And— A General Council is a thing impossible, saith Mr. Whitby 
‖ P. 433. — And— These, and a hundred questions more (saith he), of the persons appointed to call them, of the place, and the like, might be insisted on to show, that General Councils were never instituted by God, for the rule of our Faith.] And, when such Council found, * give them as little comfort, or confidence in it, by their taking much pains, and spending a great part of their Books, to show, and prove the liability of these Councils to error, even in Fundamentals. All which is but the telling an intelligent disinterested person, that neither such Councils, as could heretofore be assembled, have been their friends, nor the future are hoped to be so.  
§. 66 Lastly, they may see, that if the former, the Roman-Catholick, way be taken; all, or most of those Controversies between Catholics, and Protestants have been decided by those Councils, which, before the times of Luther, the whole Western Church (in which the Controversies arose) unanimously accepted, and allowed; (an instance hath been made in the 1st. Disc. (§. 57) touching Transubstantiation.) Or also several of them, by the very public service of the whole Catholic Church; a Service, as universally accepted, as the Councils. But if the later, the Protestant, way be taken, these Controversies must still remain; and the way is open for any particular person, or Church (according to their apprehension of the magnitude of the Church's errors, and of their certainty of this) to raise more, till the end of the world.  
There remain yet two things, that seem necessary to be added, before I conclude the discourse. 1 The one; a brief Survey of the different constitution, and complexion of these two present Churches compared with the ancient, and Primitive; to see which of them more resembles her; and which seems rather to be her true daughter, to whom both pretend as their Mother; that we may not demur to render ourselves wholly to her conduct, on whom we perceive to have descended the vigour, spirit, and authority of the ancient Church. 1 The other, a removal of, and vindication of her from, those many objections, and Articles, that are drawn up against her, why she cannot afford, to any, that certain direction, and salvifical security, which they expect from her.  
For the perfect discovery then of the former of these, 1st. If we look back 1 To the Scriptures; §. 67 and 2 To the Primitive times (to discern if we can from thence, 
A Review of the two present opposite Churches; which most resembles the ancient Catholic.  in this present division of Churches, which of them rather have the true notes, and marks of the Church-Catholick), We find the Evangelical Church, described in the one, and acting in the other, with very great Authority, and most sacred Majesty.  
Of his Evangelical Successors, that He left behind him, our Lord pronounceth— He that heareth you, 
1. The face of the Ancient Catholic Church.  heareth me Luk. 10.16. and— If any man heareth you not [in matters of controversy brought before you] let him be, as a Heathen, and a Publican, Matt. 18.17.  
Of these he declares— Quae ligaverities, & solveritis super terram, erunt ligata etc. & in caelo. Matt. 18.18.— And— Quorum peccata solveritis, aut retinueritis, remittentur etc. Jo. 20.23. Of this Church it is said; That it shall be * a City placed on a hill, and a candle put on a Candlestick, and not covered under a Bushel Matt. 5. * The pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3.15. And the foundation of God, which standeth ever sure 2. Tim. 2.19. * An uniform Building raised upon its corner stone Christ. Ephes. 2.21. And, * a Body, with joints, and ligaments, deriving nourishment one from another, firmly knit together, under its Head, Christ, Col. 2.19. * A Government constituted by God, founded, and compacted [in a due subordination] to keep all its members in the unity of Faith, from being tossed too, and fro, with several Doctrines, Eph. 4.11, 13, 14, 16.— And, * perpetually to the world's end, assisted with the Paraclet sent from our ascended Lord, to give them into all truth, Jo. 14.16, 26. * which Governors who so resisteth, is in this rendered self-condemned, Tit. 3.11. Lastly, * S. Peter entitled to some special presidence over this whole Church by those Texts,— Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, Mat. 16.— and— Rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua: Tu confirma fratres, Luk. 12.2.32.— and— Pass oves meas, Jo. 21.10. compared with Gal. 2.7. Where thus S. Paul,— The Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed to me; as to Peter (saith he, relating to the Pasce in S. John) was committed the Gospel of the Circumcision: where it is observable also; that, then, was the Circumcision the whole flock of Christ, when it was committed to Peter: St. Peter's Commission over Christ's sheep being ordinary, given by our Lord here on Earth, (who also had the honour of the first converting and admitting of the Gentiles into this fold 
‖ Act. 10. 34-11 2-15. 7. ); St. Pawles over the Gentiles, extraordinary, given by our Lord from Heaven 
‖ Act. 9. 6.-22.17.21. . And this Commission manifested to the Apostles by a supereminent Grace of converting Souls, and of Miracles, that was bestowed upon him, (Gal. 2.8.9.) Like to that more eminently given to St. Peter; as may be seen in Act. 9.40. and 20.10.— Act. 5.15 and 19.12.— 5.5. and 13. 11-2.41.4.4. and Rom. 15, 17, 18, 19 compared. And that, which is said Gal. 2. That the Apostles saw the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to Peter, argues, they saw it committed to Peter in some such special or superintendent manner, as not also to them.  
§. 68 Again; If we look upon the constitution, and temper, and manner of practice, of this Church, in the primitive times.  
From the very first we find it acting (as St. Paul directed Archbishop Titus c. 2.15) Cum omni imperio: ut nemo contemnat; Severely ejecting, and delivering to Satan, after some admonition, those that were heterodox, and heretical. 
‖ 1 Tim. 1.20. Th. 3. 11.-1.11.  In matter of controversy, a Council called, and the stile of it, Visum est Spiritui Sancto, & nobis, and— Nobis collectis in unum: 
‖ Act. 15.25.28  And if here it be said, that the infallible Apostles had some hand therein; yet if we look lower, we find still the same authority maintained, and exercised by the Catholic Church of latter ages; and especially by that of the 4 th'. age; when, flourshing under the patronage of the secular power (now become Christian) if fully enjoyed (as also the present doth in these Western parts) the free exercise of its Laws, and Discipline.  
§. 69 In all these times then 1st. We find the unquestioned Church Catholic of those days firmly joined with, and adhering to, that, which was then ordinarily styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the See Apostolic and St. Peter's chair, and with the Bishop called his Successor; as if Matt. 16.18. and Luke. 22.23. were a prophecy thereof: though some other of the greatest Patriarches stood not so firm, but that the Catholic Church in those days relinquished, and cut them off. We find the same Church, when any opposition of its Doctrines happened, (as it was, then, exercised with the highest controversies that ever troubled the Church), taking very much authority upon itself; assembling itself in a General Body; making new definitions, as necessity required; anathematising all dissenters; inserting (as it saw meet, for the more explicit knowledge of them by all its subjects) some of its decisions in the Church's Creeds; which were by it much enlarged, from what they were formerly We find it declaring this also in the Creed concerning itself, and enjoining it to be believed by all Christians, that the Catholic Church continues always Holy; Apostolical [preserving their Rules, Traditions, and Doctrines]; and One, [indivisa in se: united in its saith and Communion; and divisa ab omnibus aliis; distinct from all others, whom she declares Heretical, or Schismatical.]  
§. 70 2. Again: we find it, by such definitions put in the Creed, and Belief of them exacted, sufficiently declaring also; 
2.  that it held itself to be (I say not; proving that it was: against which only, perhaps misunderstanding his adversary, Mr. Stillingfleet disputes 
‖ p. 558. ) infallible, or actually unerring in them.  
[Thus much is clear, I say, concerning the Catholic Church, and her General Councils of those times; that they held themselves infallible in the things they defined; and, if the testimony, and veracity of the Catholic Church (or her united Governors) in what she then professed, (as of other things, so) of herself, can obtain no belief with some protestants, either from the witness, that Church-Tradition, (grounded at first on miracles), or that the Scriptures, or some other sufficient evidence in point of reason 
‖ See before §. 8.  which Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ p. 559.  is contented with, giveth to it; (of which see below, §. 87. etc.) Yet Protestant's must grant, that the present Catholic Church (which or where ever it is) should it profess itself infallible, errs now only the same error, which the ancient Church-Catholick did, before it. And, if here it be thought, that this may qualify some thing concerning the former Church, that by this way it declared not itself infallible, universally, but only, in those things it defined; so I say, neither doth the Church-Catholick of the present age profess herself infallible, save in her Definitions: Nor requires she of her definitions any other belief, than the ancient Church did of hers. Nor matters it, whether this certainty of the truth of her definitions ariseth from the evidence of the former Revelation, and Tradition of such points defined; or from our Lords promise, that in her definitions she shall not err. See before, §. 10.] To proceed.  
§. 71 3. We find it, * declaring those Heretics, who opposed any of those definitions, and expelling them from the Catholic Communion; most strict, by Synodical and Communicatory Letters, in preserving, in all points once defined, the Unity of the Catholic Faith; and most carefully separating from any person suspected of any Heterodoxness, or division from it. * Proceeding in its censures, not only against some private persons, but against Churches, against Bishops, against Patriarches themselves; yet such, as then also failed not to pretend a dutiful continuance in the Faith of former ages; and appealed to the former (short) Creeds, and Confessions of Faith. Such authority the Church, Fallible, or infallible, then presumed to use; cum omni imperio, and punishing all contempt.  
§. 72 If we look, next, on the two present Bodies, or combinations of Churches, that flourish at this day in that part of the world, 
2. The Face of the present Roman Church.  where Christian Religion now (as anciently) enjoys its freedom, to see, which of them resembles the constitution, aspect, and manners, of the ancient Catholic Church; we find them of a very different temper, proportion, and pretensions. One of them by much the greatest, and, through the Universe, most dilated, Body, and Communion that is in Christianity; I mean such, as is united in the same Government, Laws, Faith, and Discipline, with a certain subordination of all the Members and Officers thereof one under Ecclesiastical Head. So that if we suppose the Church-Catholick (where are many divided Christian Societies, or confederacies separated from one another in their Communion,) to be but one, (unanimous Body), of them (concerning which see 2 Disc. §. 26. n. 1.— §. 27. n. 3.); and it again to be, for universality, the greatest of those bodies; this must be it. And again, if we suppose a General Council assembled of all these, its votes would have the predominancy over any of the rest, taken a part; and, in any conjunction of them all in such a meeting, it may reasonably be imagined, from the agreement, which the most considerable of the other Churches have with it in most of the Western Controversies, that, in voting them, its party would be increased sooner, than any other.  
§. 73 Again: This great Body also, we find, hath continued, to this day, united to, and joined with, the See Apostolic, and Chair of S. Peter, like that Church-Catholick, in the Primitive times. And we find it using its authority still after the same manner, as (then) did the true Catholic Church: still, pretending itself (upon our Saviour's promises) in its supreme Councils, joined with the authority of the same Chair, a certain and infallible Guide in the determination of all necessary Faith; to whom all its Subjects own not only silence, but submission of judgement, and belief. We find it, from time to time (as the ancient Church), when any new Controversies, Opinions, and Sects arise any way dangerous, making new definitions, and more explications of the Catholic Faith; and enlarging from age to age (for which also its adversaries complain of it) the particular, and explicit knowledge, and profession thereof amongst her Children, as the Heterodox grow more particular, and multiplicious, in those errors, that would any way undermine it: as also anciently the Nicene Creed was thought a necessary supply to the Apostolic; and again, the larger (Athanasian) to the Nicene, Creed. And these her definitions, now, as then, she passeth under Anathema to opposers, or dissenters; declares Heretics, still, (as they were esteemed anciently) such, as oppose them; because such, after them, judged to be (now) wilfully, and contumaciously erring; and Schismatics, such as departed, on what cause soever, from her Communion; as vindicating to herself (compounded, in her supreme representative, of all those particular Churches, that remain undivided from S. Peter's Chair) the true Title, and right of the Catholic Church.  
§. 74 Again; upon the same grounds, and as authorised immediately by our Lord, we find her holding herself obliged, and taking upon her, to give, and promulgate her Laws, in matters clearly Spiritual, and Divine, (secular powers, whether favouring, or frowning), to all her Subjects, however dispersed in several temporal Dominions; presuming still (and thinking, great reason for it) to use as much spiritual authority in their States, when Princes a e become Christian and her Sons, as all grant her lawfully to have done, when they were yet heathen, and her Enemies. We find her also pressing this obedience to her Decrees on her Children, not * from promising (as S. Austin 
‖ De utilit. Credendi, c. 1.  saith, the Manichees anciently did: which was the occasion of his writing his book De utilitate Credendi [Ecclesiae] before that the things, we believe, are proved to us,) evident proofs, or demonstrations (though these are not wanting), but * from her authority, and commission received from our Lord, to decide all controversies, she thinks, necessary; and * from the traditive sense of holy Scripture delivered to her from her Forefathers. And so also it is, in this Church; that her subjects, as soon as any thing is cleared to them to be the Church's doctrine, dispute it no farther, but presently resign their judgement thereto.  
And, 
§. 75. n. 1.  as we find it publishing with great authority its Laws to all its Subjects, and Members, where ever residing: So also, by our Lord's order (Mat 28.19.); diligently sending forth its Missions into all quarters of the world, amongst strangers, and those out of its fold, whether Infidels or Heretics, for converting, or reducing them to the Christian, and Catholic Faith. And to this Body, and that since the time of Gregory the First, (when also it was much-what the same, as it is now) do most of the Northern Nations own their Conversion to Christianity; and at that time our Ancestors, among the rest, under Ethelbert, and his Successors, received that Roman Profession of Religion, which (900. years after) under Edward the Sixth, they cast off. And by the same indefatigable Zeal, Labours, and Sufferings of its Missioners, are still those great conversions of Mahometans, and Heathens made both in the West, and East-Indies, and Southern parts of Africa: (not to insist here on the late reduction of some of the Christian Sects also of the Northern and Eastern parts to the Roman Communion.) [Where, in calling to mind God's gracious promises, of the Gospel to be preached to all Nations 
‖ Mat. 24.14. Mark. 13.10. ; and, the fullness of the Gentiles, to be brought into his Fold 
† Rom. 11.  (which we see both heretofore, and at the present, to be effected solely, or principally by this Body, through great hazards, and much expense of its blood), I desire all sober persons to consider; whether the good God, having thus promised to the Nations Bread, * would give them, instead thereof, but a Stone? and having promised them the Revelation of his Truth; yet * would not send it to them, but abased, and mixed with a manifold Idolatry (as Protestants imagine); the worshipping of dead men, and of a breaden God; and these brought in amongst them by Antichrist himself (if the Head of these Missioners, the Pope, be so); thus only Satan fight against Satan; and Popery against Heathenism; * would not, I say, communicate unto them these waters of life to drink of, unless mortified, as it were 1 saint. with several errors, (as the Protestants say), gross, damnable, and perilous to their Salvation, and from which the external Communion of all true Believers ought to separate. And again, the end of the world, and, (as the Protestants say), of the reign of Antichrist (whom they count now above 1000 years old, his full age being foretold to be 1260.) being now not far off; I desire him (next) to consider; * whether that, which is said to be, instead of the Roman, the most pure, and Orthodox Religion, (recovered by Luther), and to which therefore these Nations, (if not already) must be at last converted; whether it, I say, now after a 150 years' continuance, hath made any progress suitable to such an effect, as is the reducing of all Nations to its Profession; or rather, whether, after it had made a sudden increase at 1 saint. (as new things take most; and infancy grows fastest), it doth not seem already long ago to be past its full growth, and now rather declining, and withering, and losing ground in many places, where it was formerly well rooted; whilst that Antichrist which it promiseth to destroy, acquires more strength and daily enlargeth his Dominions; to which I may add * whether, since protestancy is divided into so many Sects, severed under so many, differing, secular Heads, the Nations at length converted by them, if they should be brought by some to the purity, yet would not still in general want the Unity, of the Christian Faith. But to return.]  
All this authority we find one present Body using now, as the Catholic Church did anciently: and, among other things, this Body also entitling itself the present Catholic Church. So that if there be a Catholic Church still, which stands invested with that authority, that our Lord bestowed on it; and which the former Church practised; then, seeing that all other Christian societies do renounce and not pretend at all to such an authority; [I mean, the requiring from their Subjects an assent and submission of judgement to their decrees, as infallible in all necessary faith; declaring Heretics those that oppose their Doctrines, and Schismatics, that relinquish their Communion], and question this other Church also for using it; it follows, that either this must be the sole Church-Catholick that thus bears witness to itself, that it is so; or, that what ever Church besides pretends itself Catholic, doth not exercise, or own, that just power, and those privileges, with which our Lord hath endowed it.  
We find further this present Church very vigilant, and zealous in vindicating the honour, and authority, the customs, the decrees of former Church; and pretending (what ever in truth it doth) most strictly to follow its footsteps; extolling the Fathers; numbering, allowing, and challenging the Councils, as if it thought them most advantageous on its side; and carrying its self to this old Mother with such expressions of affection, as if it only were her true daughter. Therefore conjoining the tradition of former Church interpreting Scripture, together with the Text thereof, for the steady guide of its proceed, in establishing truth, and convincing Heresies: And professing to handle things controverted, 
‖ Concil. Trident Sess. 18. Salu. Conduct.  Secundum sacram Scripturam, Apostolorum traditiones, probata Concilia, Ecclesiae Catholicae consensum, & sanctorum Patrum authoritates We find it with the same Zeal, celebrating an honourable Memory of the Fathers, ancient Martyrs, Confessors, and Doctors in its public Liturgies; inserting, therein, both their Traditionary Comments on the Text of Scripture, and an abridgement of their holy Lives; there praising God, for their pious Examples, and provoking her present children to an emulation of their virtues, (whilst another Party, in its pretending a Reformation to the Doctrine and Manners of the Primitive Church; yet in its new Service, expunged both the Lections taken out of these Fathers, and the Narrative of their Lives.)  
We find it * retaining the same public service of the Mass, with the Catholic Church of former ages (as its adversaries confess 
‖ D●. Field, p. 188.— Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 2. de Canone Missae. ) for this 1000 years (i.e. from the times of S. Gregory), if not without some small additions of something new, yet without change of what was the former: And * much resembling the visage of the ancient Church (especially that after Constantine, when by the more copious Writings, of those flourishing times, we come better to discern that Church's complexion) in its Altars, and a quotidian Sacrifice, in its frequency of public, Assemblies and Devotions: Solemn observance of Feasts, Vigils, and Fasts: Gravity, and Magnificence of its Ceremonies: In its pretention of Miracles, and extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit, in several of its Members: in its high Veneration of the Celestial Favourites, who stand in the presence of God, and daily Communication, by Commemorating the Saints departed, with the Church triumphant; and in the honour done to their Holy Relics; in its charitable Offices performed for those other more imperfect faithful Souls, whose condition in the next world it conceives betterable by its prayers and oblations: In its distinction of sins, and use of its keys toward greater offenders: In retirements from the world, for a nearer converse with God, and the freer exercise of Meditation and Devotion: In its variety of Religious Orders, Votaries, and Fraternities: In its advancing the observance of the Evangelical Councils; its high esteem * of voluntary poverty, (i. e. relinquishing all particular propriety, and enjoying only necessaries in Common); * of virginity and continency; and * of yielding an undisputing obedience (in licitis) to all the Laws and commands of a Superior: In the single lives, and sequestration from worldly encumbrances, of its Clergy; obliged to a daily task of long Devotions, and purity of conscience, and corporal abstinence, suitable to their attendance on the Altar, and there daily, or very frequently, offering the Commemorative Sacrifice of our Lords all satisfactory Passion, and comunicating his most precious Body and Blood: In the like relations, with those of all past ages, concerning the eminent virtue shining in, and divine favours bestowed on, those holy persons, who have lived in its Communion; their great austerities and mortifications, Exstafies, Visions, Predictions, Miracles, etc. [Which stories, if they be all supposed lies, and fictions, and hypocrisies, (all I say, or most of them, for that some counterfeits will mingle themselves among truth, there is no question), yet such lies are also found in all ages, even from the Apostolical Times; nor is the present age more guilty of them, than the precedent (as may be seen by comparing the Stories related by S. Austin 
‖ De Civ. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. , the Saints lives written by S. Jerome, Gregory Nyssen, Theodoret, Severus, Paulinus, Palladius, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Tours, Bede, Bonaventure, Bernard, and other ancient Authors, with the modern); whilst all other Religions, meanwhile, have such a disparity to antiquity, that in them no such things are, at least, feigned. But indeed, did not many of these Stories contain a certain truth, it cannot be imagined, that so many persons reputed of great Sanctity and Devotion, and several of them contemporary to those, whose lives they recorded, should have written them with so full a testimony to many things, not as heard of others, but seen by themselves.] Of the Roman Church, and its adherents, So persevering in the steps of Antiquity thus Grotius, in the Preface to his Votum pro Pace, giving account there of his studies, in reading the Fathers.— Collegi (saith he) quae essent illa, quae veterum testimonio & manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis, semper & ubique & perseveranter essent tradita: Videbam ea manere in illâ Ecclesiâ, quae Romanae connectitur.  
Lastly, we find it a Body generally professing against any Reformation of the Doctrines of the former Church-Catholick, of any age whatsoever; and claiming no privilege of Infallibility to itself for the present, which it allows not also to the Church, in all former times. This is the general Character of one Combination of the Churches in present being.  
The other present Combination of Churches in the Western. World, 
§. 76. The Face of the present Protestant Church.  we find to be a Body of much different Constitution and Complexion. * Much of its Doctrine, Public Service, and Discipline confessed varying from the times immediately preceding: It consisting of those who acknowledge themselves, or their Ancestors, once members of the former, and that have (as they say, upon an unjust submission required of them, yet this no more, than their forefathers paid) departed from it; * This new Church only one person at the first; afterward growing to a number; and protected against the Spiritual, by a secular, power: and so we find it subsisting, and acting, at this day, under many several Secular Heads, Independent of one another; without whose consent, and approbation first obtained (what if such head should be an Heretic?) It stands obliged, not at any time to make, or promulgate, and enforce upon its Subjects, any definitions, or decrees what ever in Spiritual matters. 
‖ See 25. Hent. 8. c. 19  As to its Ecclesiastical Governors; we find it taking away the higher subordinations therein, that were formerly; and affirming an Independent Coordination, (as to incurring guilt of Schism,) some of all Primates; others, of all Bishops; very prejudical to the Unity of Faith. We find it standing also disunited from St. Peter's Chair: yet this a much smaller Body still, than that which is joined thereto: and therefore in a General Council, (supposing all the members thereof to continue in, and to deliver there, their present judgements touching points in dispute) such, as must needs be out- voted by the other: and hence, by the Laws of Councils, in duty obliged to submit, and conform to it. Neither seems there any relief to this party, to be expected from the accession to their side of any votes from the Churches more remote (I mean the Greek, or other Eastern Churches) if we will suppose these also to persist in their present judgement; whose Doctrine, in the chief controversies, is showed 
‖ §. 158. etc.  to conspire (yet without any late confederacy) with that of this greater Body, which these reformed Churches have deserted.  
§. 77 We find also this new Combination of Churches, in stead of pretending to assume to itself (Whatsoever the facto it doth, of which see more in the following Chap. §. 83. etc.) in its Synods the same authority in stating matters of Faith, which the ancient Councils have used, 1. zealously contending, that Councils are fallible in their determinations (for so it supports the privilege of using its own judgement against superior Synods); 2. and, accordingly, teaching its Subjects, that itself also is fallible in what it proposeth; 3 and engaging them (that they may not be deceived by its authority) upon trial of its Doctrines, and search of the Truth, and examining, with the judgement of discretion, every one for himself, and then relying finally on that sentence, which their own reason gives: 4. allowing also their dissent to what it teacheth, till it proves to them its Doctrine out of the Scripture; or at least, when ever they are persuaded, that themselves, from thence, can evidence the contrary. Therefore it is also more sparing (or pretends to be so, of which see more below §. 85. etc.) in the articles of its faith, and Religion; especially positive; many of its Divines holding an union of Faith requisite only in some necessaries; and then contracting necessaries again in a narrower compass than the Creeds; and because it allows of no judge sufficient to clear what is to be held in controversies 
‖ See 2. Disc. §. 38. , therefore holding most controversies in Religion not necessary at all to be determined: and much recommending an Union of Charity there, where cannot be had an Union of Belief.  
We find them also restraining Heresy to points fundamental; and then leaving fundamentals uncertain, and varying, as to several persons; fewer points fundamental to some, more to others; and this no way knowable by the Church. Again, making Schism only such a departure from the Church as is causeless; and then this thing, when causeless, to be judged (for any thing that appears) by those, who depart; by such notions, leaving Heretics, and Schismatics undiscernible by the Catholic Church, and unseparable from it; and therefore many seeming to understand the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church in the Creed, to signify nothing else, than the total complex of all Churches whatever professing Christianity; unless those persons be shut out, who, by imposing some restraint of opinion for enjoying their Communion, are said to give just cause of a separation.  
Accordingly, we find this Body spreading its lap wide to several Sects (by which it acquires the more considerable magnitude;) and receiving, or tolerating in its communion many opposite parties of very different Principles; and hence, as it grows elder, so daily branching more and more into diversity of Opinions, and multiplying into more and more subdivisions of Sects; being destitute of any cure thereof, both by its necessary indulgement of that called Christian liberty, and allowance of private judgement; and also, by the absolute Independency, one on another, of so many several supreme Governors, both the Secular and the Ecclesiastical; who model and order, diversely, the several parts thereof: (As the other Church, in her growing elder, grows more and more particular in her Faith; and with new definitions, and Canons, fenceth it round about, according as new errors would break in upon it.)  
Further, we find several amongst its Leaders much offended, 
§. 78. n. 1.  that Church-Tradition should be brought in, together with Scripture, as an authentic witness, or Arbitrator, in trying Controversies. (See the Protestants Conditions proposed to the Council of Trent 
‖ Soave p. 642-344. 366. ; that the Holy Scripture might be Judge in the Council, and all humane authority excluded, or admitted with a condition: Fundantes see in S. Scriptures:) taking great pains, to * discover the errors of the Fathers, and their contradicting of one another; (See Daille's uray usage de Peres;) and * to show several of the works imputed to them, and admitted by R. Catholics supposititious, and forged; (See Cooks, and Perkins, and Rivets Censures.) Taking no less pains, to show the non necessity of Councils in General; to number the many difficulties, how to be assured which of them are legal and obliging; what their Decrees, and what the sense of them; to discover the flaws & deficiencies in most of the former Councils, (defended by R. Catholics) as to their calling, or their number, or freedom of Votes, etc. (scarce any latter Council remaining unaspersed,) so to disenable their authority from obliging the Church's subjects; & accordingly renouncing the authority of those, which have been held in the time of their Ancestors, save only of some of the 1st. contending also, corruptions and superstitions, and Antichristianism, to have entered into the Church in the very first times; but more especially, in the fourth and fifth ages, when the copious Writings of many Learned Prelates make more evidently appear the sense of the Church: yet, especially the latter Protestant-Writers, not unusually, in particular Controversies disputed, pleading, these Fathers, and Antiquity (the credit whereof in general is so much disparaged) to go on their side.  
Lastly, 
§. 78. n. 2.  It seems very much swerved from the pattern of Antiquity in most of those things, wherein the other Body hath been said to resemble it. Especially in these. The high esteem, frequentation, various uses of the precious Sacrifice of the Altar, frequency of Church Devotions, solemn observance of Feasts and Fasts; The Honour and solemn Commemorations of Glorified Saints and Martyrs; and remembrance at God's Altar, of the other Faithful deceased; the practice, and recommendation of the three Monastic Vows, and other Councils of perfection: The distinction of sins, and painful Discipline of Penitents: and a sovereign and independent Church-Authority (I mean as to true, unquestionable, Spirituals.) Therefore also, (perhaps, that God might leave to Posterity as it were a standing mark, and forewarning of the novelty of the Reformed Religion, and spirit;) we find the two first grand Leaders thereof, Luther and Calvin (as if they thought to add the more reputation to their new discoveries of truth, by having no former certain Guides therein, after the Apostles) to have proceeded, at the first, much more unwarily, than some of their Successors have done, in slighting Councils, and undervaluing Antiquity, and freely confessing the ancient, as well as latter, times to be of a different judgement from them. Of which to give you a more clear evidence, I have collected several of their more free expressions, used in those days, which if a matter already well known to you, you may pass on to §. 79.  
[Thus than Luther, concerning the Fathers, 
§. 78. n. 3.  in the conclusion of his Book contra Regem Angliae— Non ego quaero (saith he), quid Ambrose, Augustinus, Concilia, & usus seculorum dicunt— Miranda est stultitia Satanae, quae iis me impugnat, quae ipse impugno; & perpetuo Principium petit— Pro libertate ego pugno, Rex pro captivitate pugnat, [Captivitate, in submitting to the Fathers]. In assertione Articul— Jam quanti errores in omnium Patrum Scriptis inventisunt? Quoties sibiipsis pugnant? Quis est; qui non saepius Scripturas torferit: And (in the beginning)— Primos scire contestatosque illos volo; me prorsus nullius, quantumlibet Sancti; Patris authoritate cogi velle, nisi quatenus judicio divinae Scripturae [i. e. of his own sense of it] Fuerit probata; id, quod scio illos vehementer aegre laturos; dicuntque non esse Scripturas sacras proprio Spiritu interpretandas— And— Curio non liceat hodie, aut solum aut primum, Sacris litteris studere, sicut licuit primitivae Ecclesiae. [as if nothing descended by Tradition]. In his protestation before his Book de Abrogatione Miss— Protestor imprimis (saith he) adversus eos, qui insanis vocibus in me sunt clamaturi; quod contra ritum Ecclefiae, contra statuta Patrum, contra probatas legendas, & receptissimum usum docuerim, horum nihil me auditurum— Sciant indocti Pontifices, impii Sacerdotes, Sacrilegi Monanchae &c, nos non esse baptizatos, neque credentes in nomine Augustini, Bernardi, Gregorii, etc.— Non audimus; Bernardus sic vixit, & scripsit; sed Bernardus sic vivere, & scribere debuit juxta scripturas. Concerning the Mass— ‛ Vltimo dicta Patrum inducit rex pro Missario Sacrificio, & ridet meam stultitiam, quod solus velim sapere prae omnibus. Hoc est quod dixi; Thomisticos Asinos habere nihil, quod producant, nisimultitudinem hominum, & usum antiquum. And, in Captivitate Babilonica, heresolues— Si nihil habetur quod dicatur [i. e. in answer to the Fathers], satius est omnia negasse, quam Missam Sacrificium esse, concedere. And on the same matter, in Missa privata— Hic non moramur (saith he) si clamitent Papistae, Ecclesia, Ecclesia, Patres, Patres; quia ut dixi hominum dicta, aut facta, nihil in ta'en magnis causis curamus; Scimus enim ipsos Prophetas lapsos esse, adeoque Apostolos etc. And the Fathers put together, i.e. the Councils, far no better— ‛ Ego doceo (saith he 
‖ Assertion Art. ) Conciliis dissentire, & resistere, si quando contraria Scripturae [he must mean here, contrary to what he apprehends to be the sense of Scripture] statuunt. And in his Book de Judicio Ecclesiae de quavis, doctrina, he saith— ‛ Christus adimit Episcopis, Doctoribus, & Conciliis tum jus, tum potest●tem judicandi de Doctrina, ac tradit illa omnibus Christianis in Genere; quoting for it Jo. 10.4.— Oves meae vocem meam audiunt, alienum autem non sequuntur, sed fugiunt etc. and 1 Thes. 5. Omnia probates. So, contra Regem Angliae, On,— ‛ Attendite a falsis Prophetis Matt. 17.15.— Haec sola authoritas (saith he) satis esse queat adversus omnium Pontificum, omnium Patrum, omnium Conciliorum, omnium Scholarum sententias, quae jus judicandi, & discernendisolis Episcopis, & Ministris tribuerunt. And, in the distractions of the new Reformation, some motioning a Synod to be called amongst them, as necessary for settling them, he gives his grave judgement of Synods thus 
‖ Tom. 2. p. 243. — ‛ Quantumvis bono zelo tentata, est res mali Exempli; ut probant omnia Ecclesiae concilia ab initio [so far, as not to spare that of the Apostles, Act. 15.], Ita ut & in Apostolic concilio ferme de operibus, & Traditionibus, magis quam de fide, sit tractatum; in posterioribus vero nunquam de fide, sed semper de opinionibus, & questionibus disputatum; ut mihi conciliorum nomen paene tam suspectum, & invisum sit, quam nomen liberi Arbitii, Lastly, the 3d. Canon of the Council of Nice prohibiting the Clergy, ne haberent secum [in their house] mulierem extraneam nisi forte sit mater aut soror, aut avia aut avita out matertera; he saith 
‖ De conciliis — Se non intelligere sanctum spiritum in hoc Concilio.— And again— An vero nihil alind est negotii spiritui sancto in conciliis, quam ut impossibilibus, periculosis, non necessariis, legibus suos ministros obstring at, & oneret. I beseech all sober Christians to consider, whether this seems a fit, and well seasoned vessel, for God to infuse into it those new Evangelical Truths, which had been hid to so many former generations; and whether he speaks like a true genuine Son of the ancient Church.  
Neither, 
§. 78. n. 4.  after him, will he find Calvin of any different temper, who pleaseth, for his satisfaction, to peruse those many places in his Institutions, wherein he so freely censures Antiquity. There 
‖ jastit. 4. l. 18. c. 11. §.  Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass— ‛ Quia veteres quoque illos (saith he) video alio hanc memoriam [i. e. sacrificii in cruse peracti] detorcisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat (quod, nescio quam repetitae, aut saltem renovatae, immolationis faciem eorum caena prae se ferebat) [a thing objected still to the present, as, to the ancient Church,] Nihil tutius piis pectoribus fuerit, quam in purâ, simplicique Dei ordinatione acquiescere— Again— Excusari [veteres] non posse arbitror, quin aliquid in actionis modo peceaverint: Imitati sunt enim propius Judacum sacrificandi modum, quàm out ordinaverit Christus, aut Evangelii ratio ferebat— In quâ merito eos quis redarguat, quod non contenti simplici & germanâ Christi institutione ad legis umbras nimis doflexerunt [see much more in Beza, Epist. 8.] About the manner of consecration of the Elements, and the reposition or reservation of the Sacrament to be ready at any time for communicating the sick, (which, being reserved only in one kind, infers likewise ancient communicating the sick only in one kind).— Sedenim (saith he 
‖ L. 4. c. 17. §. 39 ) qui sic faciunt, habent veteris Ecclesiae Exemplum. Fateor. Verum in re tantâ, & in quâ non sine magno periculo erratur, nihil tutins est, quàm ipsam veritatem sequi. Concerning prayer for the Dead. 
‖ L. 3. c. 5. §. 10.  At vetustissima fuit Ecclesiae observatio— Cum mihi objiciunt adversarii ante mille, & trecentos annos receptum fuisse: Eos rursus interrogo, quo Dei verbo, quâ revelatione, quo exemplo, factum est? Calling there S. Monica's request to S. Austin 
‖ Augustin, Confess. 9 c. 11. , to be remembered at the Altar, anile votum. Concerning penances and satisfactions, (the imposing a necessity of which penances, by antiquity, upon secret criminous Offenders, infers also a necessity,) to such Offenders, of Sacerdotal confession 
‖ L. 3. c. 3. §. 16. — Plus aequo certe insistere in his mihi videntur [vetusti Scriptores]— And— In exigendis castigationibus fuerunt aliquanto rigidiores, quàm ferat Ecclesiastica mansuetudo.— And 
‖ L. 4. c 12. §. 8. — Quâ in parte excusari nullo modo potest immodicà vederum austeritas, quae & prorsus a Domini praescripto dissidebat, etc.— And 
‖ L. 3. c. 4. §. 38. — Parum me movent, quae in veterum scriptis de satisfactione passim occurrunt. Video quidem eorum nonnullos, dicam simpliciter, omnes fere, quorum libri exstant, aut hac in parte lapsos esse, aut nimis aspere ac dure locutos.  
Concerning Monastic vows, and life 
‖ L. 4. c. 13. §. 16. — Non dissimulo, vel in illâ, quam Augustinus commendat, priscâ formâ esse nonnihil, quod parum mihi placeat— Christianae mansuetudinis non est, quasi odio humani Generis, in desertum & solitudinem confugere— Exemplum inutile, & periculosum, in Ecclesiam induxit. Concerning the vow of Continency, and Celibacy of the Clergy 
‖ L. 4. c. 13. §. 17. — Fateor antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hunc morem; sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo, ut pro regulâ habendum sit, quiequid tunc factum est.— And 
‖ L. 4. c. 12. §. 27. — Secuta sunt deinde tempora [i. e. post Nicaenam Synodum], quibus invaluit nimis superstitiosa caelibatus admiratio— Hinc illi Canon's, quibus primo vetitum est, ne matrimonium contraherent, qui pervenissent ad Sacerdotii gradum: deinde, ne in eum ordinem assumerentur nisi caelibes, aut qui thoro conjugali, unà cum uxoribus, renunciarent. Concerning free will 
‖ L. 2. c. 2. §. 4. — Inter Scriptores Ecclesiasticos [i. e. veteres]— multi longe plus aequo Philosophis accesserunt. Concerning authority of Councils 
‖ L. 4. c. 9 §. 8. — Quoties alicujus Concilii decretum profertur— velim illud ipsum de quo agitur ad Scripturae am ussim examinari.— And 
‖ §. 12. — Nulla conciliorum, Pastorum, Episcoporum nomina (quae tàm falso obtendi, quàm usurpari possunt) nos impediant, quo minus, & verborum, & rerum documentis moniti, omnes omnium spiritus, ad divini verbi regulam; exigamus [i.e. one's own interpretation of it]— And 
‖ §. 8. — In recentionibus Conciliis, dum numerantur, non appenduntur sententiae, meliorem part●m a majore vinci saepius necesse fuit. Much more might be added out of these two, the most famed, Reformers: And he that would look further, let him pass on to the Centurists, viewing their then free and candid Confessions, concerning the Lapses of the fourth age (i. e. the first, wherein Christian Religion flourished, and shown her face more openly,) and so downward, as if they added so much more credit to the Reformation, by how much more ancient they shown those errors, or corruptions, to have been, which it encountered and overthrew. But this, I have here set down, I think, is sufficient, that by the complexion, and temper of these two chief Authors of the Reformation you may discern what blood runneth in the veins of their posterity, whatever Alliance to antiquity is professed: and may see, whether their followers in the same Doctrine, can any way justly own that antiquity for it, that these Predecessors disclaimed.]  
§. 79 This appears to me much-what the face of the two present Churches: the latter of which, because I may be thought not to have drawn favourably enough, or yet some lines thereof, not according to truth, if they be applied to some persons, that are more moderate, or Church, among them, that is of a better constitution: I desire none to give any credit to any part thereof further, than his own experience shall find it true: and to look upon what is said, as things proposed only to his search, not imposed on his credulity. After which search diligently made (as it much concerns him), let him again review, and compare, which of these two, in its constitution, and Oeconomy, hath more resemblance of that Church described in the New Testament; and acting in Primitive timesses, (mentioned before, §. 67.68.): and then, that of the two, which, by its greater likeness in Government, & manners to this ancient Church, he takes to be his Catholic Mother, let him securely cast himself into her arms, and communion: and instead of committing himself to his own understanding, and industry, to find out his own way to Heaven, (because he can securely trust no living guide on Earth besides), through all the thorny controversies of the present age, grown (as Dr. Field saith) in number so many, and in matter so intricate; which require vast pains throughly to examine; and an excellent judgement aright to determine; and which much eloquence, and long smoothing of them, the interposing of humane reason in divine matters, and the varying records of former ages, have rendered on all sides so far plausible, and resembling truth, that a little interest serves the turn to blind a man in his choice, and make him embrace an error for truth; let him I say humbly resign his wearied, and distracted judgement wholly to her direction.  
§. 80 For (as Sir Edwin Sandys in his Relation of the Western Religions 
‖ p 29.  speaks methinks very pertinently, though in the person of a Romanist, pleading his own cause)— Seeing Christianity is a Doctrine of Faith, a Doctrine, whereof all men even children, are capable, as being gross and to be believed in general [by all]: Seeing the high virtue of Faith is in the humility of the understanding; and the merit thereof, in the readiness of Obedience to embrace it: and seeing the outward proofs thereof are no other than probable, and of all probable proofs the Church-testimony is most probable [So he: which I propose rather thus: Seeing of outward proofs of our Faith, where the true sense of Scripture is the thing disputed, the Church's testimony, (whether for declaring to us the sense of Scripture, or judgement of the Ancients), is a proof of most weight]; What madness were it for any man to tyre out his soul, and to waste away his spirits, in tracing out all the thorny paths of the controversies of these days, wherein to err is no less easy, than dangerous, what through forgery [of authors] abusing him what through sophistry transporting him; and not rather to betake himself to the right path of truth, whereunto God, and nature, reason, and experience, do all give witness? and that is, to associate himself to that Church, whereunto the custody of this heavenly, and supernatural truth hath been, from heaven itself, committed: to weigh discreetly which is the true Church; and, that being once found, to receive faithfully, and obediently, without doubt, or discussion, whatsoever it delivereth?  
§. 81 And then further: If, in this disquisition of his (to make use here of that plea, which the same Author, in the following words, hath very fairly drawn up 
‖ Relation of Western Religious p. 30.  for the Church of Rome, and her adherents, without giving us any counter-defence, or showing any more powerful attractives of the Churches reform; what ever he intended)— If [besides the Roman, and those Churches unitted, with it] he finds all other Churches to have had their end, or decay long since, [I mean the Sects, and Religions, that have been formerly in the Western World, Hussites, Lollards, Waldenses, Albigenses, Berengarians, which some Protestants make much pretence to], or their beginning but of late: if This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles, with promise to him by Christ, that Hell gates should not prevail against it, but that himself will be assistant to it till the Consummation of the World, hath continued on now till the end of a 1600. years, with an honourable and certain line of near 240. Pope's Successors of St. Peter; both tyrants and traitors, pagans, and heretics, in vain wresting, raging, and undermining. If all the lawful General Councils, that ever were in the world, have from time to time approved, and honoured it; if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above, as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings; such armies of Saints with their holiness, of Martyrs with their Blood; of Virgins with their purity; should sanstifie and embellish it: If even at this day, in such difficulties of unjust rebellions, and unnatural revolts of her nearest children, yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world, newly embracing whole Nations into her bosom. If Lastly, in all other opposite Churches, there be found inward dissensions, and contrariety, change of opinions, uncertainty of resolutions, with robbing of Churches, rebelling against governor's [things much more experienced since this author's death in the late Presbiterian wars] confusion of order [invading of Episcopacy, yea and Presbytery too] whereas contrariwise, in this Church, the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable, the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the lowest of all subjection, all with admirable harmony, and undefective correspondence, bending the same way to the effecting of the same work, do promise no other than continual increase, and victory; let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious spouse of God etc. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God, it follows, that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further inquisition; she having the warrant, that he that heareth her, heareth Christ; and whosoever heareth her not, hath no better place with God, than a publican, or a pagan. And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority [the authority of the Church, that was before Luther's time]; and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit? And if God should not always protect his Church from error [i. e. dangerous to, or destructive of, Salvation] and yet peremptorily commanded men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of Mankind; which conceit concerning God (whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life, is so plain, and eminent), were ungrateful, and impious. And hard were the case, and mean had his regard been, of the vulgar people, whose wants, and difficulties in this life will not permit, whose capacity will not suffice, to sound the deep, and hidden mysteries of Divinity, and to search out the truth of intricate controversies, if there were not others, whose authority they might [safely] rely on. Blessed are they, who believe, and have not seen, [Though they do not see reason always for that they believe, save only that reason of their Belief drawn from authority]; the merit of whose Religious humility, and obedience, doth exceed perhaps, in honour, and acceptation before God, the subtle, and profound knowledge of many others. Thus that Author pleads the cause of the Roman, and its adherent, Churches, without a Reply.—  
To which perhaps it will not be amiss to join the like Plea, 
§. 82. n. 1.  for this Church, drawn up by another eminent person 
‖ Dr. Tailor liberty of prophesying, §. 20. p. 249.  in a treatise writ concerning the unreasonableness of prescribing to other men's Faith; wherein he endeavoured to represent several Sects of Christianity in their fairest colours, in order to a charitable toleration. These considerations than he there proposeth concerning the Roman Church (Which (saith he) may very easily persuade persons of much reason, and more piety, to retain that, which they know to have been the Religion of their Forefathers; which had actual possession, and seizure of men's understandings, before the opposite profession had a name). These are, first, It's Doctrine's having had a long continuance, and possession of the Church; which therefore cannot easily be supposed, in the present Professors, to be a design, [for covetous, ambitious, and other, unlawful ends, of which yet Protestant's frequently accuse them] since they have received it from so many ages; and it is not likely, that all ages should have the same purposes, or that the same doctrine should serve the several ends of divers ages. It's long prescription, which is such a prejudice, as cannot with many arguments be retrenched; as relying upon these grounds; that truth is more ancient than falsehood; that God would not, for so many ages, forsake his Church, and leave her in an error [I add, not in such gross errors as are imputed; especially, not in Idolatry, so manifold; in respect of the Eucharist; of the Cross; of Angels and Saints; of Relics; of Images, etc.] Again; The beauty, and splendour of that Church; their pompous service [in a friendlier expression, their service, full of religious Ceremony, and external Veneration]. The stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy; their name of Catholic, which they suppose, [and claim, as] their own due, and to concern no other Sect of Christians. The Antiquity of many of their Doctrines; the continual succession of their Bishops; their immediate derivation from the Apostles; their title to succeed St. Peter [and in this regard, chief honoured, and submitted to by Antiquity]: the supposal, and pretence of his personal prerogatives [much spoken of by the Fathers] the flattering expressions of minor Bishops [in modester language, the honourable expressions concerning this Church from many eminent Bishops of other inferior Sees] which, by being old Records, have obtained Credibility. The multitude, and variety of people, which are of their persuasion; apparent consent with some elder Ages, in many matters doctrinal; the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal opinions of Fathers, which they with infinite clamours cry up to be a doctrine of the Church of that time; [or trulier thus: entertaining the Doctrine of the Church of the ancient times, which Protestants cry down as only the personal opinions of the Fathers]. The great consent of one part with another, in that which most of them affirm to be de fide; the great differences which are commenced among their adversaries, abusing the liberty of prophesying, unto a very great licentiousness, their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations; the advantage of Monarchical Government, the benefit of which they daily do enjoy; the piety, and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men, and women; the single life of their Priests, and Bishops; the Riches of their Church; the severity of their fasts, and their exterior observances; the great Reputation of their Bishops for Faith, and Sanctity; the known holiness of some of those persons, whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate; their Miracles, false, or true, substantial, or imaginary [or trulier, several of which (though none affirms all, or perhaps the most of those pretended) are confirmed by such clear Testimonies, as if any Faith may be had to any humane Testimony, or to any History, they cannot be false, or imaginary,]. The casualties, and accidents, that have happened to their adversaries; the obliqne acts, and indirect proceed of some of those, who departed from them; and, among many other things, the names of Heretic, and Schismatic; which they, with infinite pertinacy, fasten upon all, that disagree from them: [or trulier, which this Church, with a venerable, and paternal authority, and correction, (as the Catholic Church in all ages hath done, and none other Church in this age, except this, presumeth to do) pronounceth on all others, who depart from her Faith, or Communion: as also, in former ages, the same names have been fastened on all those, who have so departed, On Berengarius, Wicliff, Waldeneses, etc.]  
These Persuasives Dr. Taylor hath there collected, As inducing persons of much reason, and more piety, to retain the Religion of ●heir Forefathers: Now let any, if they can, gather out of him, ●he counter-perswasives, that over-poise these, and may induce person's of much reason, and equal piety, to renounce the Religion of their Forefathers, and, harkening to some Negative Arguments ●rom Scripture, or, for some points, perhaps also from the Writers of the three first ages, commit themselves to the conduct of the new Reformers; at the first, a few; of the lowest rank of Clergy; lying under the Ecclesiastical censures; assisted, against their spiritual Superiors, by some secular powers; when both they, and these were Subjects, as to the judgement of all Spiritual matters, to that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which they opposed.  
Now to confirm what hath been said above; 
§. 82. n. 2.  In the last place, I will set you down some passages of S. Austin, representing the Catholic Church 1. as an united, and distinct Body; 2. easily discernible from Sects; 3. and where Scriptures are controverted, to be obeyed and adhered to; 4. though this, not always for any other present reason, or proof given us of what she holds, save only that of her Authority; which passages of this, the most eminent Father of the Church, I also seriously commend to his Meditation, who is in an humble quest after this Guide.  
1st. Concerning the Catholic Church: That it, where any division is made from Superiors (as was made by the Donatists from a General Council) is only one of these Churches, and not both; St. Austin 
‖ De Baptismo l. 1 c. 10.  mentions this proposition as agreed on, both by the Donatists, and Catholics.— Vnam oportet esse Eccles●am 
† Cap 10. — and— una est Ecclesia quaeeunque illa sit, de quâ dictum est 
‖ Cantic. 6. c. — una est columba mea, una est matri suae; nec possunt tot esse Ecclesiae, quot Schismata. 
‖ De Baptismo 1. 1. c. 11. — And so he allows the Donatists arguing;— Si nostra est Ecclesia Christi, non est Ecclesia Christi vestra Communio. This Tenent of theirs he passeth for truth; and only opposeth this other; that theirs, and not that from which they separated, was it; and there proveth the contrary, viz. That the Antidonatist was that, una Ecclesia, quae sola Catholica nominatur; and that the Donatist was Communio a suâ unitate separata. 
‖ Ib. Cap. 10.   
2. Again: Concerning this one Catholic Church, that it is easy to be known, and discerned from others, 
§. 82. n. 3.  he saith in his book De unitate Ecclesiae against the same Donatists 
‖ Cap. 20. — Non est obscura quaestio, in quâ vos fallunt, quos ipse Dominus praedixit futuros atque dicturos: Ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic, ecce in deserto, quasi ubi non est frequentia multitudinis; ecce in cubiculis, quasi in secretis traditionibus, atque doctrinis. Habetis Ecclesiam ubique diffundi, & crescere usque ad messem; Habetis Civitatem, de quâ ipse, qui eam condidit, ait; non potest Civitas abscondi super montem posita. Ipsa est ergo, quae non in aliquâ parte terrarum, sed ubique notissima est. And— Contra Cresconium, l. 1. c. 33. He iterates the same— Si autem dubitas, quod Ecclesiam, quae per omnes gentes numero sitate copiocissimâ dilatatur, haec S. Scriptura commendat, multis & manifestissimis testimoniis ex eâdem authoritate [the Scriptures] prolatis onerabo. [where he that will say, this Father speaks of the Church Catholics, only as it was in his, not as it is to be in all, times; must also interpret those Scriptures, from which he proves it, to speak of his, or some times only, not of all; which is absurd, and would have voided S. Austine's arguing, used against the Donatists then, (as well as any others, now:) who might have replied to him; that these Texts were verified of some, but not of their, times. And indeed they did urge, that S. Austine's sense of them, in application to the Church, failed in the Arrian times; and upon this See (in his 48 Epistle) his vindicating them to be verified of it in all times. And it seems all reason, that, in the Scripture's describing that Church, to whose bosom and Communion all people were, for ever, to resort, the marks, to know it by, [should be Universal; and no more demonstrate to Christians the Church of one age, than of another; no more that in S. Austin's times, than that in ours; to whose Faith and Communion, Christians have in all times, a like duty to conform; and whose judgement, a like necessity, to consult. Though it is willingly granted, that such Properties admit of several degrees; nor is it necessary either for its multitude, extent, or eminency, that the Church should always enjoy them in an equal proportion.  
3 . Concerning our duty of crediting, 
§. 82. n. 4.  and adhering to the Church's testimony, and judgement in matters controverted, and obscure, he thus discourseth 
‖ Contra Cresconium, l. 1. c. 33.  against the Donatists; who pleaded, nothing in Scriptures could be showed clear against them.— Proinde, quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen Scripturarum, etiam in hac re, a nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus, quod universae placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas; ut, quoniam Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit, hujus obscuritate quaestionis, eandem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat, quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat. Again: De Vnitate Ecclesiae, c. 19— Hoc (saith he) aperte, atque evidenter [(i.e.) in the Scripture] nec ego lego, nec tu,— Nunc vero, cum in Scriptures non inveniamus &c, puto, si aliquis sapiens extitisset, cui Dominus Jesus Christus testimonium perhibet [that we should be directed by his judgement], Et de hac quaestione consuleretur a nobis, nullo modo dubitare deberemus id facere, quod ille dixisset; ne non tam ipsi, quam Domino Jesu Christo, cujus testimonio condemnatur, repugnare judicaremur: Perhibet autem testimonium Christus Ecclesiae suae.  
4. Lastly, Concerning the benefit in adhering to, 
§. 82. n. 5.  and relying on the Church authority, or testimony, before that proved to us, which yet she delivers to us; he discourseth thus, in his Book De utilitate Crerendi [i.e. credendi Ecclesiae 
‖ cap. 13. ], written, not long after his Conversion, to a former acquaintance— ' qui irridebat as he saith 
‖ Retract. 1. l. c. 14. ) Catholicae fidei disciplinam, qua juberentur credere homines; non autem, quid esset verum, certissima ratione docerentur— Recte (saith he) Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est, ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides [i.e. adhibenda anthoritati ecclesiae] persuadiatur ante omnia— and, c. 10.— Sed, inquis, nun erat melius, rationem mihi reddere, ut, quocunque ea me duceret, sine ulla sequerer temeritate, Erat fortasse, sed cum res tantasit, ut Deus tibi ratione cognoscendus sit, omnesne putas idoneos esse percipiendis rationbus, quibus, ad divinam intelligentiam, mens ducitur humana? an plures, an paucos, ais, existimo. Quid? Paucos caeteris ergo hominibus, qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt, negandam Religionem putas? [If not; such must receive this their Religion not from Reason, but authority.] And, c. 16.— Authoritate decipi miserum est; miserius non moveri. Si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis, nihil est de Religione satagendum— Non est desperandum, ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam, qua, velut gradu incerto, innitentes, attolamur in Deum— Haec autem authoritas, seposita ratione (qua sincerâ intelligere, it diximo, difficilimum stultis est) dupliciter nos movet, partim miraculis pa●●●●●quentium multitudine— And c. 8. He thus exhorts his scepties Friend Honoratus seduced by the Manicheans— Si jam satis jactatus videris, sequere viam Catholicae Disciplinae, quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit, & abhinc ad posteros manatura est. Those, who can humble their reason so far, as to embrace this holy Council, through the abundant providence of God, will find no great difficulty in discerning their right Guides, and choosing the true Religion.   

CHAP. VII.  
Whether the Church of England doth not require assent to her Articles of Religion. Several Canons in her Synods seeming to require it. §. 83. n. 1. The complaint of the Presbyterians, concerning it. §. 83. n. 4. The Doctrine of her Divines. §. 84. n. 1. Where, concerning the just importance of Negative Articles. §. 84. n. 1.— and 85. n. 2. and concerning conditional assent. §. 84. n. 4.— and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due, and aught to be required. §. 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils, as to points Fundamental; i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved. §. 85. n. 4. That obedience either of assent or noncontradiction, if required by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles, seems contrary to the Laws of the Church; and to the Protestant Principles. §. 85. n. 11.  
AFter this view of the 2. present opposite Churches, 
§. 83. n. 1.  which of them more resembles the ancient Catholic; the latter whereof, the Protestant Churches, seem to build the defence of the Reformation, and the Vindication of their liberty from former Church-laws, upon the denial of any such obedience of assent, or belief due thereto, as was exacted by the former Church, and her Councils; (of which matter see what is said before §. 39 etc.).  
I think fit, before I proceed to the 2 d. thing proposed 
‖ §. 66.  [the answering the many difficulties and objections urged against any Infallible Church Authority] to search here, first, more particularly: whether this liberty which Protestants claim in respect of an authority superior, the Councils, and former Church; yet be not denied by them to their Subjects; at least by the Church of England; if we may inform ourselves out of the most obvious sense of several of those Canons, made in the late National Synods thereof.  
1. That (then) the National Synods of the Church of England, (notwithstanding their heavy accusations of the Council of Trent for the like practices) do exact the Obedience of Assent to their Decrees; and that under pain of Excommunication, or of such persons being out off from the Unity of the Church (and so, if the Excommunication be just, of such person if impenitent being cut off from the Body of Christ, and taken, of the whole multitude of the Faithful, as an Heathen and Publican 
‖ Ar. of Church of England 33. ), See 1st. the Synod held under K. James 1603. the 4 th'. (anon whereof runs thus Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the form of God's Worship established by Law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it, that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be Excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but after his Repentance, and public Revocation of such his wicked Errors.—  
Again, thus Can. 5.— Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of the 39 Articles agreed upon by the whole Clergy in the Convocation held 1562. for the avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent, touching true Religion, are in any part erroneous, or such, as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe unto, let him be Excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but after his Repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.  
To which may be added * the title Prefixed to the 39 Articles, which saith; that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of opinions, & for the establishing of consent touching true Religion. And * those words, in the Preface to the same Articles, Requiring all the Subjects of this Church to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the lest difference from the said Articles.  
Here then 1st. the Church of England, in the Title, and the 5 th'. Canon, declares, that these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of Consent. But, how doth the drawing-up, or also the imposing, of these Articles, effect the avoiding diversities of opinions, if the Church by this act lays no restraint at all upon opinions, nor the Subscription required to them, imply any assent to, or belief of them? or, how effect the establishing of consent, if all the obedience the Church requires to them be only a noncontradiction?  
2. Again; here (in the preface to the Articles) not only silence, and non-renouncing, but professing, of them is required; but none are tied to profess any thing, but what they also are tied either to believe; or to profess, though against their Conscience. 3. Again: In the 5 th'. Canon, the words— Erroneous, or such, as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe; do imply, that he cannot with a good Conscience subscribe to them, who thinks them erroneous; but any may subscribe to them with a good conscience, though they be erroneous, if the subscription only oblige to noncontradiction; for none are bound in conscience to contradict every thing, that they hold an error 4 lie. Here (in the 4 th'. and 5 th'. Canon) the Church of England Excommunicates them, that affirm such, and such things, not, till they repent of, and publicly revoke their unpeaceful, or turbulent contradiction of her decree, but till they repent of, and revoke their wicked errors: and see Can 12 revoke their Anabaptistical errors; where [Annabaptisticall joined to Error clearly applies the word [Error] not to the act of contradicting, but to the matter, wherein such a one contradicts. Now Excommunication here, till one revokes his Errors, is till one changeth, or at least professeth, that he changeth his opinion; for one may revoke, or Repent of his Contradiction, who doth not at all of his Errors; which contradiction is not an Error of the understanding, but a fault of manners; which also we easily rectify, without repenting of or revoking any former opinion, and consequently without revoking our Error. But here the Excommunication extends to this latter. Where if, by any one's publicly revoking his wicked Errors, be meant only the revoking of the divulging of his wicked Error, then would such a recantation as this, be sufficient to restore such an excommunicated person to the Church 's Communion; I hold indeed my former tenant still, but hearty repend, and am sorry, that I have divulged it; nor will I, for the future, do the like. But such reconciliative recantations we know are never accepted amongst the Reformed, unless such persons condemn also their former Doctrines as false; and acknowledge for true, and Orthodox those of the Church. Again: In this matter I ask; If any one, when required by the Church to declare his opinion, doth affirm such a wicked Error, to the affirmers whereof the Church hath denounced Excommunication (for Example, affirms the King not to be Supreme in Ecclesiastical matters, against the 2d. Canon) whether is he not, in such a case, by that Canon liable to Excommunication? If he be, them it is not, because he declareth what he holdeth (for, how can the Church Excommunicate him for doing that, which she requireth of him; i. e. for declaring what he holdeth, upon her interrogation)? but, because he holdeth that which he ought not; (i. e.) for his opinion, for his wicked Error; as she there calls it. And doth not the Church of England likewise allow of the King's requiring, in the Oath of Supremacy, touching this point, not only a non-affirmation of the contrary, or a non-contradicting of such a truth; but a sincere acknowledgement in his conscience, and a believing of it: I do utterly testify and declare in my conscience etc.  
So also the Parliament 13 Elizab. 12. requireth: That every one, that hath an Ecclesiastical living, declare his assent, and subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion— And that no person be admitted to any Benefice with cure, except he shall first have subscribed the same Articles, with declaration of his unfeigned assent in the same. [Here you see the subscription interpreted assent] Now, will the Church deny the lawfulness of the Act of the State, passed by the Lords Spiritual, as well as Temporal: Or, may not a Church, though fallible, enjoin, or require as much acknowledgement, as much assent in a matter of Faith, as the said Church allows a fallible King, or Parliament, to do?  
But see Canon 36. Of the same Synod, 1603. where the Church also requires the Subscribers, not only, not to affirm the 3. Articles, contained in that Canon, to be erroneous. Namely, That the King's Majesty, is the only Supreme Governor of his Realm in spiritual things. 2. That the Book of Common prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God etc. But in the third Article, (more expressly) requires him to subscribe That he alloweth, and acknowledgeth, [(i.e.) confesseth, believeth] all the 39 Articles to be agreeable to the word of God.  
Add to this; That, whereas the Canon 140. excomminicates, (till they publicly revoke their wicked error) any, who shall affirm; that those, who had not given their voices to the decrees made in the Sacred Synod of this Nation, are not subject to the decrees thereof; and therefore, in the conference at Hampton-Court, the Puritan Party moved this question; how far such Ordinances of the Church were to bind them, without impeaching their Christian liberty? They received from the King this answer: I will have one Doctrine, and Discipline, one Religion in Substance, and Ceremony; and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point; How far you are bound to obey? When the Church hath ordained it. This Injunction of King James to Puritans, had it been obeyed by the first Reformers, would it not have prevented the birth of Protestantisme, and the dispute at Hampton-Court?  
Again; the Church of England, 
§. 83. n. 2.  in some of those Canons, excommunicates men for not doing something, which she commandeth to be done; now in all such in junctions of Practicals, there is involved an injunction of assent fi●st, that such practices are lawful.  
The ninth Canon runs thus; Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion, etc.— in the Church of England;— accounting the Christians, who are conformable to her Doctrine, etc. to be profane, and unmeet for them to join with, in Christian Profession; let them be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, till after their repentance, and public Revocation, of such their stored, till after their repentance, and public Revocation, of such their wicked errors. Here the Church of England requires under pain of Excommunication, that none do account her Communion profane, etc. For whosoever accounteth the Church of England such, (her self being judge), ought to separate from her, an erroneous conscience obliging. Neither may any say, that the Church here, for his restitution, enjoins repentance, only for his separating; but rather, for his accounting those, who conform, profane, (1.) for his errors, from which once granted, a separation ought to follow.  
Again, Canon 12. Those, who submit themselves to be ruled by any Ecclesiastical constitutions, made without the King's authority, are excommunicated. Here the Canon requiring men not to submit to be governed by such constitutions, requires them to believe also such Ecclesiastical Constitutions to be unlawfully made, and not obliging; else men ought to submit unto them.  
Canon 59 Those Parsons, who do not teach on Sundays the Catechism, set forth in the Common-prayer Book, are excommunicated: But, if they hold any thing in such Catechism unlawful, they may not teach it; therefore the Synod, in expressly requiring them, under pain of Excommunication, to teach it, virtually, under the same penalty, requires their assent, that it is lawfully to be taught.  
2 . In the National Synod, 
§. 83. n. 3.  held under King Charles 1640. See the third Canon; 
2.  where it is ordered— That all Popish Recusants' [though silent, though nothing affirming, whatever way they can be discovered, whether by their refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance, (which Oath, exacts their punctual assent to several Doctrines,); or by their refusing to receive the Communion with the Members of the Church of England (a practice that requires their assent, that this Church is not Schismatical)], be excommunicated. Where, whilst the Church of England thinks, she hath sufficient authority to exclude from her Communion, all that hold the Popish Tenants, why complains she of the tyranny of the Roman Church in excluding from her Communion all, that hold the Protestant Tenants?  
Again, in the fourth Canon it is decreed,— That any one, who is accused of Socinianism, unless he will absolutely, & in terminis, abjure it, be excommunicated. Now he that is required, upon pain of Excommunication, to abjure the Popish, or the Socinian Tenants, is required under the same penalty, so often, to assent to the Protestant, or the Anti-Socinian, Tenants, where ever these are immediately contrary, or contradictory to the other, as many times they are. So whoever is obliged to abjure, Filium non esse Consub●●antialem Patri. Is obliged, by the same Canon, to assent, Filium esse Consubstantiatem Patri.  
Lastly, in the sixth Canon, there the Synod requires * assent, and approbation of the Doctrine, and Discipline of the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to Salvation; and * the Profession of this assent upon Oath. I A. B. do swear, that I do approve, and sincerely acknowledge the Doctrine, and Discipline established in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to Salvation [that is, I do assent, and believe it to contain, etc.  
Thus much of several Injunctions, and Canons of the Reformed Synods of the Church of England, which seem to tie her Subjects to as strict an Obedience of assent, and approbation (for any thing I can discern) to all her Doctrine, and Discipline, as any other Councils have done; and to give as little liberty to any to oppose her decrees (not withstanding what she saith of the Church, and of Councils, Art. 20. & 21.)  
[Hence that complain of the Presbyterian Ministers, 
§. 83. n 4.  concerning their obligation to these Articles, and Canons, in their Reasons, showing necessity of Reformation, printed 1660— * That, if they might not subscribe with such an addition [so far forth, as the same Articles are agreeable to God's Word], it must needs be granted, that the composers of them are admitted to be infallible; or else, that the Statute 13. Elizabeth 12. intendeth to tyrannize over the Consciences of men [i. e. in requiring them to profess what their conscience tells them, is not truth].— * That the Statute requireth Belief of every one of these Articles, when it enjoins not only subscription, but an assent unto them; punishing all with deprivation, that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them; which every man must do, if they be found contrariant to the Word; or he mu●t be false to God.— And p. 36. Concerning obligation to Ceremonies; * That these ought not to be imposed on those, who cannot be fully persuaded in their own minds, and consciences, that they are lawful; and therefore must sin, if they use them. Thus the Presbyterians.  
Yet this course, as most necessary, was long ago hinted by Mr. Calvin, to the first Founder of the English Reformation, the Lord Protector, in the days of Edward the Sixth,— Expedit quidem (saith he) prospicere desultoriis Ingeniis, quae sibi nimium licere volunt; claudenda est etiam janua curiosis doctrinis. Ratio autem expedita ad eam rem una est; Si exstet nempe summa quaedam doctri●ae ab omnibus recepta, quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes, ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi, & Parochi jurejurando adstringantur; ut nemo ad munus Ecclaesiasticum admittatur, nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviolatum futurum— Quod ad formulam precum, & rituum Ecclaesiasticorum, valde probo ut certa illa extet, a qua Pastoribus discedere in functione sua non liceat— ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati, qui novationes quasdam affectant. Here I understand him to require the Clergy to be obliged by Oath to receive, and Preach such a certain form of Doctrine, and to practise such Ecclesiastical Rites as shall be agreed upon by their Governors. In which thing if He speaks reason; what can more justify the proceed of the Church-Catholick, in restraining not only her Subjects tongues, but tenants, and opinions, in matters which she judgeth of necessary belief.]  
Notwithstanding these evidences cited above, 
§. 84. n. 1.  implying assent required to the Articles of the Church of England, yet her Divines, when charged therewith by Roman Catholics, do return many answers and Apologies, whereby they seem either to deny any such thing; or at least do pretend a moderation therein very different from the Roman Tyranny.  
1 rst. Then they say. [α] That they require not any oath, but a Subscription only to these their Articles. 
‖ Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chal. p. 264.  2. [β] Require subscription only from their own, not from strangers. See Bishop Bramhall vindic. p. 155.— And— This Church prescribes only to her own Children, whereas the Church of Rome severely imposeth her Doctrine upon the whole World; saith Bishop Lawd 
‖ P. 52.  3. [γ] Nor yet require it of all their own, but only of those, who seek to be initiated into holy Orders, or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment 
‖ Bishop Brambal vind. p. 156.  4. [δ] These Articles not penned with Anathemas, or curses, against all those, even of their own, who do not receive them. 5 . [ε] Subscription not required to them, as Articles of their Faith; or at least, as all of them Articles Fundamental of their Faith; as belief is required to all hers as such, by the Church of Rome; but only required to them, as Theo ogical verity 
‖ B●amh. Reply p. 350. , and Inferior truths 
† Stillingfleet p. 54.  [To this purpose Bishop Bramhall Reply p. 350.— We do use to subscribe unto them indeed, not as Articles of Faith; but as Thelogical verities▪ for the preservation of unity among ourselves.— Again 
‖ Ib. p. 277. — Though perhaps some of our negatives were revealed truths, and consequently were as necessary to be believed, when they are known, as affirmatives; yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths, or Articles of Religion, as make up the rule of Faith; which rule of Faith (he saith there) consists of such supernatural truths, as are necessary to be known of every Christian, not only necessitate praecepti, because God hath commanded us to believe them 
‖ See Schism guarded p. 396 ; but also necessitate medii, because, without the knowledge of them, in some tolerable degree, according to the measure of our capacities, we cannot in an ordinary way attain to Salvation— And, 
‖ Reply p. 264. — We do not (saith he) hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths, extra quas non est ●alus; nor enjoin Ecclesiastic persons to swear unto them; but only to subscribe them, as Theological truths— And thus the Arch Bishop 
‖ p. 51.  All points are made Fundamental, and that to all men's belief, if that Church [the Roman] hath once determined them; whereas the Church of England never declared, that every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith.]  
To which they add. [ζ] That as for those of these Articles, that are positive doctrines, and Articles of their Faith, they are such, as are grounded in Scripture, and General Truths, about which there is no controversy 
‖ Bramh. vindic. p. 159. — and such (saith Mr. Stillingfleet 
† p. 54. ) as have the testimony, and approbation of the whole Christian World of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome itself.  
[η] And then; as for the rest of those Articles; they are only negative (as the Arch Bishop 
‖ p. 52. ); refuting there, where the thing affirmed by the Roman-Church is not affirmed by Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it;— Or (as Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Vindic. p. 159 )— They are no new articles, or innovations obtruded upon any; but negations only of humane controverted Traditions 
† Reply p. 279. ; and Refutations of the Roman suppositious principles 
‖ Ib. p. 277. — And though some of them were revealed truths, etc. as before, yet do they not therefore make up the rule of Faith ‖ [i. e. as this Rule is before explained.]  
[θ] 6 lie. That such subscription, whether of positives, or negatives is required by the Church of England to a few, in comparison of that multitude of Articles made on the other side. Though the Church of England, (saith the A●chb. 
‖ p. 51. ) denounce Excommunication, as is before expressed; yet she comes far sho●t of the Church of Rome's severity; whose anathemas are not only for 39 Articles, but for very many more; about one hundred, in matter of Doctrine.  
7 . [ξ] Concerning the just importance, and extent of such subscription, several expressions I find, that the Subscribers do not stand obliged thereby * to believe these Articles; 
§ 84. n. 2  and the reason given, because the Church is fallible; but only * not to oppose, not to contradict, them.  
[To this purpose— We do not look (saith Bishop Bramhall 
‖ Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded p. 190— Stillingf. p. 55. ) upon the Articles of the Church of England, as Essentials of saving Faith, or Legacies of Christ, and his Apostles; but, in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.— And— Si quis diversum dixerit, we question him— Si quis diversum senserit, if any man think otherwise in his private opinion, and trouble not the peace of the Church, we question him not 
‖ Vindic. p. 156. — Again:— [λ] Never any son of the Church of England was punished for dissenting from the Articles in his judgement, so he did not publish it by word, or writing.— After the same manner speaks Mr. Stillingfleet. 
‖ P. 104. .— The Church of England excommunicates such, as openly oppose her Doctrine; supposing her fallible; the Roman Church excommunicates all, who will not believe, whatever she defines to be infallibly true.— And— The Church of England bindeth men to peace to the Church's Determinations, (reserving to men the liberty of their judgements) on pain of Excommunication, if they violate that peace.— And Mr. Chillingworth saith, 
‖ P. 375. — That Protestants cannot, with coherence to their own grounds, require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable, consequences of it without most high, and most Schismatical presumption [plain, irrefragable, indubitable, consequences; such therefore cannot be the most of the 39 Articles, we know by how great a part of Christianity controverted, denied.] Lastly, thus the Archbishop answering to the fifth Canon of the Church of England objected by A. C. 
‖ P. 51. — Its one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself; and another thing, boldly, and publicly to affirm it. [as if that Canon prohibited only the latter of these] This then seems of late the commoner exposition of subscription, and most suitable to the Protestant Principles.]  
8. But 8 lie.— [] Some other expressions also fall from the same Writers, 
§. 84. n. 3.  and others, intimating assent required. For 1st. The Archbishop saith, concerning the fifth Article; that, perhaps only public affirmation, is the sense of it, but speaks nothing clearly against assent required by it; and I suppose, he saw good reason for it. I pray you view the place in him. So, in the precedent page, he saith,— The Church of England is not such a shrew to her Children, as to deny her blessing, or denounce and Anathema against them, if some peaceably descent in some particulars, remoter from the Foundation. [Where this restriction, remoter from the Foundation, seems so to indulge dissent, in respect of some of the 39 Articles; as that she doth not allow it generally in respect of them all; unless any will say, all the Articles are such]— So Mr. Whitby 
‖ P. 100  in his Answer to Mr. Cressy amongst other (ifs) puts in this for one,— If they [the English Church-governors] require a positive assent, it is because the thing determined, is to be evident in Scripture, etc. We do use (saith Bishop Bramball 
‖ Reply p. 349. ) to subscribe unto them indeed, not as Articles of Faith, but as Theological verities, [is not this a subscribing, that they assent to, or hold them for Theological verities]— So p. 264. We do require Ecclesiastical persons only to subscribe them as Theological Truths, for the preservation of unity among us, and the extirpation of some growing errors— (and Mr. Stillingfleet useth the same expression from him). [To subscribe them as Theological Truths; meaneth he not here, to subscribe, that they are Theological Truths? For the preservation of unity; means he not, unity of Opinion, and of the Profession of such Truths? As the title also prefixed to the Articles, (mentioned before 
‖ §. 83. n. 1. ), imports; saying,— That the Articles were drawn up for the avoiding diversities of Opinions, and establishing consent; Else: where diversity of Opinion is allowed in all things, what extirpation of errors (which follows in the next words) can be hoped?  
9 [μ] Lastly, 
§. 84. n. 4.  I find frequent mention in these Authors of a conditional assent, or belief, required (in general) as due to the Church's proposals, whether concerning matters of Faith, or other constitutions: (yet without any particular application thereof to the 39 Articles.) Conditional, viz.— Then, * when a person is not competent to search her grounds,— or, * where the Church adheres to, and forsakes no part of, the Apostles depofitum— or * when she proveth, and evidenceth to them the truth of what she proposeth; or, * so long, as they cannot evidence and prove to her the contrary. But then; they leave the judgement of this condition, (when she sufficiently proves such a thing, or they the contrary; when the party is not competent to search grounds, or when the Church adheres not to the Apostles Depositum) to themselves; and not to the Church; reserving to every private person the ultimate judgement; a judgement of discretion, as they call it. See Dr. Ferne's Case between the two Churches, p. 40.48, 49.— Division of Churches, p. 45.47, 61.— Considerations, p. 19 Dr. Feild p. 666. Dr. Jackson on the Creed. l. 2. §. 1. c. 5. & 6. (out of which, see some Quotations, before, §. 20.)— Dr. Hammond's answer, to a Catholic Gentleman, p. 16.17.— Dispatcher dispatched, c. 5. p. 358.  
Having seen this defence of Learned Protestants for the Church of England her composing new Articles of Religion, 
§. 85. n. 1.  and exacting of her Subjects subscription, and conformity to them; wherein they endeavour to represent, the Yoke of these her Articles, and her Excommunications very light (though the Presbyterians groan under the weight thereof), in comparison of that of the Roman Canons, and their Anathemas. Now give me leave, to make some reflection on what they have said; and out of these to return answers to the precedents, so far as it seems necessary  
Obs. 1 1st. Then, this is clear; that, they confining their Rule of Faith within as narrow a compass as they please, yet some of their 39 Articles will be found to be a part of it; and to be such supernatural truths, as are necessary to be known of every Christian, necessitate medii, and such, as extra quo● non est salus; as well as some of those in Pius' Bull, or in the Council of Trent, are. Of this sort must several of the 1st. 8. Articles be, concerning the Trinity, Son of God, etc. And I ask, whether they are not willing, that some other of them [as 8. The fall of Adam: 18. Salvation only by Christ; 15. Christ only without sin; 11, Justification by Faith; 25.27. Two Sacraments ordained by Christ, and these not only bare signs but effectual Instruments of Grace; 6. Sufficiency of the holy Scripture for Salvation] be admitted into the Rule of the Protestants Faith; but thrown amongst Theological, and inferior, verities. Since than it is most certain, that some of their Articles are part, of their Rule, and of the most necessary, and fundamental Faith: Next, I ask concerning these; whether, in the liberty they profess in their Church, and the want of it they accuse in the Roman, they require no assent from their Subjects, or at least from those of them, whom they admit to H. Orders, and Ecclesiastical Preferments, to these Articles? or whether they do not require them to profess and teach all, or some of them at least? which they cannot do, unless they also oblige them to hold them: (for none may profess against what he thinks; and therefore who is tied by them to profess so, is by them tied to think so). But if they do not require such assent; then may one, that holds against them the 〈◊〉 Doctrines, in several of the prime Articles of their Faith, not only enjoy their Communion, but sit down among their Doctors; only, if as he believeth, professeth, or teacheth none of these Articles, so he do not teach, or profess the contrary, but spend his discourses on other subjects. See now whether there may not be some reason for that which is observed before, §. 84. n. 3. concerning. the Archbishop.  
Obs. 2 2 . Concerning those other Articles, of which it is said, that they are no new positive Articles of the Protestant Faith, but only negations, 
§. 85. n. 2.  and refurations of new Roman assertions, and additions. You may note concerning them, 1st. In General: that Negatives may be Scripture-truths, revealed therein, matter of our Faith, and as necessary to be believed (as Bishop Bramhall granteth 
‖ Reply to Chalced p. 227. ) when known to be revealed, as any affirmative, and positive Articles are; and the most Fundamental Articles may be as well negatively, as affirmatively proposed; and, seeing that the one necessarily implies, and infers the other, as one is ratione medii necessary to Salvation, so is the other. So the negative Articles in the Nicen, or Athanasian Creed Pater non creatus— a nullo genitus— non tres ●atres— Filius non factus— Filius unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem, aut confusione Substantiarum— be Articles of as necessary belief as the positives; and indeed, the same with them; the same with— Pater unus— Pater eternus,— Filius genitus,— Filius ex duabus naturis consistens. And they as much Heretics, that affirm any of these negatives, as that deny the affirmative. 2 . Concerning the Negatives, in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, if they be well considered, you may find; that they are both, in the Articles, pretended to be Scripture, and revealed truths; and that all, or most of them are equivalent to affirmatives; and as new, and positive on the one side, as the Roman Articles, which they contradict are pretended, on the other; and the Protestants Confession of Faith (supposing him obliged to believe these Negatives) as large, and as particular on the one side, as the Roman, or Tridentine is on the other, as to the main Controversies that are bandied between the two Churches; and these not only privatively, but positively opposite. For no difference can be made in the thing (but only in the expression) between a negative, and positive Article, where the negative implies, and is equivalent to, the affirmative of its contrary; as it is, where the contraries are immediate, and the one of them is necessarily put, wherever the other denied. As, God being granted a substance, He that denies him to be a corporeal substance, in this he affirms him to be a Spiritual; and so, those that deny here something which others affirm, in this must needs affirm something, which the others deny; and the negative may be (as we please) changed into another positive; and he who had before the positive, shall have now the negative side. He, that denies any Souls after this life to go into any temporal purgatory, affirms them to go into Bliss, or Pain, Eternal; and he that affirms Purgatory, denies this; So, he that denies a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist, affirms the Substance of the Symbols to remain there; and so e contra. Hence he that hath 39 Articles of his Faith, whereof 30. are in the expression negative, 9 positive, hath, in matters, wherein, the one contrary being excluded, the other is admitted (as it is in most of these Articles of Religion, that are in debate) not fewer positive Articles of his Faith, than he, who hath 39 expressly positive; and again, he who hath 39 positive cannot but have 39 Negative also, and e contra: (only a negative confession argues a former contest). And as Faith, so Heresy, is conversant in either.  
And here also note: that it is one thing for a Church merely to exclude from, or omit, in her Articles, or confessions of Faith, those points, which another Church defineth: (i. e▪) not to tie her Subjects to believe them; and another thing, to tie her Subjects to believe the Negatives of them, or not to believe them. Which is indeed a defining one way, as much as the other Church doth the other way. For Example: 'Tis one thing, not to tie her subjects to believe or hold, the Roman Doctrine, concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, etc. and another thing, to tie her subjects to believe, or hold, that the Romish Doctrines concerning Purgatory, etc. are vainly invented, or grounded on no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God: as it is in the 22. Article Ecclesiae Anglic. Neither can the Church of Rome be here more justly questioned, in her not leaving points in Universals only, and their former indifferency; but new-stating Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc. than the Reformed, for their new-stating the contrary to these.  
Which to make more perspicuous: 
§. 85. n. 3.  It is to be noted, that of those, who seem in their Theological Positions to affirm les●, and so to make fewer Articles of their Faith, than some others do, there are two sorts. 1. Either such, as peremptorily deny the truth of those additionals, which the other affirm. 2. Or such, as do suspend their judgement concerning such additionals; neither affirming, nor denying them for truths; only denying, that the others as yet do prove, or evidence them to be so. Now though it may be said of these later; that indeed they do not make so many Articles of Faith, or new definitions, as the other do; and so also, that they seem much more safe, and modest in the paucity of their Credends; because they, who neither affirm, nor deny a Tenent, cannot err in it; yet the former, who deny as far, and as peremptorily every new point, as the other affirm it, these can free themselves from no curiosity, tyranny, liableness to error, etc. wherein they pretend the other to transgress: nor can plead any safety in their Doctrine, (viz. in their not erring, because not determining); but do engage every whit as far in such points, as their adversaries do; one in holding, and endeavouring to prove such a thing a truth; the other in holding, and endeavouring to prove it an error. And this is the case of the Church of England; which suspends not her judgement in those new points which the Roman defines; nor denies them only to be proved, or clear, in the Scripture: but denies them as Errors, and things contrary to Scripture: So: Purgatory, Adoration of Images and Relics, Invocation of Saints, Indulgences, are declared repugnant to God's Word, Art. 22.— Works of Supereorgation, Art. 14.— Public Prayer, or Ministry of the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People, Art. 24.— Denying of the Cup to the People, Art. 30.— Sacrifice of the Mass, Art. 31.— Transubstantiation, Art. 28. Now he that believes Transubstantiation, for Example, to be contrary to Scripture, makes the contrary to Transubstantiation to be Scripture, and so to be also a point of his Faith, if Scripture be so: and hence the English Church in obliging her Subjects to believe these points Errors, which the Roman Church doth hers to believe Truths, hath in his as large a Creed as the other: if the other hath Twelve new Articles, so, in her stating the contrary to them, hath she; and is equally tyrannical (or more, because the Articles of the other are the elder of the two;) the Subjects of the one having no liberty left to affirm them; as, of the other, to deny them. For Example. A Subject of the Church of England (supposing him obliged to believe her Articles true) hath no more liberty left to hold Transubstantiation a Truth, than a Romanist hath to hold it an Error: Or, (to instance in the employed affirmative, that is maintained in opposition to Transubstantiation on the Church of England's side,) a Subject of this Church hath no more liberty left to hold the remaining of the Substance of the Symbols in the Eucharist an Error, than those of the Roman have, to hold it a Truth. This of the first sort: those, who as peremptorily deny a thing, as the others affirm it. But next, you may observe; that neither are the later sort, who suspend their judgement, because such point seems not proved to them, in this always the most secure, and safe, If the proposers to them of that point, be such persons as they are commanded to believe, unless themselves can prove the contrary to it; which is the case of all those, who have Spiritual Superiors; and if the knowledge of such a Truth be any way profitable to their Salvation; which Truths, I suppose, these Superiors never define, without foreseeing, First, such Doctrines, defined, beneficial to be known. This from §. 85. n. 2. is my 2d. Observation concerning the Church of England's negative Articles.  
3ly. You may observe: 
§. 85. n. 4.  that, when these Protestant Writers say, Obs. 3 that these 39 Articles (that is, the most of them, or the negatives, see Observation 1. 
‖ §. 85. n. 1. ) are not made by them Articles of their Faith, they explain themselves to mean, not made fundamental Articles of their Faith; or such, the belief of which is necessary ratione medii for attaining salvation; and such, as extra quas [creditas] non est salus 
‖ § 84. n. 1. ; they meanwhile not denying; that whatever is Scripture, and a revealed Divine Truth, is an Article of our Faith, i. e. (as Bp. Bramhall) Necessary to be believed, and assented to by us, when it is known to be revealed. Now, as they do not make the most of their 39 Articles, the rule, or articles, of their Faith, in the forenamed sense; so neither doth the Roman Church, or Council of Trent, her Canons; whatever Protestants tell the World, so often, to the contrary: Fundamental indeed they call, sometimes, all points defined by the Church's Councils; and hold them necessary to be believed, for attaining salvation; but, not necessary in such a sense, as ratione medii necessary; or absolutely extra quas [creditas] non est salus; but only necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them, to any person, that they have been so defined. Again, necessarily to be believed also, for attaining Salvation; not because that no person can be saved, and that, after the Church's definition of them, in his not believing them; But because if, after such proposal, and sufficient notice given him of their being defined, he believe them not, he now stands guilty (in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual Guides) of a mortal sin (unrepented of) destructive of his Salvation.  
[A thing spoken plainly enough by the answerer of the Archbishop's Book, 
§. 85. n. 5.  and yet misrepresented by the Replier, 
‖ p 48, 49.  who imposeth these propositions as maintained by the Roman Church: That what the Church determines as matter of Faith, is as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, as that which is necessary from the matter, [i. e. necessary, ratione medii.]— And that an equal explicit faith is required to the definitions of the Church, as to the Articles of the Creed; and that there is an equal necessity in order to Salvation, of believing both of them: Whenas he might easily have informed himself, that there is not an equal necessity required by the Roman Church of the very Articles of the Creed in order to Salvation; and whenas, not only this one condition, of the Church's having defined them (for none are obliged necessarily to believe explicitly whatsoever the Church hath defined;) but a second, also, of a sufficient proposal to us of what the Church hath defined, renders her Definitions necessary to be believed: and then, necessary to be believed indeed as to the doing of our duty in order to our Salvation; but not all of them necessary to be believed, as if the knowledge of them were so necessary to our Salvation, as that without this it could not be had, as that of some of the Articles of the Creed is. Neither is the Greek Church (one ground of this authors mistake) by F. Fisher, or others of the Roman Church, charged as guilty of Heresy, in any other manner save this; that, supposing a lawful General Council, accepted by the Church Catholic, to have defined The procession of the H. Ghost à Filio, so many of the Greek Church as have received a sufficient proposal, that such a Council hath so defined it, if they continue to deny, or disbelieve it, are guilty of Heresy; leaving the rest free; (unless it can be proved, that à Filio is a Fundamental in the other sense, i. e. ratione medii;) free I say, so many amongst them as happen to be either by natural defect and incapacity, or external want of instruction, invincibly and inculpably ignorant, either of the just authority of such a Council; or, of its Divinely assisted inerrability in all necessaries; or, of such its Decree; or, of the true sense thereof; which persons indeed, by reason of the evidence of all these things, cannot be the most, or the learned; but yet, may be some; for all in an Heretical Church are not affirmed Heretics; though the Church's censures, according to the reasonable grounds of conviction concerning any such point generally published are passed upon all that are involved in such a Society; whilst God, who knows all capacities, absolves from them whom he seethe innocent; and preserves his Wheat from the fire, though, by the Church bound in the same bundle with the Tares. As for the other ground of the Replyers mistake; 
‖ Stillin p 48.  That famous passage of Pius, [Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem, extra quam etc.] he might have learned to have made a more moderate and qualified construction of it, from his own descant on the like clause in the Athanasian Creed, [Haec est Fides Catholica quam nisi quisque etc.] where he 
‖ p. 70, 71.  could well discover a conditional necessity, as to some of the Articles thereof, viz. A necessity of believing them upon conviction, that they were of Divine Revelation: why not then allow such a one here: extra quam nulla salus, i. e. to such as receive a sufficient proposal of their being so defined; and therefore do, or might, receive a sufficient conviction, that they must also be Divine Truth? Though for a fuller answer to that clause of Pius, I must refer you to the considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 80. n. 2. Now to proceed in our Discourse.]  
Fundamental therefore the Church of Rome affirms many of her Canons (for I speak not of all) not so to be; 
§. 85. n. 6.  but that 1st. A Christian may be ignorant of them, without loss of his salvation; and indeed, amongst the vulgar, who is there, that is not ignorant of several of them? Only in time of need, and where danger of seducement, as any Canon is of greater moment, or the truth thereof particularly invaded, the Pastors are vigilant to inform their Sheep of the Churches former definitions of them.  
2ly. Nay further, may hold the contrary to some of them though defined, yet if not sufficiently proposed to him, that they are so, without loss of salvation. 3ly. In one's holding the contrary to them, after sufficiently proposed, (I mean, both the decree manifested to him, and the just authority that made it, and the divine assistance thereof) the loss of salvation doth not ensue, nor the Church's censures take hold on such a person, for the simple non-believing the matter of such Canon, or for the holding of the contrary. [For if this, the mere non-believing, or the holding of the contrary to any Church-definition whatever, abstracting from a sufficient proposal that such thing hath been defined by the Church, were enough to destroy any one's salvation; then so this would be, before the Church's determination of such Point; or so would be to the invincibly ignorant, after it; a thing which no Catholic affirms; and see S. Augustine's stating of this matter, de Baptis. 4.16. before §. 18. Though it is freely granted here, that the ignorance of such a truth as is beneficial for our salvation, (which all definitions of Councils are supposed to be, to some or other) both after, and also before the Councils defining thereof, may confer something, in its degree, according to the benefit of the truth one miscarries in, to the loss of his salvation.] The Church's censures therefore, I say, as to many of her Canons, are incurred, and salvation ruined, not for the mere disbelieving such Point defined; but for obstinately doing this after sufficient ground of conviction, that such an authority hath so defined it.— Posiquam ea quae ad fidem pertinent authoritate Vniversalis Ecclesiae determinata sunt, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnat, haereticus censetur 
‖ S Thom. 22.11. q. 2. .— Qui autem ex ignorantiâ crassâ vel etiam affectatâ (saith Layman out of the common Doctrine of the Casuists 
† Theol moral. ●2 Tract. 1 13. c. ) propter inquirendi taedium etc. errorem aliquem contra fidem tenet, eum statim derelicturus, si intelligat Catholicae Ecclesiae repugnantem esse, talis non est pertinax nec Haereticus. So that the Church's Anathema, in many of her Canons, seizeth on a person, not so much for the matter of his error, (though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him, and diminishing his perfection in the Faith) as the pertinasy of his erring, and the contumacy and perverseness of his will, disobeying the Church and his Spiritual Superiors, sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her Doctrine, and a portion of the Christian Faith; and manifesting it always for some good ends, of preserving her Son's orthodox in such parts thereof, as she sees to be invaded by some contrary error of perilous consequence. Now let it be considered, whether the Church of England, if the sense of the 5. Canon (related above 
‖ § 83. n. 1. ) stand good, doth not make her 39 Articles Fundamental, and exclude from Salvation those, who affirm, or hold any of them erroneous, on the same manner: whilst she excommunicates, i. e. cuts off from the Body of Christ (if the Excommunication be just, as she thinks it is) such persons, as remain in this wicked error, till such time as they repent, and publicly revoke it. For, I ask, what is this wicked error, for which, unrepented of, he is so cut off from Christ, and consequently his Salvation destroyed; but his holding, or (if you will) his not repenting upon her Admonition, but persisting to hold the contrary to some one, or more of her Articles, or Definitions? if she declare then his Salvation lost in his holding the contrary to such Article; is not the Article then after her proposal made, in the sense we are speaking of, fundamental to him? Or, suppose his wicked error be not holding, but saying the contrary to such Article, when he holds otherwise; (which I cannot apprehend to be sense, i. e. that any one can be said to err in a thing, when he saith only, that he holds it, but really doth not hold it) at least thus far then, as to noncontradiction, the Article still is made fundamental, for here whoever contradicts (unrepenting thereof) is damned.  
4ly. For the application of Haec est Fides, extra quam non est salus, which is so often said, by Protestants, to be made to all the Definitions of the Council of Trent; and the confession thereof necessary to the enjoying of the Communion of this Church. 1st. No such Sentence is applied to the definitions by the Council itself, (except only to the Nicene Creed; of which they say: it is Fundamentum firmum & unicum, Sess. 3.) but only by a Pope, after it. And 2ly. If we should also grant the sense of this clause to be that, which Protestants put upon it, (whereas it is capable of another sense, which they cannot disallow, of which see Consid. Conc. Trid. §. 80.) namely this; That an explicit belief of every one of the Definitions, and Canons of all the lawful General Councils, that have ever been, or made any such, [for Pius speaks of all Canons of Councils, as well as those of Trent] is necessary to every one, and that ratione medii, for attaining Salvation: For thus the Protestants will needs understand it, (a thing so irrational, that any one may see, that a Church, that holds this, must damn all, or most of her children; for who is there, especially among the laity or vulgar, that hath an actual knowledge, or explicit faith, of every Canon of every lawful General Council, that hath been in the Church?) Yet is it not required by Pius of all men, that they assent to this truth for their enjoying the Roman Communion, but only of those, who enter into Sacred Orders, or Religions. But 5ly. It may be noted also concerning this Bull of Pius, which seems, of a long time, the main grievance of Protestants; the main Apology for their relinquishing the Roman communion, and that, in which she is chief charged to have violated the Unity of the Catholic Church, 
‖ S●●llin. p. 55.  that it came forth many years after the Protestants discession from this Church; whether we look at Luther's; or that under King Edward; or the last under Queen Elisabeth; and many years too, after the birth of their XXXIX Articles made against the Roman Faith; both after those composed under Edward VI A. D. 1549; and reconfirmed under Queen Elisabeth, 1562. This Bull not being made till 1564. So that, herein, they seem to take their chiefest excuse for their discession from that Church, from a thing that happened long after it: as if they departed from it out of the foresight of an offence, which, though it then was not, yet would be given them, by it.  
The 4th. thing I have to observe to you (touched before) is; 
§. 85. n. 7.  Obs. 4 that, though the Church of England in her Synod, affixeth not particular Anathemaes to her Articles, as the Roman-Catholick doth in that of Trent, with a Si quis dixerit etc. Anathema sit; yet the forementioned 5th Canon of this Church pronounceth in general an Excommunication to a Si quis affirmaverit, that any of these Articles is, in any part, erroneous. The weighty value of which Excommunication also you may learn out of their Art. 33.  
These things premised: 
§. 85. n. 8.  now to speak briefly to the former Protestant-Defence made, 
Resp. to α.  §. 84. n. 1. etc. To [α]. I answer; that, by the instances in the Canons etc. produced before §. 83. n. 1. and some of the expressions §. 84. n. 3. the Church-governors intention in requiring this Subscription seems to be, Assent.  
To [β] That as the Church of England requires submission to her Articles only from her own Children, or Subjects: So doth the Council of Trent; whose Subjects, if it be a general one, 
‖ Or which see Consid. on Count of Trent § 15 etc.  is all Christianity; if a Patriarchal, 
‖ Of which see Ib § 43.  all the Western Churches; and amongst the rest that of England.  
To [γ]. That as subscription to the Articles in the Church of England is only required from those, who are to be initiated into holy Orders, or admitted to Ecclesiastical Preferments; so is Pius' oath to the Canons; only exacted from those, who enter into sacred Orders, or Religions. But as the Anathemaes in the Council of Trent extend to all persons, so doth the Excommunication of the Church of England. Can. 5.  
To [δ]. That, though these are not penned with a particular Anathema, yet they are with a general Excommunication. Can. 5.  
To [ε]. That as not by them to their Articles; so neither by the Church of Rome to her Canons, is subscription required as to Articles of her Faith, or Articles Fundamental, if Faith or Fundamental be understood in such a sense, as the Protestant quotations above explain them: This hath been showed, § 85. n. 5, 6.  
To [ξ]. By this it is confessed; that of the 39 Articles no more are Articles of the Church of England's Faith, than those only, wherein Rome doth agree with her; and then, if to the rest of her Articles, no assent be exacted of any, as is contended above, § 84. one, in all things believing, and being of the same persuasion with the Church of Rome, is freely admitted into the Church of England's Communion; nay, may (without violation of her constitutions) lawfully enter into her holy Orders, and Ecclesiastical preferments, and there remain without any engagement, to defend the Church of England's Doctrine; or teach, and instruct the people against the Roman Errors.  
To [n]. That her Negative Articles involve Affirmatives (and those too pretended divine Revelations; see before §. 85. n. 3. which are the objects of Faith) and do bind so strictly on one side, as the Roman Canons do on the other; and, supposing assent required to them, do admit as little latitude of opinion; and at Luther's appearance the matter of these Roman Canons, being in possession, as to the common belief, and practice of the Church, these Negatives of them, of the two, will prove the Innovations.  
Lastly, In what sense Protestants say, these Negatives are no Articles of their Faith (i. e. faith necessary ratione medii to salvation) in the same sense the Roman Church saith, neither are her Positives, that contradict them.  
To [θ]. Of the many Canons in the Council of Trent, made in opposition to them, Luther's many errors and innovations of Doctrine which were daily collected and brought into the Council, were the cause. And, as to the main Points that are in debate between the Church of Rome, and of England, the Negatives in the English Articles equal the Affirmatives in the Canons of Trent.  
To [χ]. Whether assent to the Articles be required in subscription, or only non contradiction, as to any uniform accord in their later Writers, I see nothing clear, (and the later seems more agreeable with their Principles): but in the former instances out of some Canons, etc. assent seems as strictly required in this Church, and that upon Excommunication, as in the Roman upon Anathemaes: and the Act of Parliament Elisabeth 13. recited before §. 83. n. 1. (an Act passed, not only by the Lords Temporal, but Spiritual, i. e. the Governors of this Church) is most express for it. Review it. 
‖ § 83. n 1.   
To [λ]. 
§ 85. n. 9  It is true also in the Roman Church, that thought is free; and, Ecclesia non judicat de occultis; or, peccatis merè internis, i. e. no way discovered; but true also, that the Ecclesiastical Magistrate may lawfully inquire into men's thoughts and beliefs, and question a person herein (for this is done in Baptism) and that not only words are punishable as faults, by this Magistrate, but thoughts, if any one shall reveal, that he thinks so; i. e. thoughts when they are any way discovered (as any one, upon examination, manifesting any blasphemous thoughts or tenants of his, may be lawfully excommunicated; and, in such a case, is excommunicated, not for the revealing them in word, but for the holding them, so, who defignes a treason, and afterward reveals it, is justly punished; not for the revealing, but designing thereof); and this the Church of Rome doth; and if the Church of England extend not her Inquisition, or censures thus far, especially as to those persons she admits into the Clergy, she may expect a Babel of Religions, and dissenting judgements, in points of greatest consequence, under the mask of one external Communion.  
To [μ]. 
§. 85. n. 10.  Only a conditional Assent, required, seems to signify little, for establishing unity of Faith, or consent in Religion, which ties none so, but that, of two Subscribers, one may absolutely assent, another dissent; the same person assent to day, descent to morrow: And a Socinian, confident of his opinion, as freely subscribe, as any other of the Reformed; a Presbyterian, as a Prelatist. For, since the judgement here concerning the condition, [viz. when the Church proves what she proposeth, or when the Subscriber proves the contrary; when he is competent to search grounds, or the Church unfaithful in conserving her Depositum] is left, not to the Church, but to the Subscriber, it casts the assent, and descent also wholly into his disposal and arbitrement; and note here also, that who may require only a conditional assent, can likewise exact only, in such points as are practical, a conditional conformity; i. e. that none be absolutely enjoined to practise such a thing, but only upon supposition, that the Church first prove it to him lawful to be done; or that he cannot prove it to the Church to be unlawful; or that he is a person unable to search the grounds of the lawfulness, or unlawfulness thereof, etc. (of which conditio●s himself also, not the Church, is judge.) For otherwise; he that obligeth a person absolutely to the performance of a thing, obligeth him also absolutely to the believing that thing lawful to be done; which later the Church of England not owning, neither may she the first; and, who ought to have his liberty for the one, ought so, for the other too. Now 'tis ordinary in the English Canons to require, upon pain of Excommunication, conformity to her Constitutions, where, had this secret been known to the Presbyterians, that it is understood only of such a conditional conformity, I suppose there would have been no cause of their forbearing subscription, or complaining of the English Church-Laws their being as rigorous, and unjust, as those of Rome.  
Thus I have made a search into the obedience, 
§. 85. n. 11.  which is required of her Subjects by a Church, that seems not well grounded in her authority; by reason that, having disjoined herself from that which she acknowledgeth was formerly the Catholic Church, and from Superior Councils, she can neither lay claim to that Infallibility in necessaries, which, from our Lords perpetual superintendency, resides in the whole, (as all members, throughly consenting with the whole, and guided by it, do lay claim to such Infallibility; and therefore do require obedience from their Subjects, in the same manner as the whole doth as to all such doctrines, wherein they agree with the whole); nor can she, standing apart, and alleging the reason of it the former Church's errors, have the confidence to claim a new Infallibility to herself: and therefore it is no wonder, if there seem some uncertainty, what obedience she requireth; where there is, what authority she possesseth; and where such obedience is grounded rather on the pretended clear evidence of the matter proposed, than the sovereign, and undeclinable authority of the Proposer. Meanwhile, whether she challengeth an obedience of assent from her Subjects, 
§. 85. n. 12.  or that of noncontradiction, I see not, how she can be justified by the Laws of the Church, or by her own Principles. For, 1st. By the Laws of the Church, if she justly require assent from her and was she not in conscience obliged to yield it? These, as well as she, determining nothing, but what they think a clear truth. Or can she blame the fallible Church of Rome, for requiring assent to her Canons, upon Anathema, when she fallible requires the same, upon Excommunication? For the disparities, that are made here, have been formerly answered; and any evidence or certainty Protestants pretend for those Doctrines, to which they require assent, the Roman Church pleads the like for hers; and so, sub judice lis est. Concerning this, hear Mr. Chillingw. 
† p. 375.  Any thing besides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, [I suppose, he means, appearing such not only to the Church-Governors, but their Subjects; and that all the 39 Articles have not such an evidence,] well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion: but, as matter of Faith and Religion, neither can they, with coherence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. But 2ly. If, laying assent aside, only a noncontradiction of her Articles, or a non-affirmation that they are any way erroneous, is required, upon excommunication of the person so offending; yet neither will this be justifiable by the Laws of the Church; for no Canon of a National Synod can justly pronounce Excommunication on any, for affirming so many points in their Articles erroneous, as have been determined by Superior Councils, (a General, or a Patriarchal Synod) contrarily. For example: It is not lawful for a National Synod in England to excommunicate a person for affirming their Articles erroneous in denying Transubstantiation; because this hath been determined affirmatively by many former Superior Synods, accepted by the whole Western Church; (as is showed before 1. Disc. §. 57) which therefore oblige Christians to the belief, and profession of it, against the Decrees of any Inferior Western Synod. Neither 2ly. Do they seem to inflict Excommunication on every one, that affirms any of their Articles erroneous, without condemning their own Principles; because, what they say of General Councils, is as true, I suppose, for their own Synods: viz. That they may err grossly and manifestly; in which case, they say, one may lawfully affirm these Councils, in such thing, erroneous; else how can they ever be corrected? (See before §. 43, 44. etc.) The case, therefore, is the same, as to their own Synods. And then, for what, they say, a person may lawfully do, they cannot lawfully excommunicate him.  
But if it be replied, 
§. 85. n. 13.  that their Synods challenge an obedience of non contradiction only to what they are certain is truth; and therefore none may lawfully in such case contradict them, or affirm they err. 1st. It follows, they may, upon the same terms, require assent also; of which they seem more . But 2ly. As theirs plead certainty, so do other Councils; whom yet they will not excuse, upon this pretence, for requiring assent, as hath been but now said. 3ly. It seems unreasonable, that a certainty, either from the sense of Scripture, necessary Deduction, former universal Tradition, or any other way, should be pretended by a particular Church in any such matters, from which a major part of Christianity, perusing the same evidences, dissents 
† Disc. 2 §. 5. Disc. 4 § 11, 12. : such as are several of the 39 Articles.  
4ly. Protestants themselves affirm; that those, who are certain of truth, yet may not require an absolute, but conditional, assent from others; who, first, know them in general to be fallible; and next, do not know, or have it not proved to them, that in this particular they dot err. See before, §. 85. n. 10. And the same they say for noncontradiction required; that it must be only conditional; i. e. if the contrary truth to the error defined do not appear, to the Church's Subjects, necessary to be divulged.  
Meanwhile, it is not denied (which was also but now said) that particular Churches, or Provincial Synods, may be certain of something as Truth, where either Scripture saith it, or a necessary deduction collecteth it, or Tradition delivereth it, such, as are Generally undisputed and unquestioned: and may require from their Subjects an absolute assent, and that upon Excommunication or Anathema, to all such Articles of Religion, as are either defined, or otherwise agreed on, by the whole Catholic Church; and that herein they have the same infallibility, as the Catholic; and their Subjects are, or may be, convinced, that they are the tenants of the Church Catholic. As the Church of England, though otherwise fallible, may require, not a conditional, but an absolute, assent to the Articles of the Athanasian Creed; because she in these is infallible, if the Catholic Church be so.  
Thus much said, concerning the quality of the submission required of her Sons, by the Church of England, to her Articles of Religion: I now proceed to the 2d. thing proposed before, (§. 66.) The many Difficulties and Objections urged against an Infallible Church-Authority.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Solutions of several Questions concerning an infallible living Guide.  
1. Q. From what we can be assured, that Councils are infallible, since neither the Texts of Scripture, the sense whereof is disputed; nor the Decree of any Council, whose erring is the thing questioned, can give such assurance, §. 86.  
2. Q. From whence General Councils receive their Infallibility: such promise, if made at all, being made only to the Church diffusive; and not delegable by this Church to others: Or, if so; no such Delegation from the Universal Church appearing to have been beforehand, made at all, or any, General Council? §. 91.  
3. Q. How the Infallibility of General Councils is necessary, or serviceable to the Church; without which Councils, the Church subsisted, for several ages, most Orthodox? §. 98.  
4. Q. How Lawful General Councils, which experience hath showed to have contradicted one another, can be all Infallible? §. 100  
5. Q. Lawful General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things; how Christians can be assured, concerning any particular point, that in it these Councils do not err? §. 101.  
6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed Infallible; How, if they should not be so, can any error of theirs be rectified? §. 102.  
7. Q. Whether such Councils, only when confirmed by the Pope, or all, when yet unconfirmed by Him, are infallible? §. 104.  
8. Q. How the Pope's Confirmation can any way concur to such Councils non-erring; since, if it erred before, it doth so still, though he approve it: but, if orthodox before, it is so still, he not approving it? §. 105.  
9 Q. In which, (the Pope, or the Council;) this Infallibility lies? For, if in one of them, the other is needless: if in Both, then either of them sufficient: such qualities being indivisible, and without integral Parts? §. 106.  
§. 86 AGainst a living infallible Ecclesiastical Judge of Controverfies in necessary matters of Religion, 
Solutions of several Questions.  asserted above in this discourse by Catholics; and the Church Governors in a Lawful General Council, affirmed to be so; many difficulties are urged; and some, with much subtlety; which, it seems to me, may be, with as much plainness, satisfactorily removed.  
1st. Then, 
Q. 1.  it is asked 
† See Mr. Stillings p. 409, 539, 558. , whence can arise a sufficient certainty to Christians, that lawful General Councils are infallible? Since it cannot arise, * from the Decree of any Council; because we know not, whether Councils err in such a Decree, till this thing first be stated to us, whether they are infallible. Nor, 2ly. * From the Scripture: Because this were to make the Scripture the sole Judge of this great Controversy, which Catholics deny to be the sole Judge of any: and, if Scripture may decide this Controversy, it may as well all others: for that it is evident, that there are no places of Scripture, whose sense is more controverted, than the sense of those urged concerning the Church's Infallibility: If therefore these may be understood, without a living, and Infallible Judge, so, as that we may be certain of their true sense; then why not all others which concern the rule of Faith, and manners, whose sense is far less disputed, than of these?  
§. 87 To which I answer. 1st. That Scripture, though it cannot properly be a Judge to decide any dispute about its sense; yet may be a rule, plain, and free enough from obscurity, in its sense, there, where some corrupt and interessed judgements may question it; nor is it to be thought really ambiguous where ever disputed or controverted; and that, though the clearness of this Rule can never be pretended, or such argument, in reason, made use of on that side, where a few do oppose either the common traditional sense of former ages, or of the much major part of the present age; yet on the other side, the sense thereof, that is given by the common judgement, either of former, or present times, may be rationally urged against these few; and especially where a superior Authority requires their conformity, they ought to yield unto it. And here see what he saith 
‖ Still. p. 58, 59  (who urgeth this) both concerning Scripture wrested by some in its sense, even in those places of it, where it is a Rule of necessary faith and manners; and concerning the Christians duty herein to follow the common sense, and consent of the Church. Now, that these Scriptures here spoken of (however by some of late controverted) have been always understood, in the common sense of the Church, to declare a promise of infallibility in its Governors, for necessaries, appears sufficiently by the proceed of her Councils ancient and modern; requiring, upon Anathema, assent to their decrees, and inserting some of them in the Creeds. Of which more by and by 
‖ § 90. . Here than it is denied; that Scripture, when ever controverted by a few in some age against the traditional and common sense of the Church, both in the former and present age (as the Texts concerning the Trinity are now of late by the Socinian) is no Rule plain, or free, enough from obscurity in the traditional sense thereof, to decide such controversy.  
§. 88 2ly. I answer (for so much as is affirmed of such Councils; namely their infallibility in all their definitions made in necessary matters of faith:) That Protestants themselves grant a sufficient certainty, both from Scripture, and from universal tradition, that the Church Catholic of all ages is unerring in necessaries; and that this Church Catholic always doth, and shall consist as well of a guiding and ruling Clergy, as a guided and subject Laity: And that thus far there is no controversy, concerning evidence of Scripture, or Tradition. And next: from hence it certainly follows; that there shall be a body of Clergy for ever not erring in necessaries— And again, from this; that this Clergy, when joined in a general assembly, or Council, and unanimously consenting, shall never err in necessaries. And then in the last place, if perhaps some smaller number of them do dissent from the rest; since the Catholic Church is always but one; and is a Government at peace within itself; and constituted in a due subordination of its members in respect of one another, and also in respect of the whole; here also it rationally follows: that the greater, and more dignified body of this Clergy, in any division of some members from it, must be, of these two, that Guide whom Christians are obliged to follow, and the lesser and inferior part obliged to conform to; and therefore this, of the two, the Guide unerring. See before Disc. 2. §. 23. etc.— Disc. 1. §. 18. Here then ariseth a sufficient certainty in reason, from the principles conceded by Protestants, of the unerring of a lawfully general Council in necessaries, without showing the Decree of any Council for it.  
§. 89 3ly. Setting aside any declaration of Scripture in this matter of infallibility; and supposing the Gospel had not been writ: yet both the Teachers of the Gospel for ever (in their general Council at least) must have been infallible in necessaries: (else, from whom, or by what other means, no Scriptures being exstant, could people have learned the way to salvation?): And also, this their infallible guidance must have been made sufficiently credible to the world by the tradition constantly descending from the testimony of our Lord, and his Apostles; who confirmed this their first testimony by Miracles: (else, the Christian, would have been no rational, Religion). By which testimony also it was, that those first Teachers, substituted by the Apostles, had full credit with, and did beget infallible, and saving faith in, their Gentile-Auditors, before that the Holy Scriptures were delivered unto these Gentiles; and therefore it appears, that these Teachers might have been also to this day, with sufficient certainty, relied on, in their propagating, and preserving the Christian faith among their Converts, had there been no Scriptures at all to have taught the same things with them; and to have born witness to their Doctrine.  
Neither may it rationally be said, that the Church's possession of these Scriptures hath disinherited them of any part of that Authority, and belief, which, it is agreed, that they might have challenged, had there been no Scripture; but that the present Church ought still, in the same manner, to be believed by her children to be infallible in all necessary truth, as the Apostles were believed to be so by those, who heard them, and only, from sufficiently credible witnesses, had heard of, but had not seen any of, their miracles. And then; supposing first this their infallibility in necessaries to be thus made credible to us by sufficient evidence in point of reason 
† See Stillingf p. 559. , we are to believe them also, when in their Councils, they tell us, that they are infallible in all necessaries (if this be a truth necessary to be known) upon this account, because they tell us so: As he, that once believes, that whatever is said in God's Word is true, is to believe also, that God's Word is true, because this Word saith so. Here than you see, that there would have been a sufficient certainty or assurance to Christians, descending by Tradition, of their being truly and infallibly guided by the Substitutes of our Lord to the end of the world, without the decree of any Council presupposed; and had there been no holy Scriptures extant. The same infallible guidance therefore is now had and known sufficiently from them, though we putting also the Scriptures.  
§. 90 4ly. By primitive Tradition, the Catholic Church in her General Councils hath always thought herself authorized to define matters of faith upon Anathema to dissenters; and to put them (as thought fit) in the Church's Creeds with an obligation laid on all, to believe them. Now either this will imply the infallibility of these Councils (as they conceived) in such points; or, if this be thought to argue something less, let but the same privilege still be continued to the present Church Catholic in her Councils; and the same obedience yielded by her subjects to her present definitions; and a sufficient certainty hereof granted, viz. that such authority she hath, and such duty they own: and any further extent of infallibility I suppose will not be claimed. Here again we see, that tradition in the practice of Councils, without any their Decree, shows a sufficient certainty of such an infallibility of Councils, as is challenged.  
Thus much in answer to this first Query. Where, the taking this for a Principle of Catholics; that none can have a sufficient certainty of any thing (either from Scripture, or Church-Tradition, grounded at first on Miracles) antecedent to the Church's authority defining it in a general Council, causeth in some Protestants much misarguing in this, and several other points. But now, if we return a like Query upon themselves, who profess also a sufficient certainty; in their faith, even of those points, that are in controversy (or it sufficeth, if they profess so much concerning any one such point); and ask, whence they have such certainty? I see not, what rationally they can reply. For 1st. They cannot build such a certainty on any Church-authority, since they deny any infallibility, or sufficient certainty as to such points in the Declarations or Doctrines of this Authority, even in the supremest Collection thereof, the Councils General, present, or past.  
Nor yet 2ly. on the Scriptures, because the true sense of them, in these points, is not only disputed (which is here urged by them, as sufficient to null a certainty); but, by the much major part of Christendom, and that, after the Protestants manifesting to the world all the grounds of their persuasion, said to be clear against their new pretensions. But 3ly. Since the Gospel was dispersed in the world by Christ's Substitutes, and Ministers, and a multitude of souls saved thereby, before the penning, or publishing of the New Testament, or Gospel-Scriptures; and therefore possibly might in the same manner have continued to have been dispersed to the end of the world; or for a much longer time than it was so: this Query will still sorer press them; what certainty, in such a case, they (I mean the world learning their faith from Teachers, without Scripture) could have had of their faith? Or whence? Or whether no certainty, in such case, to be had?  
§. 91 2ly. Again it is asked 
‖ See Archb Lawd p. 228, 239— Stillingf p. 515, 516, 513.  from whence General Councils should derive this their infallibility? Because, 1st. The divine promises of infallibility (if made to any) are made only to the diffusive Body of the Catholic Church. Neither can she bequeath or delegate this infallibility to her assigns in a General Council, if no such power of devolution be contained in the original Grant; nor it can be showed, that the maker of the promises did either appoint a General Council to represent the Church, or in such representation to be infallible. But 2ly. Neither can it be made evident, that the universal Church de facto, hath either by a formal act, or by a tacit consent, devolved, either its infallibility, or its whole power, and authority on, or given any commission to, any General Council to appear in behalf of the universal Church; which Commission must precede the being of such a Council; and also is necessary, not only to the first, but toties, quoties, to every General Council: but, that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act, is utterly impossible to be demonstrated, either that it was, or could be. 3ly. Neither, suppose it had such a delegation, yet can this representative, upon this, lay title to our Lords, or to any divine, institution (of which there cannot be produced one tittle from Scripture, of Christ's conveying over the Church's power to it, or any particular order from the Apostles concerning it) but only to the Church's, i e. humane, institution.  
And, if we inquire, thus instituted, what authority it hath? The utmost (saith Mr. Stillingfleet 
‖ p. 510. ) that can be supposed is this, That the parts of the Church [i. e. such parts, whom by their delegation, and choosing of them, the persons in the Council represent] may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council; and by that voluntary act, or by the supreme authority enjoining it, such decrees may become obligatory. Thus he. And thus I think the authority of General Councils is sufficiently pared. 1 Their authority only delegative from that Body which yet they pretend to bind by their acts; 2. None of them a representative of the whole; which neither hath, nor can, make any such representative; 3. Commissioned by some parts of the Church only; 4. The promises of divine assistance, as to infallibility, not made to them (if any made), but only to the whole diffusive Body of the Church Catholic (from whose laws, let us but take away Councils, Protestants are secure enough); 5. Nor possible by the Church diffusive to be made over, or assigned to them; 6. These not of our Lords, nor Apostolical, but only humane, institution; 7. Obligatory only to those parts of the Church, who voluntarily consent to accept of their Decrees. One would suspect, that General Councils have been no great friends to Protestantism, when they put in so many bars to keep out their Decrees from annoying the Reformation. Men seldom vilify an Authority, that favours them.  
§. 92 To this I answer. 1st. That the Church Governors, whenever assembled in Council, do act by the self same authority (received from our Lord, and from their Divine Institution) by which they act singly in their several charges; and that all the rest of the Church Catholic are their subjects obliged in all duty to them, as much when conas disjoined. For, as Dr. Hammond answers the Catholic Gentleman 
‖ p. 27, 28.  (in clearing of himself, that his mentioning of Schism against Bishops, Metropolitans, and Primats, involved also Schism against the Councils compounded of all these)— It is evident, that this Power, which severally belongs to these Bishops, is united in that of the Councils compounded of them; and so, the despising of that, [the power of such Councils] is an offence under the first sort of Schism, and a breach of the subordination to all the ranks of our Ecclesiastical Superiors. What authority then, and whence they had it singly, they have, united. Neither is this their authority either in their several Provinces, or in their Synods, delegative, save from Christ, and his Apostles.  
§. 63 2. Next: That they are not pretended to have their infallibility in necessaries, by any assignment from the Church diffusive, but, that they have it immediately from the divine promises, made principally, and primarily to them, to whom is committed the feeding of our Lord's sheep for ever, and the guiding them in the right way, of which see Disc. 1. §. 7.14. and that the Church diffusive is therefore unerring for ever in necessaries, because these Guides are so; and the reason, why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, the building, is, because, in the chief place, they shall not prevail against these Pastors, and Teachers, the Rocks, and Foundations, whereon it is built. And, if such promise made primarily to them; then surely made to them in this their most comprehensive capacity, when all joined together: If, at any time, the Church, in the Acts 
‖ cap. 15 28. , might use the stile [Visum est Spiritui sancto, & nobis] then in their general assembly; and when they were collecti in unum 
‖ ver. 25. , every smaller meeting of them, or also every single person, seeming muchless capable thereof; and if this inerrability necessary to them in any manner at all, most necessary in these highest Courts, to which ultimately all others do appeal, and whose Laws all are bound to obey. See before §. 8.  
§. 94 3ly. As to the convening and composure of this conjunct Judicature of the Clergy; I answer 1st. That these Church Governors are, by our Lords, and Apostolical constitution, placed in a due subordination one to another 
† See Disc. 2. §. 23, 24. ; and several Superiors endued with power to assemble them, in greater, or lesser Bodies, as the business requires, and times permit; these Superiors being sometimes assisted herein by the secular powers, as in the times after Constantine; yet sometimes also without them, as in the ages preceding Constantine; the Diocesan Synod being convened by the Bishop; Provincial, or National, by the Metropolitan, or Primate; and General, by the Prime Patriarch, and Bishop of the chief Apostolic See. [For, why not an Ecclesiastical person have the right of calling a General Council, as well as the Metropolitan of a Provincial Synod, the Primate of a National, and (as Dr. Field ascends higher) the Patriarch of a Patriarchal?— ' For it is evident (saith he 
† p. 668. & p. 518. ) that there is a power in Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates, and Patriarches, to call Episcopal, Provincial, National and Patriarchal Synods [yet the last of which consisteth of the Bishops living under the temporal Government of several Princes]: and that neither so depending of, and subject to the power of Princes; but that, when they are enemies to the faith [I add by the same reason, or enemies to the Orthodox faith] they may exercise the same without their consent, or privity; and may subject them, that refuse to obey their summons, to such punishments, as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence. Thus he.] 2. Next. That these conjunct Proceed, and Judicature, of the Church-Guides in greater causes do appear also to be sufficiently allowed, and authorized by our Lord, and his Apostles, both * from those Texts which mention, and refer to, a conjunct authority; as from Mat. 18.17. tell the Church— which signifies a presence, of more than one of those, who were to judge— and from verse 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name. [i. e. by my authority for Judicature, as appears by the context, vers. 18. their binding, and losing (from which the Council of Chalced. 
† In their Epistle to Leo, etc. See Celestins Epist add Concil. Ephesin.  gathers, a minori ad majus, the authority of more general assemblies)— and from 1 Cor. 5.14, 15. When ye are gathered together: [i. e. the Clergy chief, Excommunication being an Act only of the Clergy of Corinth]. And also * from the Example in the Acts; where, upon the first great controversy a Council was called to consider it; in which, though there was much disputing 
† Act 15 6, 7.  (as useth to be in other Councils) yet the conclusion made therein, was enjoined to the whole Church not only by, or in, the name of the Apostles, but of the whole Council; and was enjoined by these, as assisted by that infallible holy Ghost (vers. 28.) by which holy Ghost also they are said to be constitued Governors of the Church, Act. 20.28. And S. Paul afterward, every where, in his perambulations, delivered the decrees of this Council to be observed, Act. 16.4. And lastly, * from the pattern (established by God, Deut. 17.) of the former Church under the Old Testament (which pattern that of the Gospel generally followeth): whose chiefest Court for deciding Controversies was a Consisttory, or Council; which also we find, in the four Gospels, and in the Acts, to be called upon all greater occasions.  
§. 95 4ly. That, in this meeting, though all these Governors (I mean the Bishops) who succeeded the Apostles in the chief ruling of the Church, have right, and also are obliged in duty to their Superiors, summoning them (greater inconveniencies not hindering), to be present: yet, the Churches of God having perpetual need of the residency of several of them, Hence it is, that, as some of these successors of the Apostles personally sit in the Council, and act there upon no other delegated authority save their own, held from Christ; so others are only there represented by their fellows, who are many times deputed also by them in their necessary absence to declare their sentiments, and vote, in matters of present debate in their stead: In respect of these absent Prelates than it is, as to any power of deciding truths, or making Laws, that this Body is called a representative, and not in respect of the multitude, that is subject to their Orders, and obliged to receive their commands; And called a Representative of these absent Church-Colleagues, not so, as if this Body, residing in the Council, had no authority, but held from them, (the authority of both being equal); or, as if they needed, for their own Session there, any Commission, or warrant from the rest, when as indeed the absents need rather a Dispensation from them, where all, being lawfully summoned by their spiritual Superiors, out of the duty they own to them, aught to be present, and for absence are liable to their mulcts; but only, as is said, for that several of them are deputed by these absents to present their vote and judgement in the things consulted on, which necessary occasions hinder them from delivering, there, themselves.  
§. 96 5ly. That, seeing this Collection of Prelates, especially in later times, if we take the greatest that hath, or morally can be, amounteth but to a small number in comparison of the whole Body of Prelates of the whole Universe, therefore the resolutions of the absent, concerning matters to be defined, are declared either in Provincial, or other lesser meetings, before such Council; or, the things defined (which gives less trouble,) are afterward by them ratified, and accepted, at least so far as to a tacit consent, or noncontradiction of the Acts of such Council of them convened, whereby those Acts become most firm, and universally obliging. Where it is also to be noted, * That the prudence of the Bishops residing in such Councils, though they have not, antecedently, the formal consent of their Brethren remaining in the Provinces for every thing they define, yet doth usually take care to regulate their definitions according to the common, clear, known, Tradition of the Church Doctors, both of former, and present times; (present, and former Tradition, as well for the sense of Scriptures, as for other things not mentioned in Scripture, being the great director of their proceed, according the ancient Rule of Pope Steven, nihil innovetur). Tradition, I say, either of the Conclusion itself that is decided; or of the Principles, whence it is clearly deduced; and * that they do abstain from determining any thing, wherein they know Catholic Divines are much divided; & where any doubt is of a concurrence therein, of either all, or most, of their absent Colleagues: This division of judgements hinting to them, both that there is more obscurity, and uncertainty of the Truth of such Point; and less necessity of its being known; and they generally apprehend themselves only to be Guardians of the current Tradition, not discoverers of any new Science. And such a proceeding Mr. Stillingfleet observes in the Fathers of the Council of Trent, where he (transforming their Christian wisdom into humane subtlety, and guilty fear) saith 
† p. 512. — That by this Council much care was taken, in many of its decrees, to pass them in such general terms, that each party might find their sense in them; and that they were fearful of declaring themselves, for fear of disobliging a particular party. Thus he. Which, drawn in fairer colours, is only to say: That this Council, without descending to a compliance with particular opinions, in its decrees established only those doctrines, which were generally delivered, and agreed on, by the learned of those Churches, which they there represented.  
§. 97 6ly. Yet, that this ratification of absent Ecclesiastical Governors is not held necessary as to all particular persons, or Churches (for neither, had all these absents been present in the Council, is the vote of every one there necessary for passing an Act;) or further, than a moderately major part of them. To which major part joined with the See Apostolic, as in the Council, so by the same reason out of the Council, the rest of Prelates, and Churches are obliged to conform, in their judgement, and in the— Idem sapientes; idipsum sentientes, in eâdem permanentes regulâ; non prudentes apud semetipsos, which is so often inculcated by the Apostle 
† Philip. 2.3.3.16. R●m. 12 16. ; that there may be no Schism, but eternal unity, and peace, in this Catholic Body; as for the remainder of the Church diffusive, (the Laity, or also some degrees of inferior clergy;) as they have no authority to sit here, as members, so neither have they to confirm, or refuse the acts of this supreme Court; but are tied with an obedite, & subjacere praepositis. Heb. 13.17. to submit to their decrees, and obey their injunctions to such a degree, as they are required.  
And thus do vanish those fancies— ● Of every General Council's receiving a Commission (to make its meeting authentic) from some formal act, or tacit consent of the Church diffusive: of the assistance of infallibility (if any had) to be made over to it by assignment from the Church diffusive; of its acting, not by any divine right, but only humane delegation; and of the several parts of the Church being obliged to its decrees, by their choice, and consent only, not upon necessity.  
3ly. Again: It is asked: how such an Ecclesiastical infallibility as is placed in a General Council, 
Q. 3.  can be said to be serviceable, or at least necessary, to the Church; which subsisted, §. 98 for the first 300. years, without any such infallible Guide? And it is asked also; by what infallible Guide, in the long intervals of these Councils, Christians are secured?  
§. 99 To the first I answer; That this infallibility is to be supposed to accompany this Body of the Clergy taken collectively, not only when met in a General Council, but out of it, whenever, and however they shall manifest a concurrence in their judgement, and agreement in their doctrines: whether by several Provincial Councils assembled; or some one Provincial Council assembled, confirmed by the See Apostolic, and allowed by other  Churches; or by communicatory letters of Churches to one another, in the intervals of greater meetings; and thus was infallibility resident, and preserved in the Guides of the Church, for the first 300. years. Of this matter thus Mr. Thorndike 
† Epilog. 1 l c. 8 p. 54.  (speaking of the times before Constantine)— The daily intercourse, intelligence, and correspondence between Churches, without those Assemblies of Representatives we call Councils, was a thing so visibly practised by the Catholic Church from the beginning, that thereupon, I conceive, it may be called a standing Council, in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part, and tending to question the peace of the whole, by the consent of other Churches concerned, [which setlement was] had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence, and correspondence. The holding of Councils being a way of far greater dispatch; but the express consent of Churches, obtained upon the place, being a more certain foundation of peace, etc. Thus he. And see what is said before Disc. 1. §. 18.  
To the second. That, in the intervals of Councils, if any new error, dangerous to the faith, and condemned by no former General Council, doth molest the Church, she, by some of the forenamed ways, wherein she is unerrable, if there be no convenience of assembling a General Council, suppresseth it; but if an error formerly condemned, and crushed by a general Council, begin to exalt itself, and grow again; that there needeth no more to quiet it, than that the present Church Governors do put in execution the former unerring decrees of those Councils.  
4ly. Again it is asked: 
Q. 4.  How lawful General Councils can be maintained all unerring, §. 100 which Councils experience hath showed to have contradicted one another?  
To which I answer: That he, who saith so, either takes some Council to be a lawful General one, that is not so in the judgement of the present Church Catholic, as stated before §. 11, 12. & 2. Disc. §. 23. etc. Or takes some of their definitions to contradict, which do not so, in the judgement of the present Church Catholic. Or urgeth things in some ages commonly received, or practised (in which there is a great latitude,) as things then defined. But, if the judgement of the Church in these aught to be preferred before some private members thereof, she denies such contradiction in matters of faith to be in any of the General Councils, that she receives.  
5ly. Again it is asked: 
Q. 5.  If a General Council should err in the defining of something not necessary; and again, §. 101 if it can be proved, that no exact distinction can be made of such from necessaries, how any Christian can be secure, for any particular point of his faith, that both such Council, and himself, do not err in it?  
I answer. 1st. That, if what is supposed should be granted, yet still is such Christian, as believes all the Council proposeth, secure, that his faith is deficient in nothing necessary. And, that Protestants think the like security sufficient in their own faith. For they holding the sense of Scripture clear even to the unlearned in all necessaries, and believing all the Scripture saith, though they cannot exactly distinguish necessary points therein from others, yet affirm their faith to be secure, because actually not erring in any point clear, and so also, not in any point necessary. 2ly. That, as to the Principal points of faith called necessary, they are both, by Councils, sufficiently discerned from non-necessaries; and proposed as necessaries; and so by Christians believed as such: In these particulars, therefore, they are certain of their not erring; and, as to other points of their faith, that it is sufficient for Christians to know; that, if necesiary, they do not err in them; though, which in particular are necessary, and so certainly not erred in, they know not. But meanwhile, do those, who urge, thus, an uncertainty in the faith of Catholics in attaching their judgement to Councils, which in not necessaries are supyosed liable to error, make (themselves) any better provision for the Protestants faith, in remitting them, from Councils, unto their own judgements; which, in necessaries also, they grant, are liable to error; at least, upon their, not using due industry, their being swayed by passion, interest, etc. which every humble man, surely, will suspect himself of sooner, than a Council?  
6ly. Again. It is much pressed; That, upon the pretence, 
Q. 6.  that a General Council is infallible, §. 102 no error of such Council can ever be corrected, or remedied, neither by a particular person or Church; or yet by another Council General.  
I answer: If the Council be, as it is pretended, infallible, no need of correcting an error, where is none. If it be fallible; yet if so, only in non-necessaries; no great harm, if Christians in such a point be misled; but great, if, private men throwing off the Guide upon such pretence, they should so come in some necessary point to miscarry. But indeed, for General Councils to be fallible in necessaries also, this I grant would be a thing most mischievous to the Church: but, that they shall never thus err, see what is said before §. 6. & Disc. 1. §. 7.14. And indeed, the objection here, i. e. the ruin, which such error would bring upon Christianity, (considering the obedience commanded to these Councils) is a sufficient Argument, that thus they never err; nor consequently need reformation.  
§. 103 But meanwhile those, who urge this, that the error of a General Council, in an universal obligation of belief to it, can never be rectified, or reform, consider not; That, on the other side, in admitting a reformation of any its supposed errors, no truth can be established; and that, before one error will so be amended; many truths, whilst its definitions are exposed to the trial of every private fancy, will be perverted; and that it is much the better of the two, that some error [in non-necessaries] remain unremedied, than that no truth [in necessaries] stand fixed, and confirmed. Again, since all persons, for the truth of such things wherein the sense of Scripture is controverted, if they will not profess themselves Sceptics, aught to acquiesce in some ultimate Judge, or other, though liable to error; let those then, who reject a General Council, name what other ultimate Judge they will choose, rather. I suppose, here, they will blush to name themselves for that Judge; neither can they have show of reason to name either any other single person, or yet inferior Council to be that Judge, against a General. Lastly. The same difficulty and hazard may be charged upon the Protestant's ground of the certainty of his faith 
† See Disc. 2. § 38.  viz. That the sense of holy Scripture is clear to all using ordinary industry to understand it, in all necessaries, For now supposing, that indeed the sense of Scripture should not be clear, and so such Protestant (solely guided by it) using his industry yet should err, in some such point; such error of his is no way to be rectified, so long as he maintains this ground. A thing observed by Mr. Thorndike, Just Weights, c. 21. p. 137.  
7ly. Again it is asked: whether a lawful General Council be affirmed infallible only with, 
Q. 7.  or also without the concurrence and confirmation of its decrees by the Bishop of Rome? §. 104  
To which (waving here, what testimony may be produced from Scripture, and the Exposition of Antiquity, concerning St. Peter's supremacy, and the Bishop of Rome's succeeding in it). 1st. I answer in the words of the Apostle 
† 1 Cor. 11.16.  (standing upon the Church's custom) in another matter: That the Churches of God always have had such a custom to define nothing in faith without, or against, the consent of this Successor of Saint Peter, and Bishop of the prime Apostolic See; and that this hath been constantly delivered by their Tradition. See the ancient Canon concerning this [Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum]; * urged by Julius not long after the Council of Nice (in his Epistle recited by Athanasius Apol. 2.) against the Oriental Arrian Bishops slighting his authority; * urged by Innocentius (apud August. Ep. 91.): * mentioned by Socrates l. 2. c. 13— by Sozomen, l. 3. c. 9 And it is remarkable, that in the times, that those, acknowledged by all, capital errors (suppressed in the Athanasian Creed) troubled the Church, though all the other chief Patriarches were tainted with one or other of them; yet the Bishop of Rome always stood, firm, and the Church, in her vote, always joined with his Chair, though divided from some of the other. If the Act of Liberius be here objected, see what is answered to it. Disc. 2. §. 26. n. 4. And, seeing this Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholic presides in General Councils 
† See before §. 33. , as the Metropolitan doth in Provincial, therefore, as the Canons ordered concerning Provincial Councils—  nihil praeter Metropolitanis conscientiam gerant, etc. sic enim unanimitas erit 
† Apostol. can. 35. Concil. Antioch. can. 9 : so there seems the same equity, that neither the General Councils should pass any acts without the consent of the Roman Bishop, their Precedent, and Head. But 2ly. So long as no Councils are pressed upon Protestants, as lawfully general, or infallible, save only such, which this Prime Patriarch hath always consented to, and confirmed, this question, whether the Acts of such Councils may stand good, or their authority be infallible, without his consent may be superseded.  
8. Again; it is asked: 
Q. 8.  How the Pope's Confirmation of its decrees can concur to the not erring of such a Council, since his Confirmation follows its final decision? For now, if it hath erred, it is erroneous, though he approves it; if not, it is Orthodox [and so may be safely accepted] though he rejects it 
† Dr. Pierce Answ. to Cressy p. 17.— Stillingf. p. 509. .  
I answer; his Confirmation secures us, that the Council errs not, (or the Council never errs, when he confirms it); because, supposing that the rest of the Council should decree an error, the Grace of God, or the Holy Ghost assists this holy Father, and Prime Patriarch of the Church Catholic, Precedent of these Councils so, as that it effectually hinders him (after what manner, or by what means it pleaseth) that he doth never confirm it, lest so the whole Church should be misguided in something necessary. Or again, when he perhaps would (left to himself) confirm an error, the same Holy Spirit assists the Council so, (by what ways of the divine wisdom it matters not) that they do not define it. And thus the Council never erreth, being confirmed by him; either, because its decree is Orthodox; or, his consent withheld. Hence then, if the decrees be erroneous, he never approves; if Orthodox, he safely approves them.  
9 Again it is asked; 
Q. 9  if the Council not secure from erring without the Pope's approbation; §. 106 nor again, the Pope without the assistance of a Council, in which of the two the infallibility, or not erring, resides? For, in which soever we shall place it, it renders the other needless.  
I answer: where is supposed the consent of both in a truth, the actual non-erring lies in both: But the Original cause of this not erring may be sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the other, (as also erring may be in either, separated) as they are by the holy Ghost more effectually illuminated, or guided so, as in the last question is explained.   

CHAP. IX.  
10. Q. If General Councils infallible; whether they are so in their conclusions only? which infers Enthusiasm, or new Revelation. Or also in their premises and proofs? upon which, assent will be due to all their Arguments. §. 107.  
11 Q. Why, being infallible at least in their conclusions, they do not end all controversy, but leave so many unresolved? §. 108.  
12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles? And the infallibility of their Decrees, from that of Scripture?. 109.  
13. Q. How many persons, or Guides, all fallible, can make up one infallible? §. 112.  
14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils infallible; yet, how can any know infallibly, which are lawful General Councils? Because of the many conditions required to make them such; in some one of which, he can never be infallibly certain of any Council, that it hath not failed. §. 114.  
10. A Gain; it is asked: If a lawful General Council be not liable to error, whether it is so, in its Definitions, and Conclusions only, or in the Premises also, and its right deduction of the Conclusion from them?  
I answer; That it is not necessary, that it should be free from error, save in the Definition, or conclusion only; [which I say, not, as denying sufficient former Revelation, and Tradition, whereon to ground every conclusion, that hath been passed in any Council: nor, that such Revelation, and Tradition is unknown to the Council; but only, that, for the Councils not erring in the Conclusion, this is not necessary, that all the Principles, or all the reasoning it useth, be infallible, and certain. If it be asked; how it is possible, that the Council should be infallible, or actually unerring, (for this is all that is meant), in the Conclusion, when fallible, or erring in the making Premises, or deduction? I answer: Because the Holy Ghost assists them that they should always conclude right, and that, from some principles never failing. Though some other such a conclusion, be not solid. I say some principle, for, since the same conclusion is provable by many several Mediums, or Arguments; or the Conclusion, or Definition itself may descend by express Tradition, and not be extracted only out of some former traditive Principle by deduction, it cannot be showed, that any Council hitherto hath failed in either of these, the delivering a proposition as express Tradition, that was not so, or the deducting it from principles, none of which are true, or Traditional. Nor are we certain, that more Arguments, or Reasons were not used by any such Council, than those only, that are transmitted to posterity. Nor do I see, who are sufficient Judges of the misarguing of Councils, unless it be some following Council of the same Authority. It cannot be denied also, that the Holy Ghost may preserve the Church in all necessary Truth, by inspiring and illuminating their understandings in, and exciting the adherence of their will to such Truth, when they are mistaken in some of the rational evidence they think they have for it. By illuminating them, I say, after the same ordinary manner in the Council; as them, or others, out of it: only this assistance, here, is constant, to a competent number, (and they are disposed rightly for it) in this supreme Ecclesiastical Court, for the necessities of the Church; whereas, out of the Council, the same persons, when, some way indisposed thereto, often fail of it. But in the last place, if it be asked; how they, or others can know, that that they do not err in the Conclusion, where their premises, or their deduction is supposed erroneous? I answer; 1st. That they may know they do not err, either from Tradition of the Conclusion, or the certainty of other premises, or evident deduction, used. 2ly. That, indeed, they cannot truly be certain of their conclusion by this way, viz. from their arguing, if it be not right; or from the Principle they use, if this uncertain, or false; but yet they may be certain of their Conclusion still by another way from Christ's promises, if he hath engaged to them a not erring therein; and the confidence of their infallibility lies in this latter, not always the former, which perhaps may be discovered sometimes to fail: In the first Council (Act. 15.) there was much reasoning pro, and con (v. 15.) and some reasoning that was amiss; and yet to their Conclusion was prefixed a— Visum est Spiritui Sancto.  
11. Again it is asked: 
Q. 11.  Why, if these Councils secure of not erring, §. 108 at least in their Conclusions, they do not straightways determine all Controversies, some of which seem necessary to be so determined, because of the great trouble they give the Church? and particularly; why the Council of Trent left so many unresolved, that were agitated not only before, but also in that Council, by its own members?  
I answer, Because they have a promise of divine assistance, not in deciding any point controverted, but only those necessary. And, again, they judge necessary to be decided only those points, whereof they have a former Revelation, and Tradition descended to them (for, in all necessaries, by the divine providence, these two fail them not); a Revelation, and Tradition thereof either in the formal Conclusion itself, or in its necessary Principles. In the considering of which Principles, and deductions, though the Guides are sometimes liable to mistakes; yet the divine promise, and superintendency * never suffers them to err in the matter that is concluded from them, or also never suffers them to err in all those principles (when they attempt by these to prove some tradition) from which it may be concluded, (as is mentioned in the last Query), whilst they pass not beyond the settling of those doctrines, which are necessary for the edification of this Church; * nor yet 2ly. suffers them to pass these bounds of resolving necessaries; so far as to burden the Church's faith with curiosities. And this union of the divine direction, together with humane reasoning, may be observed in the very first Council held Act. 15. but now mentioned. Where the assistance of the Holy Ghost is applied to all or major part that sat in Council, and concurred in making the decree, not only to the Apostles; and is found well to consist with the great reasoning, & disputing used there before the la●● resolution— Cum autem magna conquisitio fieret Vers. 7.— And yet— Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis. Vers. 28.  
There are therefore two sorts of Controversies, which these supreme Courts ordinarily dismiss unresolved: the one sort out of necessity: namely those, whereof they find no certain former Revelation, or Tradition: whence, with good reason, they conclude also the knowledge of them not necessary: the other voluntarily: such as appear to them of sufficient evidence, but small consequence.  
12. Again; it is asked: 
Q. 12.  How such infallibility of lawful General Councils doth any way differ from that of the Apostles? §. 109 or that of their decrees, from the holy Scriptures?  
I answer: That whatever decrees of Councils are true, they are as true, as the Scriptures; and in whatever the Church-Guides are infallible or unerring, they are as infallible in it, as the Apostles (for one truth is no truer, than another): but that this their infallibility, as to several circumstances thereof, compared with the Apostles, is much inferior.  
1st. In that it is not extended so far for its matter, as that of the Apostles; they being infallible in all they delivered, these only in their Conclusions, or Definitions.  
§. 110 2ly. In that, though sometimes the reason, why these do not err in such a Definition, may be, not their necessary deduction of it from an infallible Principle, but the inspiration, illumination, immediate assent of faith, or some other way of operation of God's Spirit at that time, upon them, in such manner, as it works on other Christians, when ever it opens their minds, and makes them understand a truth beyond the rational arguments they have, or humane industry they use, to attain it: yet such inspiration in this differs from that of the Apostles; that, as the Council collects not this their infallibility from any unfailable argumentations, always made by them concerning such particular Conclusion; so neither do they collect it from any such inspiration, which they sensibly p●rreive; nor from any express testimony, that the Spirit gives to such its operation, as the Apostles did; but only, in general, from the Divine Promise, that in all such Conclusions they shall not miscarry.  
§. 111 3ly. The Church's infallibility differs from the Apostolical, in that it is an inspiration, or revelation (if you will) not of any new Doctrine, but of such, as was, in its principles at least, formerly revealed, and delivered by Christ or his Apostles; and therefore the knowledge thereof, (if at any time it was not), might be, attained by deduction from those Principles, without any new inspiration, and is actually had in the Church still, either from such true Principle, or by Tradition of the Conclusion itself. And, to end this question; let them, who ask it, consider: in what manner the Church Catholic diffusive is for ever preserved infallible in necessaries (a thing they affirm) without its equalling infallibility Apostolical. And I answer: her General Councils are so too. To the other part of the Query, I answer; In what sort, their infallibility equals not the Apostles, so neither that of their decrees, that of Scripture.  
§. 112 13. Again; 
Q. 13.  it is asked: 
† Dr. Pierce Answ. to Cressy p. 9  How many persons, or Guides, all fallible, can make up one infallible; any more than many Planets one Sun; or many acts of finite knowledge, one, truly infinite?  
I answer 1st. with another question: How the whole diffusive Body of the Church, consisting of many members all fallible, or failable in necessaries, yet is affirmed by Protestants, that it shall be for ever infallible, or unfailable in necessaries? 2ly. Infallible being understood, as it is meant; i. e. for the Church actually never erring, at such time; in such a meeting; and treating on such matters; the question is no more than this: How several persons erring in one thing, may be non-erring in any, or in another, thing? Or how the same persons, when met together, and divinely assisted in the matters they consult about, do not, or shall not err, when the same persons in the same things, at some other time, when not consulting together, and having no certain divine assistance promised to them, may, and ordinarily do err? And it is answered, that this is effected by the good pleasure of God divinely assisting and preserving them in such meeting, in such matters, from error. It is also urged 
† Dr. Pierce Ib. p. 11. ; That Councils indeed may actually not err (as single persons also may not); yet that hence none can rightly style Councils infallible, or unerrable; and that there is a great difference between the Participle [suppose non fallens, or non falsus] and the Adjective in bilis [non fallibilis] I answer; whatever difference there be between Participles, and Adjectives; no more is here meant by the second, that by the first, only with a semper added to it, viz. Ecclesia infallibilis, i. e. semper non falsa [if I may use this word]: in errabilis, i, e. semper non errans; or de facto nunquam errans. Now, though particular members of the Church are also unerring in several things, yet not always; and though this, that God may preserve single persons unerring always, is true; yet that he doth so, is denied of them, but affirmed of the Church, or lawful General Council, as to all necessaries. Is it not strange, that grave Divines (rather than be found without a reply) should raise m●sts, and make great difficulties, and fall on vindicating the divine Attributes, in such a matter as this, intelligible to children? who, one day, must give account hereof.  
§. 113 After all these objections, and difficulties, made concerning the infallibility, or not erring of lawful General Councils. Next, supposing, that all such are, as to all necessary faith, an infallible Guide; and all the former difficulties concerning this point clearly removed: yet a new roll of objections, and interrogations is brought in against our discerning, or knowing certainly, what, or how many of past Councils have been lawfully General.  
14. Next than it is urged; That, 
Q. 14.  lawful General Councils only being pretended infallible. Any, §. 114 to be certain of any particular Councils it's not erring, and so to yield his assent to its decrees as such, must know first; whether it is a lawful General Council. And for this again; must know: who are justly the constitutive members of such a body? * whether Bishop's only, or also Presbyters, or also the Laity, (as, Act. 15.22, 23. the Brethren also are admitted)? * whether the votes therein ought to be numbered according to the persons, or rather to the several Churches, and Nations; the greater Churches having many times in the Synod the fewer representatives, and so the fewer personal votes? * whether the Bishops sitting therein were lawful Bishops? and, in order to this, whether 1st. truly Priests, and truly baptised? and whether that some of these Sacraments had no miscarriage, for want of the Priests due intention in administering them? * whether a sufficient number of Bishops residing in it, and those equally from all parts, so to make it a full and entire representative of the Church Catholic? and * whether the Pope's summons be sufficient thereto? [though this question seems needlessly asked for all those Councils, in the convening of which both the Pope, & Christian Princes have concurred] * 1. whether the Bishops appearing in Council were sufficiently commissioned from those Churches they pretend to represent? and 2. * whether sufficiently instructed, as to the points to be decided, concerning the fence therein of the absent Bishops first declared in their Provincial, or other, Synods, or meetings? and 3. * whether those in the Council did truly speak, and render this their fence? * whether, being lawfully assembled, they have also lawfully proceeded? * whether they came to the Council without prejudice, and sought nothing but the truth (otherwise they are not gathered together in Christ's name; and then, neither is he in the midst of them)? whether a faction, or some few (more powerful) have not out-witted, or overawed the rest? and * whether some, not corrupted, or bribed to give their vote against conscience? * whether, being lawfully assembled, and lawfully proceeding, they made indeed such decrees, as are pretended theirs? * what of these decrees are de fide, what not? * whether these decrees have that meaning really, which the peruser of them apprehends? for, Scriptures, in deciding of Controversies, being doubtful, and liable to wrong interpretations, why may not the decrees of Councils be so too? 
† Stillingf. p. 512.  Nay much more? for we have many other places to compare, the help of original tongues, and the help of the primitive Church, to understand Scripture by: when the decrees of Councils are many times purposely framed in general terms, and with ambiguous expressions to give satisfaction to some dissenting parties. [Thus they argue; as if they should say: If the Law cannot be understood, much less the Judge that is appointed to explain it, for also we have many Comments on the Law, none on his Sentence: or, as if the sense of those many Canons of Councils, that are urged against Protestants, were not granted by them both sufficiently clear, and accused by them as evidently erroneous]. Lastly, * whether their decrees have been confirmed by the Pope? And then, for this, it must be known also, whether the Pope confirming them was a lawful Pope, * whether not Simonically elected? [which but once happening, there follows from it the illegality of all his Successors; because these chosen by some Cardinals, that were created by him, who are no legitimate Electors; and upon this account (saith Mr. Stillingfleet 
† p. 125. ) there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the Fifth]. And here again return all these questions, concerning the Pope's Baptism, Ordination, etc. with a right intention of the Priest in doing them, which were asked formerly concerning the Bishops.  
These, and many more (such like) Queries are made by persons studying acuteness in throwing down the Pillars of a former settled faith, to make way for introducing a more free, and unconfined, (i. e. a more sceptical, and arbitrary, or latitudinarian) Religion. And, since from any of these Queries a quarrel may be made against a Council, as not lawful; there will never want, for any past Council, some pretence or other, of disallowing it, when stating Doctrines, or giving Laws, contrary to our inclination, or interest, and how easy were it for a Socinian, from several of these, to quarrel with that of Nice? See below Disc. 4. §. 18. etc.  
To all which I return this answer: 1st. That a rational, not-possibly-fallible, §. 115 certainty or assurance of the lawfulness of any Council, or of the forementioned particulars, whereby this lawfulness may be known, is by no side affirmed necessary. 2ly. That, as for a non-morally fallible certainty in respect of several of the particulars, [such as these, whether all the Bishops that sat in the Council of Nice, were truly and lawfully baptised, ordained, etc. none simoniacally elected, none come to the Council with prejudice, none corrupted, or overawed in giving his vote, etc.] this is sufficient, that, where any of these do fail the cognizance of Tradition, yet any Christian in general may be rationally assured (I mean, as to the much major part of such Council, for more needs not,) that that divine providence, and assistance, which is supposed to preserve the Church's lawful General Councils from not erring in necessaries, doth consequently either preserve such Councils, as are taken by this Church for lawfully general, from all such defects, as do render them not capable of his promise of not erring: Or, if any forepast Councils, reputed lawfully. General, have had such defects, doth continue the same privilege of not erring also to these Councils, because such their defects are undiscernible to the Church. Otherwise, the Church's error, in not discerning lawful Councils, would render the divine favour, in assisting lawful Councils, useless, and unbeneficial unto her.  
§. 116 And this answer is no more, than is thought reasonable, and given by Protestants in other cases. So Mr. Chillingworth, 
† p. 78.  up a doubt proposed; whether a Penitent doing his own best endeavours, when absolved of his sins, by one that goes for, but really is no Priest, or by a Priest, but without an intention of absolving him, receives any benefit thereby, thinks this a good answer: That God's goodness will supply all such defects, as, to humane endeavours, were unavoidable. And therefore, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be, as if he were one: and, if he gave absolution without intention, yet, in doing so, he should hurt himself only, not his Penitent— And Protestants (upon supposition that God hath, by no other way, clearly revealed the points necessary to salvation) do, from the same goodness of God, prove their fundamental Doctrine; that all necessaries to salvation are clearly revealed in Scripture; where, as I conceive the supposition to fail, so the arguing good, upon the common Principle: that, Deus non deficit in necessariis.  
§. 117 3. So far, as the former questions are moved concerning a sufficient certainty: I suppose Protestants will affirm; that they have a sufficient certainty concerning some Councils, that they were lawfully General: as; concerning the four first, whose Definitions also they retain in their Creed: what ground therefore of their certainty of these Councils (that they were lawfully General) they will return to a Socinian ask the former questions of them (whether this ground be a General Church-Tradition, or any thing else) the same may be returned to the same questions concerning the rest, that have been held lawfully General by the common Tradition of later times, since the sitting of such Councils. Add to this; that notwithstanding, in general, they allow some obedience due to lawful General Councils; yet, if they deny a sufficient certainty of knowing any such, this is, in effect, to release all Christian obedience to any Council, in particular.  
§. 118 4ly. I answer: That, for solution of the former questions, such as are more material (as touching the sufficiency of the representative; the lawfulness of their proceed, their Confirmation by the See Apostolic; acceptation by the Church diffusive (such as ●s necessary) etc. private Christians have sufficient certainty from the testimony, that after the sitting of such Councils, the continued Tradition of the Church Catholic, or of its Governors, taken in the sense explained before §. 8.12. & Disc. 2 §. 23. or also met in later Councils, delivers thereof: in which tradition he may securely rest, and supersede that quest, for satisfaction of the former doubts, with which others must needs be much perplexed, who have not the humility to acquiesce in the resolutions of their forefathers.  
§. 119 5ly. Since the Church Catholic (or its Governors as stated before 
† §. 2.6. ) of all ages, and therefore that of the present age, is an infallible Guide in necessaries; therefore, whatever former Councils, and their definitions, the present Church, or its Governors do accept, and own, Christians may be assured from this, that such Councils have not erred in necessaries; and either were lawfully general and obliging, or at least by this acceptation of the present Church, are rendered equivalent thereto; the act of this Church, her allowing their decrees being of the same strength, and vigour, as is her new decreeing them. And thus: for such Councils, the former inquiries become frustrated. Note, that I understand the acceptation of the present Church Catholic, or its Governors, in the sense explained before §. 11. etc. & Disc. 1. §. 38.  
6. But, lastly; though a sufficient certainty, by these ways, a Christian may have, concerning what, or how many, have been lawful General Councils, or equivalent thereto: and so, concerning their decrees: yet it is not affirmed by Catholics; that either a non-possibly, or a non-morally, fallible certainty of these Councils, or of their Decrees or Definitions, is necessary to all persons, for the attaining a divine and salvifical belief of all the necessary articles of their Faith. Of which see below §. 125.127. Provided, that every one be rightly disposed to believe; both concerning Councils, and their Decrees, what is, or shall be, by their Superiors sufficiently proposed to them; without and before which proposal, he may be, not only not infallibly certain, but, without peril to salvation, ignorant, (supposing the common Creeds, [professed by him,] to contain all articles, that are necessary ratione Medii to be explicitly believed), both, what Councils are lawfully General, and what such General Councils have decreed.   

CHAP. X.  
15. Q. Lastly, Catholics pretending, a Divine Faith of the Articles of Christian Religion to be necessary to salvation; and all Divine faith necessarily to be grounded on Divine Revelation; it is asked, upon what ground a Christian, by a Divine Faith, believes all those Articles of his Faith, that are defined by particular Councils? Where, if it be said; from the testimony of the present Church, which is declared by the divine Revelation, infallible, the question proceeds; whence this testimony can be proved by divine Revelation infallible, unless it be, from God's Word (written or unwritten)? But then, such writings, for effecting a Divine Faith, cannot be proved to be God's Word, but from some other Divine Revelation (for a Divine Faith, can never ground itself save on a Divine Revelation): where also we cannot return again to the testimony of the Church, I mean as this is by Divine Revelation infallible, without making a Circle. §. 120. To which is answered. 1. That the object of a Divine Faith is always in itself infallible. §. 123. 2. That Divine Faith always resolveth itself into Divine Revelation: and that, into some one, wherein it ultimately resteth; without a process in infinitum, or wheeling about in a Circile. §. 129. n. 1— §. 132, 143, 144.  
3, 4. That such Divine Faith is always wrought in Christians by the operation of God's Spirit. §. 164. n. 2. 5, 6. But attainable without any , infallible, Introductive or Proponent. Neither that it is necessary, that all men, for the enjoying a Divine, and saving Faith, be first infallibly certain, that the external proponent thereof is infallible. §. 127. etc. 7. Yet, that there are those morally-certain grounds producible for this Faith, and all the Articles thereof▪ as they are believed in the Catholic Church, which no other Religion besides Christianity, nor no other Sect, or seducing private spirit in Christianity, can pretend to. §. 135. 8. That a rational certainty, or morally-infallible ground of a Christians Faith, for this at least, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and consequently, whatever is contained therein, infallible, is affirmed by all. §. 136. But further: That an infallibility of the Church-Guides, (in necessaries) as clearly revealed in Scripture, and by Tradition Apostolical, is believed by Catholics From which infallibility of the Church, thus cleared to them, they retain a firm faith of all those other points that are not in Scripture or Tradition, as to all men, so evidently revealed as Church-infallibility is. In many of which points those-others, who believe only infallibility of Scripture, are liable to miscarry. §. 140. showed from the precedents, that no Circle is made in the roman-catholics resolution, either of a Divine, or acquisite, Faith. §. 143. etc. The Conclusion. Wherein, of the many advantages of promoting their salvation lost by Protestants, in persisting out of the Communion, and rejecting the conduct of the spiritual Guides, of the Roman-Catholick Church.  
IN this Query which follows, concerning the Resolution of Faith, wherein several Catholics do variously express themselves (according to their liberty of opinion, unrestrained by any former Church definition), and many of the terms have such a latitude of signification, as it is hard to speak so distinctly, as not in something to be misunderstood, I have purposely quoted several Catholic Authors of good note, in confirmation of what is delivered, to remove from you all jealousy, that any thing is said here, new, Heterodox, or formerly censured, by the Roman Church.  
§. 120 15ly. In the last place it is further pressed: 
Q. 15.  That a moral certainty, or, if you will, a moral infallibility, could it perhaps be showed for many of those things mentioned in the former questions, yet is not sufficient to afford a ground of that faith, which Catholics do require as necessary: For that they say; that a Christian cannot with a right, and a divine faith, believe the particular points of his faith to be divinely revealed, unless he have an infallible, or not possibly fallible, assurance thereof: nor can he have such infallible assurance, unless the Church's definitions in her General Councils, that deliver such doctrines to be divine Revelations, be so infallible. Nor can he infallibly believe the definitions of any Council in part cular to be so infallible, unless he be infallibly certain, that it is a lawful General Council (for all other inferior Councils, Catholics grant, may err in their Definitions); nor can he be infallibly certain of this, unless he be so of all those things too, without which, Catholics grant, it is no General Council. And if an infallible certainty also of all these things, so far as it is necessary, should be pretended from the Tradition of the Church, ever since the time of the sitting of such Councils, delivering and declaring to posterity these Councils in gross for lawfully General, because this Church-Tradition is held infallible; It is asked again, whence this Tradition is infallibly known to be so; where, if it be said, from our Lord's promises to the Church declared in the Scriptures; and so the infallibility of the Church-Tradition be resolved into Divine Revelation: It is still urged; whence can any know infallibly, either in particular, that those Texts which are urged to make good such a promise, have such a sense as is-pretended; or in General, that the Scriptures, containing such Texts, are the infallible Word of God; and here again, if we return to prove an infallible certainty of the sense of these particular Scriptures; or in general of the Scriptures being divine, from the tradition, and testimony of the Church; then here again I must make this testimony of the Church infallible; and the former question returns (as unsatisfied by the former answer), viz. whence I can prove its testimony or Tradition infallible? of which infallibility for me here to resume an evidence from the Scriptures, or from the former Texts, will cast my reasoning into a vicious circle.  
§. 121 But if I proceed, and say; That the Tradition of the Church may be proved sufficiently to be infallible from the motives of credibility, much dilated on by Catholic Writers. [As: From the multitude of those, who have affirmed their receiving of these divine Revelations from those, who were known by Miracles to be sent from God; the multitude of them I say, together with their wisdom; their sanctity; their unanimous consent throughout so many ages; their affirming such truth much contrary to all their secular interests, to the appetites of the flesh, and ambitions of this world; their delivering them both by word and writing to their children and posterity, to be delivered again to theirs, as matters of the highest moment, and wherein it eternally concerneth them not to be deceived; as also their strict charge to deliver nothing in these matters of faith to their children, which they have not received from their Forefathers; their suffering many times cruel deaths for the verity of their testimony; the miracles in several ages done also by them, which miracles when done for the testifying of their Faith, such in those ages, as have seen, have had the like evidence of this Faith, as those, who saw the miracles of the Apostles; and those who have not seen, but believe the credible Relators of them, have the like evidence of their Faith, as those also had in the Apostles times, who believed (as doubtless many did), not seeing, but only hearing of, their miracles]. If I say I proceed th●s, to prove the Church-Tradition infallible from these motives of credibility, Here again it is asked concerning these motives; whether they also be pretended infallible; and whether they carry a certainty in them equal to that infallible assent of divine faith, that is given to Divine Revelations; and particularly, to this of the infallibility of the Church (which assent of divine faith is pretended to be more firm, than any humane knowledge can be, because it doth ultimately rest upon divine authority; and yet which divine faith, at last, to avoid a Circle, is by Catholics for its certainty, made to rest upon these prudential motives); It is asked therefore, in the last place, whether these motives be pretended not-possibly-fallible, or no. If not, how can an infallible, or divine faith be grounded on motives only highly probable, or only morally certain; or the thing that is proved, or Conclusion, be rendered certain, and not-possibly-fallible to me, from a possibly-fallible proof, or medium? since the thing proving, or the ground of my assent, must be more credible, evident, and certain to me, than the thing proved. But, if these motives also be affirmed infallible; 1st. How can that be? since all men however taken, divided, or conjoined, single or a multitude, vulgar or wise and learned, are (possibly) liable both to deceive, and to be deceived; and 2ly. Thus at least divine faith will at last be built upon, and resolved into, not divine, but humane, authority; contrary to the Doctrine of Catholics.  
§. 122 And if it should be said here; that the resolution of divine faith into these prudential motives (whether fallible or infallible) is only as into  prerequisites, or introductives to it; not, as into the formal cause, or ground of it: for (so) I ground always the divine, and infallible assent I give to any Article of my faith upon Divine Revelation, and the prime verity, because God, who I believe saith it, cannot lie. It will be asked still, since some Divine Revelation is always the final motive of a Divine Faith, from what other Divine Revelation I do believe such a point to be a Divine Revelation; in which proceeding, if it go not in infinitum, I must come at last to some Divine Revelation, concerning which I can produce no other revelation divine (and so no ground at all), why, or from which, I can believe it with a Divine Faith to be such; unless I will betake myself to a Circle. So for example in proving the Church's infallibility from Divine Revelation contained in the Scriptures; and again the Scriptures God's Word, from Divine Revelation unwritten delivered by the Apostles, I can produce no further Divine Revelation, that testifies such Revelation, or Tradition to be delivered by the Apostles, if I return not back to the Church's infallibility, which returning thither makes a Circle. And the same thing will happen the other way also; in proving Scripture from Apostolical Tradition; and this Apostolical Tradition again from Church-infallibility.  
§. 123 To which intricate Question to answer as distinctly as I can.  
1st. It is agreed by all; That the faith, by which we are saved, must be in itself most true, and infallible; or that there must be a certitudo objecti, and those be true Revelations, which our faith apprehends to be so.  
2ly. Agreed also; That such divine, 
§. 124. n. 1.  and saving faith doth always ground itself on God's Word, or Divine Revelation, of those things which are believed, and upon the authority, veracity, and goodness of God revealing such things; And that Christians, however coming to the knowledge of these Divine Revelations, from their Parents, Pastors, or the Church in her Councils, yet resolve this divine faith no otherwise, as to the ultimate ground, and reason of their believing, than the Apostles themselves did (who received these Revevelations immediately from Christ and God himself) namely into the veracity of God, delivering such particular Articles of their Faith.  
3ly. Again agreed; 
§. 124. n. 2.  That this Divine Faith is wrought no otherwise in the soul, than by the operation of God's Spirit 
† See S. Thom. 22. q. 6. De causâ fides. ; many times begetting so firm an adherence to the things believed (not only, that what is Divine Revelation cannot deceive, but that such particular points are Divine Revelations) as exceeds that adherence we have to any humane Science whatsoever (wherein there is, often, a possibility of deceit, though not as to the thing, yet as to us; i.e. that we may think we know what, and when, we do not).  
[For this see the Archbp. 
† p. 72. — Faith [he means the habit, or act of a saving faith] is the gift of God alone, and an infused habit, in respect whereof the soul is merely recipient: And therefore the sole infufer, the Holy Ghost, must not be excluded from that work, which none can do but he— Which virtue of faith, of whatever Article, though it receive a kind of preparation, or occasion of beginning from the testimony of the Church, as it proposeth, and induceth to the faith; yet i● ends in God's revealing within, and teaching within that, which the Church preached without— And p. 75.— Man (do what he can) is still apt to search, and seek for a reason, why he will believe; though, after he once believes, his faith grows stronger than either his reason, or his knowledge; and great reason for this, because it goes higher, and so, upon a safer Principle, than either of the other [reason, or knowledge] can in this life; quoting in the margin S. Thom. 
† p. 1. q. 1. a. 5. — Quia s●ientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae, quae potest errare; Theologia antem (quae d●cet & objectum, & notitiam fidei, sicut & fidem ipsam) certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest— And Biel 
† In 3. sent. 23 d. q. 2. A. 1. — Hoc autem ita intelligendum est, ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae; Fides verò certior firmitate adhaesionis. Majus lumen in scientiâ, majus robur in fide. Et hoc, quia in fide, & ad fidem Actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit. Credere enim est actus intellectus, vero assentientis productus ex voluntatis imperio.— Again p. 86.— Faith (saith he) is an evidence, as well as knowledge, and the belief is firmer than any knowledge can be, because it rests upon divine authority, which cannot deceive; whereas knowledge (or at least he that thinks he knows) is not ever certain in deductions from Principles. And if there be any, that should deny such a Divine or infused faith wrought in Christians by God's Spirit, besides and beyond the evidence which a moral certainty rationally affords, let them declare, how a Christians faith is necessarily a Grace of the Holy Spirit; where there is no effect in it, that is ascribed to the Spirit; but all that they attribute to it, is necessarily consequent to another humane, and rational evidence; and no other ground of their faith of the Divine truths alleged by them, than of the being of a Julius Caesar, viz. a credible and morally-certain Tradition.]  
§. 125 4ly. Therefore, concerning any certainty or assurance that Christians are necessarily to have of this their faith, that, it is true, and infallible (which certitude all true believers have not alike 
† Mat. 14.31— S. Thom. 22. q. 5 a. 4. ): Here also I think all are agreed; That such a certainty one may have from the inward light and operation of God's Holy Spirit, though he should have neither any internal scientifical demonstration thereof (which if he hath, it is not faith); nor  infallible motive, testimony, or proponent thereof whatever; but, though only he hath that, which is in itself truly a Divine Revelation, for the object thereof.  
§. 126 5ly. Since the Church may be considered, either * as a Society already manifested by divine Testimony, and Revelation (whether this written, the Scriptures; or unwritten, Apostolical Tradition) to be by the holy Ghost for ever assisted, and guided in all necessary truths; Or, before any such divine Testimony known, * as a multitude of men famous in wisdom, innocency of life, sufferings, etc. things prudentially moving us to credit all their Traditions, Both Churches here agree: That humane Testimony, or Church-Tradition, [taken in the later sense] in its making known to us, what are these Divine Revelations, or this Word of God, is only introductive to this divine faith, which relies on, and adheres to, the Revelations hemselves, as its formal object.  
[Scripture is the ground of our faith: Tradition, the Key that lets us in (saith Archbp. Lawd 
† p. 86. ) Divine Revelation (written or unwritten) is the formal Object, or ultimate divine motive into which we resolve our faith; and the Church's Tradition, testifying or manifesting to us these matters revealed, is a condition and prerequisite or introductive, for the application of our faith unto those Divine Revelations, on which we exercise it, say the Catholics.]  
§. 127 6ly. Catholics further affirm; That, as the Church is considered in the former of the two acceptions formentioned; the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into, but one of the Articles of, this divine faith; as being grounded on Divine Revelation; and that so many, as believe the Church's infallibility in this sense, may safely resolve their divine Faith of other Articles of their belief into its delivering them, as such. But then they hold; That the Church's infallibility thus believed, is not necessarily the ultimate Principle, into which this divine Faith of other Articles is resolved, but that Word of God, (written or unwritten), by which this Church-infallibility is manifested to them. And again; That whatever this infallible authority of the Church be, it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine authority, and saving faith, be infallibly certain of this infallible Church-authority. Or, it is not necessary: That, for attaining a divine faith of the Articles of the Christian belief, he have some  motive, or proponent, (whether it be of the Church, or any other save the prime verity) of which he is infallibly certain, that it is infallible. Which thing is copiously proved by many learned Catholics; a few of whose testimonies I have here inserted; which the Reader may pass over, if in this matter satisfied.  
§. 128 [Concerning this thus Cardinal Lugo a Spanish Jesuit, speaking of divine faith 
† Tom. de virtute fideidisp, 1. §. 12. p. 247. — Probatur facilè; quia hoc ipsum [Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus sancti] creditur fid● divinâ, quae docet in Ecclesiâ esse hujusmodi authoritatem, ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum, non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis. Et experientia docet non omnes pueros, vel adultos, qui de novo ad fidem accedunt, concipere [muchless, infallibiliter scire] in Ecclesiâ hanc infallibilem authoritatem, & assistentiam Spiritus sancti, antequam ullum alium articulum credant. Credunt enim Articulos in ordine, quo proponuntur. Hunc autem Articulum authoritatis Ecclesiasticae contingit credi, postquam alios plures crediderunt. Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri, cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia; concipiendo in Ecclesiâ secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam, quae reperitur in universâ fidelium congregatione— n. 252. — In lege naturae plures credebant ex solâ doctrinâ parentum, fine aliâ Ecclesiae propositione. Deinde in lege scriptô plures crediderunt Moysi, & aliis, Prophetis, antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur [I add; or before they saw their miracles, or the fulfilling of their Prophecies].  
§. 129 Thus Estius 
† In. 3. sent. 23. d. 13. §.  speaking also of this divine, and salvifical faith— Fidei impertinens est, quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei [i. e. divinae] quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio, & doctrina, constat tamen aliis viis, seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando, & adhuc conferri, etc. Nam antiqui multi, ut Abraham, Melchizedech, Job, ex speciali revelatione; Apostoli ex Christi miraculis, & sermone [yet these having no other formal, or ultimate motive of their faith, than we have] rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione, & miraculis [I add, and some without, and before, seeing their miracles; and others by a credible relation only, not sight, of their miracles; yet all these men's faith of the same nature and efficiency] alii fidem conceperunt; alii denique aliis modis crediderant; cùm nondùm de infallibilitate doctrinae Ecclesiasticae, quicquam eis esset annunciatum. Sic ergo fieri potest, ut aliquis non adhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiasticae, tanquam regulae infallibili, quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat, quia vel nunc, vel olim, miraculis confirmata sunt; vel etiam, quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifestè videt, vel aliâ quacunque ratione inductus, licet alia quaedam credere recuset.  
§. 130 Thus Paul Layman a Jesuit 
† Theol. moral. 2. l. tract. 1.5 c. — Fierisaepè solet, ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae, puta quae sunt de Deo uno, & trino, explicitè credantur ante hunc, quae est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate. Quinimò haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus sancti promissione nititur, ergo prius oportet credere spiritum sanctum, adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse. Praeterea constat primos Christianos fide divinâ credidisse: non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae, quae vel fundata non erat (v. g. cum. Sanctus Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi, Mat. 16.) vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat. Again: His add, non tantùm variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri; sed etiam alios aliis facilius, partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem, & impulsionem (sicuti notavit Valentia q. 1. part. 4. arg. 8.) partìm pro animi sui simplicitate, quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt; quâ ratione pueri apud Catholicos, cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt, acceptant fidei mysteria tanquam divinitus revelata, quia natu majores, & prudentes, quos ipsi norunt, it a credere animadvertunt. Again— Formale assentiendi principium, seu motivum non est Ecclesiae authoritas. Si enim ex te quaeram, cur credas Deum esse incarnatum? Respondeasque; Quia Ecclesia Catholica, quae errare non potest, ob sancti spiritus assistentiam, ita testatur; iterum ex se quaeram, unde id scias? vel, cur credas Ecclesiam errare non posse; vel sanctum spiritum ei assistere? Quare recte dixit Canus 
† Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. . Si generaliter quaeratur, unde fideli constet, ea quae fide tenet, esse à Deo revelata, non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere; quia unum ex revelatis est; quòd Ecclesia errare non possit. Interim non negamus (saith he) quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae, quatenus spiritu sancto regitur, fieri possit, & communiter soleat, à fidelibus ipsis, qui infallibilem spiritus sancti assistentiam ac directionem Ecclesiae promissam certâ fidei tenent; his enim ejus testimonium, ac definitio, certa regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos. Thus he of the Church, as it is a Society manifested by Divine Revelation to be infallibly assisted in all necessaries by the holy Ghost. But then, as it appears to us, before such revelation, only as an illustris congregatio tot hominum excellentium, etc. he speaks of it on this manner— Fidei divinae assensus in [hanc] authoritatem Ecclesiae non resolvitur, tanquam in principium, sed tanquam in extrinsecum adjumentum, & conditionem, sine qua non. Etenim authoritas illa Ecclesia, non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus sancti, sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum, etc. est quidem formale principtum credendi fide humanâ; sed non fide divina. Quia fides divina est, quâ Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem & veritatem ejus; consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum, vel simile motivum humanum, is fide solum humanâ credit. Accedit, quòd (sicuti ipsimet Scotus, & Gabriel argumentantur) assensus cognoscitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii quo nitit●r, assensus autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet; quo fieri non potest, ut assensus fidei divinae, tanquam principio nitatur authoritati hominum, vel simili motivo humano, quip quod secundum se absolute fallibile est.  
§. 131 Thus Fa. Knott 
† p. 358.  (in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth) affirming Christians may have a true infallible divine faith, of which faith they have only a fallible proponent, nor are infallibly certain thereof, i. e. as to the proponent— From the unlearned (saith he) God exacts no more, but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities; and use such diligence, as men ought in a matter of highest moment. All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke, or wrote; yea it is not certain, that every one of those thousands, whom S. Peter converted, did hear every sentence he spoke, but might believe some by relation of others, who stood near— And (c. 1. p. 64.) the same author saith; That a Preacher, or Pastor, whose testimonies are humane, and fallible, when they declare to their hearers, or subjects, that some truth is witnessed by God's Word, are an occasion, that those people may produce a true infallible act of faith, depending immediately upon Divine Revelation applied by the said means— And— If you object (saith he) that perhaps that humane authority is false, and proposeth to my understanding divine Revelation, when God doth not reveal, therefore, I cannot, upon humane testimony representing, or applying Divine Revelation, exercise an infallible act of faith, I answer; it is one thing, whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain, that I exercise an infallible act of faith, and another, whether indeed, and in actu exercito I produce such an act. Of the former I have said nothing, neither makes it to our present purpose. Of the latter I affirm, that, when indeed humane testimony is true [though not certainly known to me to be so] and so applies a Divine Revelation which really exists: in such a case I may believe, by a true infallible assent of Christian faith: [viz. from the divine supernatural concourse, which he affirms 
† p. 358.  necessary to every act of divine faith.]  
§. 132 Therefore, here it is much to be noted; that divine faith quatenus divine (which is therefore so called, because we believe God that saith it, for his own authority and veracity, whose certainty, or infallibility, or unliableness to deceive, infinitely exceeds all created certainties moral, or natural; all which are liable to a possibility of deception; even that of our senses) cannot be resolved into any thing further, than 1st. (As to any external motive, ground, reason, or principle thereof that is of equal certainty) into that particular Divine Revelation, which is first made known to me, or from which, in building of my faith, I proceed to the rest; which revelation is not to all always the same; but to some Christians one, to some another, in which ultimate Revelation this divine faith terminates. 2ly. (As to the inward efficient thereof) into the power or grace of the holy Spirit, both illuminating the understanding; that the prime verity cannot lie, in whatever things it revealeth; and that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations; and persuading, and operating, in the will such a firm adherence of our faith thereto, as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science, or demonstrations.  
§. 133 [Of which matter thus Canus 
† Loc. Theol. 2. l. c. 8. — Si generaliter quaeratur; unde fide●i constet ea, quae fide tenet, esse à Deo revelata, non poterit Ecclesiae authoritatem inducere, quia unum de revelatis est, Ecclesiam errare non posse [Non poterit: i. e. as this Proposition, Ecclesia non potest errare is the object of a divine faith, from the Scriptures declaring it assisted with the holy Ghost; and not the object of an acquisite saith, from the prudential motives, as the same Church is illustris congregatio hominum prudentum, etc.]— Again Ib.— Vltima fidei nostrae resolutio fit in causam interiorem efficientem, hoc est, in Deum moventem ad credendum— Itaque ex parte objecti ratio formalis movens est divina veritas revelans; sed illa tamen non sufficît ad movendum, nisi adsit causa interior, hoc est, Deus etiam movens per gratuitum specialemque concursum— And— quantumcunque competenter, ea quae sunt fidei proponantur, necessaria est insuper causa interior, hoc est, divinum quoddam lumen incitans ad credendum— Where he urgeth, 1 Cor. 12. c.— Nemo potest dicere, Dominus Jesus, nisi in spiritu sancto; And, Gal. 1. c. The adherence of this faith not to be shaken by the contrary testimony of men, and Angels; and that our faith must be the very same with that of the Apostles (who received the matter believed immediately from God) in its essence, and, as to the formal object, and internal efficient thereof; however the external motives thereof do vary: by which infused, and divine faith also he saith, we believe Deum esse trinum [I add, or Ecclesiam non posse errare] much more firmly, and certainly, than we can believe them by any acquisite faith from the prudential motives, which we have thereof. And of the same matter thus Layman, in the place before quoted— Major, imò maxima, & certissima animi adhaesio, quam fides divina continet, non ex viribus naturae aut humanis persuasionibus provenit; sed ab auxilio Spiritus sancti, succurrentis intellectui & liberae voluntati nostrae. And, speaking of the understanding and the will's accepting of the first Divine Revelation, beyond which it can proceed no further, discoursively, to any former Revelation Acceptat (saith he 
† 2. l. tract. 1. c. 4. ) intellectus primae veritatis testimonium 1o. Per-scientiam infusam; quâ intellectus elevatus evidenter perspiciat revelationem à primâ veritate fieri, etc. 2o. Per actum fides immediatum, ad quem eliciendum (i. e. acceptandum, seu credendum, revelationem à primâ veritate esse), extrinsecè praerequiruntur humana motiva, quibus acquisita fides immititur e intrinsecè vero & in genere causae efficientis, requiritur Spiritus sancti gratia supplens, quod humanae infirmitati ad supernaturalem infallibilem fidei assensum eliciendum deest. [I add, per quam gratiam fides divina producitur] Here scientia infusa, and, Spiritus sancti gratia are made the first Operators of divine faith or assent to the first Divine Revelation. This for the internal efficient of divine faith; as for the external first principle thereof— Quod ver● (saith he 
† Ib ) ad formalem fidei resolutio nem attinet, expeditus, ac verus dicendi modus est iste apud Caietan 2.2 q. 1. a. 1. Quòd fides divina, ex parte objecti, ac motivi formalis, resolvatur in authoritatem Dei revelantis: Credo, Deum esse incarnatum, Ecclesiae defintentis authoritatem infallibilem esse; quia prima, & summa, veritas revelavit. Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse ulterius resolvi vel per fidem [i. e. divinam] probari non potest, nec debet: Quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur, sed supponuntur. [only, as he said before; maxima & certissima animi adhaesio to this ultimate Divine Revelation, provenit ab auxilio Spiritus sancti, succurrentis intellectui, etc.] But now, fides humana, or acqu●sita, can go on, and give a further ground or motire, both why it believes, Deum veracem talia revelasse; and, se fidem hanc [Deum revelasse] habere ex auxilio Spiritus sancti: and this a motive too, morally-infallible, viz. the Consent of the Church, or universal Tradition. Of which he goes on thus— Verùm, in ordine ad nos, revelatio divina credibilis & acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva; inter quae unum ex praecipuis meritò censetur, authoritas & consentus Ecclesiae [as understood above §. 126.] tot saeculis, tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis. But then, this evident; or morally-infallible motive, is not held always necessary neither for an humane induction to divine faith. For he proceeds— Quamvis id non unicum, nec simpliciter necessarium motivum est; quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo, sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur, etc. And thus Fa. Knot 
† p. 358.  quoted before— A man may exercise (saith he) an infallible act of faith, though his immediate instructor, or proposer be not infallible, because he believes upon a ground, which both is believed by him to be infallible, and is such indeed▪ to wit, the Word of God: Who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every act of divine faith. [Here he grounds the infallibility of this act of divine faith, on the supernatural concourse, or operation of God's Spirit]. Otherwise (saith he) in the ordinary course, there would be no means left for the faith, and salvation of unlearned persons.]  
And indeed, §. 134 from what is said formerly, That a divine faith may be had by those, who have had not , even morally infallible, motive thereof, it follows, that divine faith doth not resolve into such motives, either as the formal cause, or always as the applicative introductive, or condition of this divine faith. And, of whatever infallibility the immediate proponent of the matter of my faith, or of Divine Revelation, be, yet divine faith ascends higher than it, and fasteneth itself still to the infallibility of him, whose primarily is the Revelation.  
So the Church, which I give credit to, declaring to me, that the things contained in the Gospel of S. Matthew were divinely revealed, I resolve my faith of the truth of those contents, not into the Church's saying they are true, though I believe all that true the Church sayeth; but into Divine Revelation, because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth. Again; when I believe, that all contained in S. Matthew's Gospel is true, because the Church tells me it is so; and then believe, that the Church telleth me true, because God hath revealed in some one part of his Word, that the Church in this shall not err; here my faith is ultimately resolved again, not into the Church's authority, but the Divine Revelation concerning the Church. But if 3ly. I believe S. Matthew's Gospel true, because the Church tells me so; and again believe the Church's veracity in what it saith, only from the forementioned prudential motives 
† §. 121.  inducing me to believe so; here I resolve my faith into these credible motives; and this is no infused, or divine, but an humane, and acquisite faith; and the assent to the thing believed can rationally be no firmer, or stronger, than it is to these credible proofs thereof. Thus then, when the authority of the Relator is the same; yet the things related are diversely believed by me, according to the varying of those Grounds, or that authority which the Relator urgeth to make them credible. When a very credible person relates to me several things, which he hath heard of two other persons, of whom I have a very different esteem; the one accounted by me very skilful, and learned in his Art; the other not so; here I give an assent, or belief, to the words of these two persons, though both related to me with the same fidelity, very different; much stronger to the related words of him, whom I esteem as it were infallible in his skill, much weaker to the others; and I give a third assent different from both these to the veracity of the Relator, or to the credibility of the person relating these things to me concerning them.  
This being said of a divine faith (in the several assertions precedent), §. 135 That it is produced in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and grounded still on divine Revelation: But that it is not necessary 
† §. 127, etc.  that such faith always should have an external rationally-infallible ground, or motive thereto (whether Church-authority, or any other) on his part, that so believes.  
Yet, 7ly. It is also affirmed; That there are morally-certain, or infallible grounds, or motives producible, both for the Christian Religion, and faith, in General; and for all the Articles thereof, as they are believed in the Catholic Church: which grounds, or any equal to them, no other Religion besides Christianity; nor, in Christianity, no other Sect, or seducing private Spirit, out of the Catholic Church, can possibly plead, or pretend to. So that, though many seducing spirits, as it were in emulation of the Holy One, do use to pretend, and set up themselves for assurers of a divine Faith; and many times do effect so firm an adherence to most false Revelations, as that from this persuasion many have exposed themselves even to suffer death, in defence of their errors; yet this ever remains a constant way of distinguishing to the world, and to all men's reason, a true divine faith wrought by God's holy Spirit, from these counterfeit ones wrought by the evil Spirit, that Catholics for this divine faith, which the Holy Ghost only works in them, as to such a supernatural powerful and vivifical efficacy thereof, yet always have, besides this, many  motives, and assurances to render it (I say not Divine, which such motives cannot do) but in reason credible and acceptable to themselves, and others, which no false Religion, no false faith can produce, or lay claim to; I mean still the former Motives; which, whenas the internal plerophory of this faith wrought by the Spirit is not publicly conspicuous or manifestive abroad, are a standing rational evidence of the verity of Christianity against all other Sects of Religion; and against all Heretics, etc. Only of these motives it is affirmed; That, without the operation of God's Spirit, they are never able to found a divine faith. And. That by the holy Spirit many times a divine faith is produced without the concurrence of them. Concerning this see the former quotations §. 133.  
And here, first, a rational certainty, or morally infallible ground of a Christians faith for this point, §. 136 that the Scriptures (I mean, as to the main body of them, those few books set aside, which the Protestants call Apocryphal) are the Word of God; and consequently, whatever is contained therein, and all the Articles of the Christian faith that are grounded thereon infallible, is affirmed by Protestants as well, as Catholics.  
And, 1st. This certainty Protestant's do affirm to arise from that plenary Church-Tradition, which is found to have delivered these to be God's Word, and Divine Revelation throughout all ages from the Apostles times; which Apostles confirmed them with miracles. Of which thus the Archbp 
† p. 124. — If you speak (saith he to A. C.) of assurance only in general [and not of that by divine faith]; I must then make bold to tell you (and it is the greatest advantage, which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels) a man may be assured, nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical, and humane proof. Men that never saw Rome may be sure, and infallibly believe that such a City there is, by Historical, and acquired faith. And if consent of humane story can assure me this; why should not consent of Church- story assure me the other, That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God? And again— Certain it is (saith he) that by humane authority consent and proof, a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habit of faith, out non subest falsum [i. e. speaking of an usual, and constant, moral certainty, and non-falsity of things]; but he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine faith, cui subesse non potest falsum [i.e. speaking of an absolute possibility of falsity or mistake of things, especially by the divine power interposing; in which sense nothing is free from deception, save Divine Revelation], but by a divine testimony.  
§. 137 And Mr. Stillingfleet saith of the same tradition 
† p. 205, 211 — That the moral certainty that is therein 
‖ p. 207.  yields us a sufficient assurance, that the matter delivered to us to be believed, is infallibly true; and, considering the nature of moral things, is a certainty as great, and begetting as firm an assent, as any certainty Mathematical, or Physical; the greatest Physical certainty (saith he) being as liable to question, as moral; there being as great a possibility of deception in that, as a suspicion of doubt in this; and oftentimes greater. [Though his discourse there; 
† p. 207.  That, where God obligeth us to believe, we have the greatest assurance that the matter to be believed is infallibly true, because God cannot oblige men to believe a lie; from whence he would prove, that we have a sufficient assurance, that Christian Religion is infallibly true, only from a moral certainty thereof, If he means infallibly true to us, and applies infallibly not to the object, but act of faith, seems faulty; Because God may oblige us to believe either a thing to be infallibly true, i. e. as to us, so as that there can be no possibility of our error in it, or only most credibly so, according to the proof or ground we have of such belief. Therefore, though it is true, which he saith: That God never obligeth us to believe [i.e. to be absolutely true] what is really a lie, or false: and true also; that, if we know, that God obligeth us to believe a thing to be infallibly true, we have the greatest assurance, that such thing is infallibly true: Yet so, 1. Is this true, that God obligeth us to believe, nor for infallibly, but only for most credibly true, what is from those principles, which right reason can attain of it, only most credibly so; And 2. So is this also true; that God hath not obliged us to believe Christianity as infallibly true from the moral certainty we have thereof; supposing that this moral certainty is not absolutely infallible, I mean as to a possibility of the contrary. Upon this supposition therefore, that our moral certainty, or assurance, on which we ground the verity of Christian Religion involves a possibility of falsehood, God doth not oblige us to believe Christian Religion, with an acquisite or rational faith from this evidence, as freed from all possibility of falsehood, or as absolutely infallible; but to believe, in the same degree, the one to be credible, as we do the other; in the same degree Christian Religion true as we do the ground thereof, and no further. And here Mr. Stillingfleet seems to incur the fault he imputes to others 
† Ibid.  of making the conclusion surer, than the premises, if he would make Christian Religion by this way any whit more infallible than moral certainty is. [So also in the next page 
† p. 208.  if he pretends to prove, from that text of Scripture, Joh. 16.13. any infallible assurance; (and not only a moral certainty to us, of the Apostle's infallibility in the conveyance of Scripture, himself must incur the Circle he objects to Catholics. For, since we have this Text of Scripture only from their conveyance, I cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of it, till first so assured of their infallibility in conveying it]. 3ly. It is true also; That, when reason is not rightly used by us, and when that seems to us, from false reasoning, most credible, which in right reason is not, yet, that here also God obligeth us to believe this, the most credible, but then he obligeth us to believe this most credible hypothetically only, and upon supposition, that our reasons and reasonings are good; and therefore we are obliged by him herein only to believe a truth; namely, this thing to be most credible hypothetically, etc. though the thing which we believe thus hypothetically most credible, is absolutely not true. (As also God obligeth us to follow an erroneous conscience. Neither do we sin in this following it; to which God obligeth us, and which we do only upon supposition, that it is not erroneous: for if we knew it erroneous, we might not follow it; but we sin in not better informing it, where God also obligeth us to the contrary). But to let these things pass: I grant (what Protestants affirm) That the moral evidence we have from Tradition is sufficient to produce such an assurance of Christian Religion, as God requires us to have of it by an acquisite and rational faith: and that both this evidence of the truth of Christian Religion, and our faith built on it, are morally infallible.] This of the sufficient certainty of Church-Tradition concerning Scripture, and so, concerning all the Articles of Christian Faith, that are built thereon, affirmed by Protestants. Upon which ground also, they freely grant 
† See Chillingw. p. 114.— Stillingf. p. 216. : That, if any other point, wherein they descent from Catholics, can be proved by as universal a Tradition, as that of the Scriptures, they will subscribe to it.  
§. 138 2. Again: the same sufficient certainty, Catholics also affirm, to be in Church Tradition for what it delivers; but withal they urge many motives of credibility concurring in it 
† See before §. 121. , which are not so much insisted on by Protestants; some of which motives may add to a Tradition of a less latitude a moral certainty as great or greater from the dignity of the persons, as a more universal Tradition may have, from the multitude of Testators; amongst which motives also are the miracles done in several ages by such persons. And by these motives also, Catholics affirm, * that the true Religion may be rationally evident, and discerned from all false ones, whether they be within, or without, the pale of Christianity: none of which Sects can produce like evidence for their faith: and, * that by these our faith is demonstrated a rational service, Rom. 12.1. 1 Pet. 3.15. These motives likewise are acknowledged by them to be the ultimate resolution of an humane faith, which is begotten by them: and that, in respect of such a faith, they are the formal principle of believing: nor that such faith doth exceed the certitude of this principle; and that the assent we yield to the Articles, which we believe only on this account, is no stronger, or certainer, than these motives be, on which it is grounded. All which things as Protestants earnestly contend for 
† See Stillingf. p. 137. 140. Archbishop Lawd. p. 61. , so there seems no reason, why they should be denied them. [Of this matter thus the forequoted Author Layman, out of Scotus and others 
‖ Theol. moral. p. 183. — Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum, is fide solumodò humanâ credit— And— Authoritas illa Ecclesiae, non quatenus consideratur, ut organum Spiritus sancti [which we learn from Divine Revelation, the Scripture's being the Word of God first supposed] said ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum, etc. est quidem formale principium credendi fide humanâ— And— Accedit, quòd assensus cognoscitivus non potest excedere certitudinem principii, quo nititur.]  
§. 139 This is said concerning a sufficiently certain evidence in Church-Tradition, etc. (agreed on both by Catholics, and Protestants) That the Scriptures (at least the books of it called by Protestants Canonical) are the Word of God. But then 2ly. The Protestant's declining the admission of Church-Traditions that are less universal, than that of Scripture is thought unreasonable; 1. Because, of two Traditions, whereof one appears more universal than the other, yet the lesser also may have a sufficient certainty in it, whereon to build a rational belief; and hence Protestants may have reason enough to admit several other Traditions, though not all equally universal; or any so universal, as that of the Scriptures. For the wars of Caesar and Pompey, descend by a more universal Tradition, namely, that both of Christians, and Mahometans, than this; that the Bible is God's Word; and yet this later carries with it a sufficient evidence: and Protestants themselves 
† See Disc. 2. §. 40. n. 2.  do both allow, and practise several Traditions as Apostolical, which yet have not the same fullness of Tradition, as the Scriptures; nor indeed more, than several of those points have, whereof yet they deny a sufficient Tradition. 2. Again, the Tradition of a smaller number of persons, if eminent in sanctity, and miracles, and other forenamed 
† §. 121.  motives of credit, may be as, or more credible, than that of a greater number, not so qualified. Of several other Traditions, then, what, or how many, in particular carry a sufficient fullness, and evidence in them (though all do not the same) to beget a rational belief, this, after the Church's authority once established by Scripture, and Tradition, private men may safely learn from the same Church.  
§. 140 But 8ly. This certainty of Tradition (allowed by Protestants) for Scripture's being God's Word, and whatever is contained in it, infallible, seeming unsufficient to assure to Christians their faith in several Articles thereof, because, wherever the sense of these Scriptures is ambiguous, it will still be uncertain, whether such Articles of our faith be grounded on the true sense, which only is God's Word, or on the mistaken sense, which is not so. Next, therefore, Catholics proceed farther yet: And, both from the same Scriptures (thus established), and from other constant Tradition descending from the Apostles (for which see the proofs given before Disc. 1. §. 7. Disc. 2. §. 17. & Disc. 3. § 7.— 87. etc.) do also gather and firmly believe an infallibility in the Church, or its Governors, for all necessaries from a promised perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost. And this Article of the infallibility of the Church thus established becomes to them a new ground of their faith, from which they do most firmly believe, and adhere to all the rest of those Articles of their faith, wherein the Divine Revelation either of Scriptures or Tradition is not so perspicuous and clear to them, as it is in this other of the Church's infallibility: And from this infallibility of the Church believed, all the definitions of the same Church, that are made in points where the true-sence of Scriptures is in controversy, and that are delivered by her as infallible, and Divine, Revelations, are strait believed as such; and, among others, these points also, (when the Church defines them, in any doubtful case) what belongs to the Canon of Scriptures, or, what are Traditions Apostolical.  
§. 141 Thus, if I first receive, and believe the Church-infallibility from a clear Apostolical Tradition; afterward, from this Church-infallibility defining it, I may become strait assured of the Canon of Scripture. Or 2ly. If I receive, and believe some part of the Canon of Scripture from clear Apostolical Tradition, and out of this received Canon become assured of Church-infallibility, afterward from this infallibility defining it, I may certainly come to know other parts of the same Canon that are more questioned. Again: when I have already learned the Church-infallibility from the Scriptures, afterward I may become, from its definitions, settled in the belief of all those Articles of faith, wherein the expressions of the same Scriptures (though believed by me before the Church's infallibility, yet) being ambiguous in their sense, (which sense properly, and not the words, is the Divine Revelation) can beget no certain, and firm faith in me, until they are expounded by the Church infallibly relating, from God's Spirit assisting it, the traditive sense of them to me. So that, though I believe the infallibility of Scripture's as well as the Church; yet, in so many points, wherein the meaning of the Scriptures is not clear to me, I receive the firmness of my faith in them, not from the infallibility of the Scriptures expression of that which is God's Word, but of the Church expounding them. If then the Scripture, or Tradition-Apostolick, be clearer for this of Church-infallibility, than for some other points of faith, that person must necessarily be conceded to have a firmer ground of his faith for so many points, who believes the Church infallible, than another, who believes only Scripture so; and such person also is preserved in a right faith in these points, when the other not only may err in his Faith, but become heretical in his error, by opposing the definition of the Church. So, had the Arrians, and Nestorians believed the Church infallible, this Article of their faith, firm and steadfast, had preserved them from Heresy in some others.  
§. 142 Here then appears a great firmness and stability of the Catholics Faith, by reason of this Church-infallibility, for many points, wherein the Protestants faith fluctuates, and varies. For whilst the Protestant only extends, and makes use of, the certitude of the Church Tradition, as to one of these points, the delivery of the Scriptures; and acknowledgeth no further certitude of the same Church-Tradition, written (in the Scriptures), or unwritten, for the other point, the infallibility of the Church divinely assisted, in the exposition of the same Scriptures, and in the discerning of true Traditions; And again, while the sense of these Scriptures in many weighty points (as experience shows) hath been, and is controverted; the Protestant here, for so many of these points, as are, upon such misinterpretation of Scripture, defined by the Church (in the definition of which Church, assisted (as he believes) by the holy Ghost, the Catholic remains secure), hath no rational Anchor, nor ground of confidence in his faith, but that which rests upon the certainty of his own judgement concerning the sense of God's Word, and truth of Tradition; and that judgement of his too, for several points of his faith, going against the judgement, and exposition of the major part of the present Church, and against his Superiors. Where the last refuge Protestant's betake themselves to ordinarily, is this, that they say— In all things necessary the sense of Scripture is not ambiguous, but clear enough to the unlearned; and that in points not necessary, there is no necessity of a right faith, or of any decision of controversies; and so no need of an infallible Church, or any unerring Guide, save Scripture, which defence hath been examined, in Disc. 2. §. 38. etc.  
§. 143 The sum of what hath been said here, is this. 1st. I take it as a principle agreed on: That a divine is such a faith, as, quatenus divine, ultimately resolves itself into Divine Revelation.  
§. 144 2ly. There must be some particular ultimate Divine Revelation assigned by every Christian (which may be not to all the same, but to some one, to some another) beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further, and for proving or confirming which Revelation, he can produce no other divine Revelation; but there must end; unless a process be made in infinitum, or a running round. [Fides divina discursiva esse non potest circa omnia objecta sua, quia alioquin sequeretur processus in infinitum. Layman (p. 181.) quoting Caietan, in 22. q. 1. art. 1.— Si dicas: assentio huic [revelato] ex fide acquisitâ; tunc fides infusa dependeret in esse & infaciendo adhaerere alicui articulo à fide acquisit â, sicut à principio, Scotus l. 1.23 d. §. contra fid.]  
§. 145 3ly. Concerning such ultimate particular Divine Revelation (whether it be authority, and veracity of Scripture; or authority and veracity, of the Church; or of Apostolical Tradition; or of miracles); If we say further, that we ground our divine faith of it upon God's veracity, or because God is true, and cannot lie, (an undisputable prime principle): Yet note, that God's veracity alone is not a sufficient ground of such faith of any particular Revelation: (since on this veracity of God in general many false Religions also are pretended to be grounded; i. e. many false Religions believe, that whatever God saith is true; and further believe, but falsely; that God hath said, what they are taught), unless another proposition be joined with it, viz. that God who is, thus, True, and cannot lie in whatever he saith, hath also said this particular thing which we believe (namely, that the testimony of the Church, or Apostles, or Scriptures, our particular ultimate ground, named before, is true). [Of which thus Card. Lugo 
† De virtute fidei divin. Disp. 1. §. 7. — Duplex est ratio, formalis partialis, cui ultimò fides [divina] nititur. 1. Deus est prima veritas: Et 2. Deus it a dixit: and we know, the certitude of any Conclusion must always be built on two premises, or principles] And then, letting the first pass unquestioned, Deus est prima veritas; the second, that God hath said this or that, must either be grounded (that it may be the foundation of a divine faith) on some other Divine Revelation, from which we collect that he hath said it; (which still will proceed to the inquiry after another divine Revelation, on which to ground that), or else I must rest there, with an immediate assent to it; and acknowledge, that I have no divine faith, that he hath said it, which relies on any other Divine Revelation: and then, why might I not have rested as well in the forenamed Revelations? Lastly, concerning that Divine Revelation, which, by due consequences, seems to be the ultimate resolvent of a Christian faith; those, who disallow that, which others assign; let them assign another, such as is truly a Divine Revelation, and not mistaken only by them to be so, (as assigning the letter of Scripture taken by them in a wrong sense, etc.) and it sufficeth.  
§. 146 4ly. I take this also for agreed on by all; that the internal efficient of all faith divine is the power, or grace of the Holy Spirit both * illuminating the understanding, that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals (if perhaps the understanding herein needeth any light); and also, that the particular Articles of our faith are its Revelations. * And persuading, and operating in the will such a firm adherence unto these Articles, as many times far exceeds that of any humane science, or demonstrations.  
§. 147 5ly. Now then; If any Christian be asked, concerning the ultimate Resolution of his divine faith, as to the  prime motive, ground, reason, or principle thereof, that equals in certainty the faith built on it, he can allege none other, than that particular divine Revelation, which is first made known to him (by what means it matters not, since this varies as to several persons), or from which, in building of his faith, he proceeds to the rest. Again, if any ask, concerning the internal efficient of such faith as is divine; the answer must always be one and the same, for the divine faith of all Christians, That it is wrought in the faithful by the grace of the holy Spirit.  
§. 148 6ly. The Motives, forementioned, which are such a rational evidence of the verity of Christianity, and of the several Articles thereof believed in the Catholic Church, as no other foreign Religion or S●ct in Christianity can produce, do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to, or (after it introduced) for a confirmative of this divine faith; i. e. to make it credible, or acceptable to humane reason (my own, or others), that this faith is true, and no way liable to error; that I am assured in it by the Holy, and no seducing, spirit: But not to constitute it in the notion of faith divine; because the faith so styled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground, viz. Revelation Divine.  
§. 149 And by what hath been here said, I think you may perceive the circle clearly avoided, (which is still so hotly charged on Catholics, though not for the resolution of their faith in general, which resteth in the last place on the prudential motives; yet, for the resolution at least of the divine faith, they pretend to). For, if a Protestant ask at large: why I believe (without inserting, with a divine faith) the Scriptures to be the Word of God? It is answered; because Apostolical Tradition, which is the unwritten, Word of God, or Divine Revelation, (a thing conceded by the Archbp. 
† p. 81. ) testifies it to be so. Again, if asked; why I believe, there was any such Apostolical Tradition? I answer; because the Church, which I believe in this matter infallible, or not erring, delivers such Tradition to me: And if it be asked again, why I believe the Church infallible in this? It is answered; I believe her (but this is by an acquisite faith) to be so, from the motives of credibility, forementioned, 
† §. 121.  which do so persuade me. (But note, that this acquisite faith is not a necessary prerequisite to every one, that believes with a divine faith; for, as Layman 
† Theol. moral. l. 2. tract. 1. c. 5.  Non omnes eodem modo, sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur— And as Estius before 
† See §. 129. — Fidei impertinens est, quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei); and in all this, Protestants confess, there is no Circle 
† See Stillingf. p. 126. .  
§. 150 But, if now, putting in the word Divine, the Protestant 
† Id p. 127.  ask me again the two former questions: why with a divine faith I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God? and then, upon the former answer returned, ask me why 2ly. with a divine faith (i. e. with such a firm assent as I give thereto, transcending that of an acquisite faith) I do believe, that, which the Church relates) as Apostolical Tradition, to be so indeed; I answer now, that I finally rest on this Revelation, without having any other whereon to ground it. But if asked, why so firmly, and (if I may so say) divinely, without any further divine evidence, I adhere to it? I answer from the internal operation, and testimony of the Holy Spirit; which Spirit causeth a most firm fiducial assent in me; that these Scriptures were delivered to the Church, as God's Word, by Apostolical Tradition; (for the Church pretends no new Revelation concerning the Canon of Scripture) i. e. were delivered by those divinely preserved from any fallibility therein. Neither doth here again, in the matter of divine faith, appear any Circle at all. And, if it be further asked; what rational ground I have to think this is a persuasion of God's, and not of some evil, spirit? or, this indeed an Apostolical Tradition which I am told is so? here I urge for these, the prudential motives.  
§. 151 Again: Suppose I be asked concerning some other Article of faith that is defined by the Church, though the same Article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures; why, with a divine faith, I do believe it to be divine Revelation? I answer, because the Church, which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the holy Ghost, and to be infallible for ever in matters of faith defined by her, hath delivered it to me, as such. If again; why, with a divine faith, I believe these Scriptures in general, or such a sense of those Texts in particular, which are pretended to reveal the Church's infallibility, to be divine Revelation? I answer as before, because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so; which Apostolical Tradition (related, or conveyed to me by the Church,) I believe with a divine faith by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit, without having at all any further Divine Revelation, from which I should believe this Revelation to be divine. Or if any will go one step further, and prove this Apostolical Tradition also divine from the divine works the Apostles did, Miracles; yet here he must conclude; neither have we any further divine word, or work, to confirm to us their doing such divine works. But then; if I be asked further; whether I do not believe, with a divine faith, the Church's relation, concerning such Apostolical Tradition, or Miracles, to be infallible, I (excluding now this supposition, which in the order of these questions is in this place to be excluded, viz. that Scriptures are the Word of God; and so excluding this answer, that I believe the Church's relation infallible with a divine faith, from the testimony which the Scriptures give to the Church). Here I answer: No, I do not believe with divine faith this relation of the Church to be infallible; for divine faith builds upon nothing but Divine Revelation; and, if I were to bring another Divine Revelation still to support my faith of the former, so must I also bring yet a further Divine Revelation for this my believing the Church, and here must needs be a process in infinitum. But in this place I answer: That I believe the Church's Tradition, or testimony (being taken here in the latter sense mentioned before §. 126) infallible only with an humane, and acquisite faith builded on the forenamed prudential motives; and the ultimate resolution here of my divine faith is into Apostolical Tradition, or their Miracles, not the Church-Tradition, or her Relation, that conveys to me the Apostolical: With a divine faith I do believe the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church; but I do believe the Church her truly, or infallibly (I mean, not as infallibly here relates to the divine Promise, but to the prudential Motives) relating this Apostolical Tradition, with an acquired, or rational faith.  
§. 152 [The natural order of a Christians belief, then, seems to be this. 1st. The Divine Revelations are communicated to the world by certain persons, chosen by God, and, for the confirmation of their mission from him, doing Miracles; which persons also are commanded by God to ordain others to divulge, and perpetuate the knowledge of the same Revelations to mankind to the end of the world; the chief body of which, these persons also draw up, and deliver in writing. Of which Divine Revelations delivered by them, this is one; That these their Successors shall for ever be so far assisted by God's holy Spirit, as never to err in teaching all truths, (or, if you will, in truly relating all Divine Revelations) any way necessary to men's salvation; which Divine Revelation also concerning themselves is (as it ought to be) delivered among the rest to all posterity, by these very Successors, of whom it is spoken. These things thus conveyed; those to whom these Revelations are made, do, 1. with a rational and acquisite faith, believe the Tradition of these Successors of the Apostles; who are rendered most credible to them, by all those prudential motives mentioned before §. 121. their multitude, their sanctity, their Martyrdoms, in testimony thereof etc. 2. But then, applying themselves to the things related, which are said to have been revealed and delivered first by God to persons assisted with most infallible Miracles, they do believe these things related, after the manner expressed before § 134. with yet an higher, and a divine, faith; wrought in them by the holy Spirit; and resting itself, not on the veracity of these secondary Relators, but on the veracity of God himself, from whom these Revelations are said originally to come; (yet the rational introductive to all this faith being the veracity of those, who immediately convey the Tradition of these things to them.) 3. Then, further; one of the Divine Revelations, which the Church, or these Successors do deliver to Christians (as I said) being this; That these Successors of the Apostles, who deliver their doctrine to us, shall be for ever infallible in delivering all necessaries; from this Revelation, (I say) delivered by them, Christians also believe the infallibility of this Church, or of these Successors not by a rational faith only, grounded on the former motives of credibility; but by a divine faith, because grounded on a divine Revelation; and consequently, believe also all things, delivered by these persons as necessaries, with a divine faith, on the same account.]  
§. 153 After all this, to reflect now a little on the objection. We see. 1st. That no Circle is made in a Catholics ground or resolution of faith, divine, or acquisite; but that there is an ultimate Revelation divine (though this not necessary to be always the same) whereon divine faith resteth, and into which, and no humane motives, it resolveth itself; and an inward operation of God's Spirit, whereby the firmness of adherence of this faith to such Revelation in particular as divine, is effected. And again, that these are motives from humane authority sufficiently credible, or also morally infallible; (or, as some of late express themselves, not-possibly-fallible: which if they can prove, whenas it is in the natural power of all men, even taken collectively, abstracting here from any divine superintendencies, to tell a lie, none have reason to envy any advancing of the evidences of Christian Religion, or any part thereof: But, here, seems no necessity of pretending any other infallibility in these motives, than Catholic writers have formerly maintained, and the adversary also allows) on which an acquired, or humane faith securely resteth; these motives carrying such an evidence with them, as no other Religion differing from the Christian, nor in Christianity any Sect divided from the Catholic Communion, can upon any rational account, equal.  
2ly. That the infallibility of the Church, grounded on divine Revelation, and believed by a divine faith, is a main ground, and pillar of the Catholics faith for any other Articles thereof, that are established by the same Church's definitions, where the Scriptures, or Tradition Apostolic, are to him (but I say not the Church) doubtful. Of which ground and assurance of such points, (believed by Catholics from the Church's infallible authority), the Protestants faith is destitute.  
3ly. That the faith of all such Articles, grounded thus on the Church's infallible authority; is (by this) grounded also on divine Revelation.  
[Where note: That resolving faith into the Church's infallibility (I mean, as the Church is declared thus infallible in necessaries by God's Word, or divine Revelation, whether written, the Scriptures, or unwritten, Tradition Apostolical,) or into Apostolical Tradition, or into Scripture is in general all one, and the same, resolution, i. e. into divine Revelation; and ultimately is only believing a thing, because God saith it: saith it, in the Scriptures; or (also out of them) by his Apostles; or by the Church succeeding the Apostles; by it, I say, as declared by God's Word to be also infallibly assisted, truly to relate, and expound, what the Apostles, or Scripture have formerly said: where still the resolution of faith is into the same infallible Word of God delivered by these; and not into any proper authority, or infallibility of the deliverer; and when we say we resolve our faith into the infallibility of the present Church, or of the Apostles, we mean into God's infallible Word delivered mediately by the one, or immediately by the other. And whilst, to one that asketh me, why I believe the Scriptures, I answer, because those, who wrote them, were assisted by God's Spirit to deliver to men those divine Revelations; And again, to one that asketh me, why I believe the Church, I answer, because the Church is for ever assisted by the same Spirit of God faithfully to relate, and expound these former divine Revelations delivered by those who wrote the Scriptures in all necessary matter of faith: Here it is clear, that if one of these resolutions be into divine Revelation imparted, and communicated to man by God's Spirit, so must the other; though the manner of conveying them to us by the assistance of God's Spirit, is different; as is explained before §. 109. And had the New Testament Scriptures not been writ, (as they might have been not written without nullifying the being of Christian Religion), than all the resolution of the Articles of our faith would have been only into the unwritten testimony of the Apostles; and from them, of the Church following them; to which Church for ever (though without any testimony of Scripture) the same promises must be supposed to have been made (for the writing of these Scriptures, surely, was no cause of these promises): And next, these promises might also have been made known to Christians by Tradition Apostolical, related only by the Church: and consequently the same credence must have been given to this Tradition Apostolical related by the Church, concerning such promises made to it; as is now given to the Scriptures, testifying it.]  
4ly. Yet that this Church-infallibility, or that Divine Revelation which establisheth it, is not necessarily the first, or the ultimate, divine Revelation, into which every Catholick's faith, concerning any particular point of his belief is necessarily resolved; for the divine faith of several persons, concerning particular points, may have a various resolution, as they come, by divers ways, or from divers principles, to believe it; and one Article of faith may be savingly believed, without the present knowledge, or belief of another, whereon it hath dependence: as one may believe, with a divine faith, either the Scripture's, or the Church's infallibility from Apostolical Tradition, one before the other, as they happen to be first proposed to them: (of which see what is said before §. 128.145.) and by the certainty of his Faith grounded thereon, attain eternal salvation. And blessed be his Divine Majesty for so firmly establishing Christianity one these two sure Bases, the Scriptures, and the Church. For both are Pillars of Truth 
† 1 Tim. 3.15. , and both always bear witness, as to it, so also to one another. And what thou hast thus joined, O Lord, let no man be able to separate; nor the Gates of Hell, ever so far prevail against them, as that any should prosper in their endeavours to build the Authority of the one out of the ruins of the other. Amen.  
§. Thus much be said concerning the necessary Resolution of a Catholick's Faith; 
The Conclusion.  and in satisfaction to those other objections that are urged against a living Ecclesiastical infallible guide in all necessaries, maintained in the former Discourses, and affirmed also easily discernible from all other Pretenders. After all which, in the last place, the Protestant Reader is humbly desired soberly to consider with himself: whether, if indeed there be such a Catholic unfailing Guide as is here pretended, and that Church also, whose conduct he hath renounced, be It, whom our Lord hath left, amidst the distractions of so many Sects and Opinions, to bring men by a sure way to Heaven; whether, I say, notwithstanding all those reasons and arguments, that have been here, and are elsewhere, by Catholics frequently urged in demonstration thereof, yet, his ignorance thereof still remains so innocent, and invincible, that he dares rely on this Plea, at the appearance of our Lord, for his living and dying irreconciled unto Her, because no sufficient evidence hath been left him to discern Her. And, next, to consider; whether, if indeed she be, what here she is pretended, there can be any secular interest so valuable, as any way to recompense the loss he sustains, in his present separation from this Church, by foregoing all that means of salvation, and growth in grace, and advantages of an holy life, which he might, with great spiritual content, enjoy in her happy bosom. Of which advantages, because they are by few of those departed from this Church so well weighed as they ought, for a conclusion of the whole, I beg leave (not to stay only in universals, but) to represent some particulars, to the begetting in Him (by the aid of the Divine Grace), an holy emulation, and longing, for the re-fruition of them, and a greater resentment of his present impediments, and defects.  
§. 155 Let him then, in the name and fear of God, consider the great benefit, as to the working of his salvation, which he might happily enjoy in this Church, by these particulars following. * By her daily celebrated Sacrifice of the Altar, and the so often renewed corporal presence of our Lord in the holy Eucharist, and the most acceptable opportunity of the presentation of his requests, and opening of his necessities at this time— Quando in manibus est hostia, (to use S. Chrysostom's words 
† In Act. Hom. 21. ) adsunt Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest Filius Dei— Dum mors ill a perficitur, & horrendum Sacrificium, & ineffabilia Sacramenta [&] quasi, sedente Rege, quaecunque quis voluerit, perficit. * By the suffrages of the Saints, (here) so honourably commemorated, and their intercessions so frequently implored. * By the frequent examining, and purging of his conscience by Sacramental Confession, and the prudent advices of his Ghostly Father, and a frequent participation of the holy Communion; the use whereof, with many more devoutly pious Sons of the Church, is almost quotidian. * By those many excellent Rules, and other means, which this Church, in a singular, and transcendent manner to any other Christian Society, prescribes to, and provides for, him, for eradicating former habits of sin, getting the mastery of his own will, and passions, mortifying carnal lusts, and worldly ambitions, acquiring, and, preserving Christian virtues, and attaining perfection.  
§. 156 Such as are, * Her special recommendation, of frequent, and long Fasts, of Abstinences from pleasant food; of Retirement, Cloisters, and solitude; of Celibacy (to the persons well prepared to receive it, as all may be, if they will), ut sint sine solicitudine, 1 Cor. 7.32. of voluntary Poverty (I mean the possession only of a necessary livelihood); and of a resigned Obedience (I mean in all lawful things only) to the will of a discreet Superior. * Her recommending so highly corporal Mortifications, as most profitable for the cure of all diseases of the soul, and for planting in it true humility, and self-denial; such as are, mean far, hard lodging, course apparel, haircloth, disciplines, watch, etc. And her enjoining the abstinence from many things lawful, for preventing of actions unlawful. * Her accurate studying the diseases of the Soul, and weighing the several degrees, and malignities of sins, carefully severing those which give mortal wounds from those that bring slighter hurts; and prescribing to her Penitents great diversity of medicinal penances; as one or other may more conduce to the removal of them, and to the producing a future complete Reformation. * Her excellent directions in mystical Theology, and the practice of mental and vocal Prayer for attaining Recollection, and a closer union with God; and her most prudent conduct, of the illiterate having but few prayers by heart, and not able to help themselves by Books, in a frequent repetition of them to several particular pious intentions, and especially their calling to mind the several mysteries of our Redemption, so to continue these persons, also, in a constant devotion. * Her diligent prescribing choice subjects, and Heads, and ways of Meditation, and amongst these especially those of the poor, and humble life, the great and silent sufferings, and the painful, and patiented death of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, proposed as a perfect pattern of inheriting future glory by present humility and sufferings; to which all, as much as may be, aught to conform: And next; the reading of the holy Lives of his Saints, in which she abounds, and furnisheth her Subjects, incomparably beyond any other Christian Society. * The high value she sets upon, and necessity she urgeth, of an inherent Sanctity; of the practice of Christian virtues; and of good works; especially those of Almsdeeds, mercy, and charity to our neighbour, (in so much that some of her adversaries say, but untruly, that she entrusts salvation more upon our own merits, than our Lords): of which works her public benefactions show great variety, beyond any other Sects, extending to all the wants of humane life; she instituting also several Societies, or Fraternities, who relieve with their charities, or instruct and comfort with their learning and advice; or fortify with the Sacraments; or tend with their persons, those, who seem the greatest spectacles of misery, and objects of pity. * Her zealous vindicating the powerful effect of our Lord's Redemption, as to the future observing of all his Laws; and the ability, which the Grace of the holy Ghost, purchased by him, confers on all the regenerate, to walk henceforth in all the Commandments of God blameless, as to mortal fin. And her proposing an infinite variety, and degrees, of the future celestial reward, one much greater and higher than another, and all distributed according to the degrees of a Christian perfection here; no extraordinary service losing its just wages, and who sows plentifully, so reaping: thereby encouraging her Sons to undertake difficult matters for the service of his Divine Majesty, and to attempt the observance of the highest Rules of perfection; and imitation of the greatest Saints. And her prescribing many useful lessons, and Documents for the attaining, and preserving of all Christian virtues; These, with the several mysteries of our Redemption, being the chief Subject of her public Discourses, wherein she endeavours to render her Sons, not only purged from sin, but perfect in love.  
* Her most careful assistance of all her children at their last hour with the help of her Sacraments; cleansing them with Confession; and exciting acts of Contrition; arming them with the sacred Viaticum, and other Sacraments; and then, following them with her Prayers, and Oblations into the next world; that thus they may, in all manners, participate the benefits of the Communion of Saints. * Her great care to preserve an holy Clergy; enjoining them Celibacy, the more to free them from secular encumbrances;  non sint divisi— & Dominum obsecrent sine impedimento 
† 1 Cor. 7.33, 35. , and a daily long Divine Service, ordinarily indispensable, distributed into several hours, to keep them as it were in a continual colloquy with God, and to pay him, for mankind, a daily tribute of Praise: enjoined also a frequent (i.e. at least on all Sundays, and solemn Festivals) oblation of the Evangelical Sacrifice, and participation of the holy Communion, (prepared so often also for any others, that hunger after this daily Bread): things, which it were a great crime for such persons to do, when living in any mortal sin: And her linking them also together by a most regular subordination, and strict obedience, to retain them unanimous in all things she prescribes; and so to derive upon them, and herself, the blessings of unity, and peace.  
* Her prudent distribution of the Circle of the Year, in her public Liturgy, as it were into a continual meditation of the chief mysteries of our Redemption, lengthening the more solemn Festivals thereof with Octaves, & furnishing them with a service closely applied to the season, and adorned with Lections out of the Fathers, Hymns, Antiphons', Responsories, proper to the solemnity (which great Festivals are, elsewhere, ordinarily passed over only with Scripture Lections, and a short Collect, and the service of one single day). Next: for a more worthy preparation to the receipt of those Graces, which our Lord in the foresaid mysteries hath procured for us, * Her assigning another part of this year for a time of Humiliation, and Confession (as the holy time of Advent, and of Lent) fitted with a constant service suitable to the Exercise, in those times, of a godly sorrow, and Contrition; Those of her Sons, who are lovers of piety, thus spending some part of this Ecclesiastical year in a spiritual joy, Hymns, Prayers, and Thanksgivings: another, in Litanies, Fast, Tears, and sundry penitential devotions. * Her receiving several Books of Scripture as Canonical and Divine, and so requiring of all her Sons a suitable observance and obedience thereto, which others degrade, extenuate and reject: And, whilst they pretend the holy Bible their only Rule of Faith, yet are the persons also, who most abridge it. * Her studying likewise all the ways how to preserve these Divine Oracles in a most sacred reverence and esteem; and unviolated by the private and undigested interpretations and glosses of the vulgar and unlearned; the true sense of which, together with the letter she takes care that they should receive from the mouths of their spiritual Pastors and Teachers, so to keep the most infirm steady in an Orthodox faith. * Her entertaining also & vindicating several writings of the Fathers as Genuine, and Councils as obligatory, whereby the doctrine both of Christian Faith and manners is much fortified and promoted, of which writings and decrees, others, whilst they question the Authority, lose the Benefit. * Her many external expressions of honour, and reverence to all things, which any way more nearly relate to God, and his Saints, partly to elevate her devotions to them, partly to excite the memory, and imitation of them; whilst others, not knowing these natural effects of this divine love, style such her affection, superstition. * The holy Example, shining before others, of many of both sexes within her Communion, treading under their feet all secular pleasures, contents, and ambitions; and showing the highest precepts, and Councils of this Church practiceable: especially those examples of several Religious Orders (living under various Rules of a singular devotion, fitted for all sorts, and conditions, and drawn up by persons endued with a divine prudence, joined with a long experience): By whose eminent sanctity, conspicuous to all, is sufficiently removed any prejudice to the holy doctrine, and discipline of this Church, raised from the vicious lives of some others, the undutiful Sons of a most pious Mother.  
If then, I say, all these advantages of attaining salvation, and of increase of grace, are found to be, in such a singular manner, promoted in this Church as not in any other, so that, as she only pretends to be the infallible Guide, so she only seems worthy to be so, let him consider what precious helps he loseth, in not rendering himself (perhaps for some trifling secular respects) in all things her obedient Disciple. And, in the midst of such resigned thoughts, may the good Lord, the only Teacher of hearts, so open his, that, amongst the many paths, by several Sects with equal zeal proposed, he may make an happy choice of that, which may most surely conduct him to eternal happiness, and be most acceptable to the Divine Majesty: To whose Patronage and Benediction, the Author humbly commits these his labours, well considering— That none can do any thing against the Truth, but for the Truth 
† 2 Cor. 13.8. — And— That whatever Council or work is not of God, shall come to naught 
* Act. 5.38. — That an Woe is to all those that call good evil, and evil good 
† Esay 5.20. — And— He accursed, that makes the blind to wander out of the way 
* Deut. 27.18. ; and therefore assureth his pious Reader, that he would not wittingly take this pains, only to inherit to himself the malediction due to a Seducer, and to become answerable to God for the loss of his Soul; or, for any other end, save that, of advancing God's glory, in his eternal Felicity. And if any shall hereafter design a confutation of these Discourses, he also is desired first to take into his thoughts the same Meditations: lest perhaps learning, or wit, or some secular interest, should prevail with him, either to write those things to persuade others, which do not persuade himself; or to believe and persuade himself those things, which oppose an apparent Truth, if he were divested of some inordinate passions and prejudices clouding his judgement. For we may presume, from such an heavy curse laid on false Guides, that, though an utterly irresistible evidence of Truth, in Divine matters, must not be expected, which would lessen the merit of our Faith; yet so sufficient a manifestation thereof is left us by our good Lord, as will render the learned, when opposing it, unexcused. To Him, the Fountain of all Truth, and faithful Protector of his Church, be all Honour, and Glory for ever. Amen.   

CHAP. XI.  
A supplement to the fourth Chapt. 26. §. precedent. Wherein is showed a consent of the Doctrine and Practice of the moldern Eastern Churches with the Occidental, in the chief Points of present Controversy. [1. Transubstantiation, §. 158. n. 2. & 177.  
2. Adoration of the Eucharist, §. 159, 177.  
3. Sacrifice of the Mass §. 160. n. 1.— & 177.  
4. Invocation of Saints §. 161.  
5. Prayer for the souls of the departed, as betterable, hereby, in their present condition, §. 162.  
6. Communion in one kind, or intinct, only, §. 163, 178.  
7. A relative veneration of Images, or Pictures, Ibid.  
8. Monastic Vows: and marrying denied the Clergy, after their having taken Holy Orders, §. 164.— & 179. n. 1.  
9 Auricular or Sacramental Confession, §. 165, 179. n. 2.]  
The Replies made, hereto, by Protestants considered, §. 182. etc.  
IT is affirmed above, 
§. 158. n. 1.  Cap. 4. §. 26. that the great points of modern Controversy,  

[1. Transubstantiation, or a substantial Conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body. (a)  
2. Adoration of the Eueharist; i. e. of Christ's body, and blood, as present in it; which follows from the former. (b)  
3. The Sacrifice of the Mass; not only that of Prayers, Praise, and Thanksgiving; nor only of the Mysteries offered, in the consecration of them, as a commemoration of the passion (conceded also by learned Protestants); but also of the very Body and Blood of Christ in these Mysteries, (which follows from the first point) offered in this service, (as a commemorative, and applicative of the virtue and merit of the same Body and Blood offered on the Cross), pro vivis, & defunctis. (c)  
4. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and Saints. (d)  
And 5. Such prayer, for the dead, as infers their present condition before the day of Judgement (whatever their restraint, or sufferings be) conceived betterable by the Intercessions of the living, (e)]   
Do clearly appear to have been universally held, and practised, and the approbation, and conformity to them imposed, by the Ecclesiastical Governors both of the Eastern, and Western Church, at the appearance of Luther. Which remains here a little more fully to be vindicated, and cleared.  
(a) 1st. A substantial conversion of the Elements, 
§. 158. n 2.  and a corporal presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, as to the Western Church, was in several Councils defined against Berengarius 
† See Disc. 1. §. 57 : and, as to the Eastern Church, the modern Greeks are confessed in this point to agree with the Romnists by learned Protestants; * By Dr. Potter, p. 225. where affirming a difference between the Roman opinion, and that of the rest of the Catholic Church, as to many other points: yet this particular he excepts from them in this manner— Unless happily (saith he) the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists, quoting there these their Authors for it; Nicaetae Thesaur. Orthod— Euthym. Panoplia— Hierem. Patriarch C. P. in Respons. 1. & 2. ad Lutheranos— Nicol. Episcop. Methon— Respons. Graec. ad Card▪ Guis. * By Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 3. p. 412.— Patet (saith he) ex Graecis recentioribus (ut alios paulo antiquiores omittam) Nicaetae thesauro Orthod. Euthym. panoplia tit. 21— Nicolao Methonensi— Saemona Gazenzi— Nicolao Cabasila— Marco Ephesio— & Bessarione, qui omnes in suis opusculis apertissime Transubstantiationem confitentur. [See a collection of the most of them by Johan. à sancta Andrea] Et in concilio Florentino non suit quaestio inter Graecos, & Latino's (ut Kemnitius, aliique multi Protestantes affirmant) an panis substantialiter in corpus Christi mutaretur; sed quibusnam verbis illa ineffabilis mutatio fieret; an solis verbis Domini, an verò etiam Sacerdotis, & Ecclesiae oratione. * By Sands West. Rel. p. 235. and others. And the same expressions in the Consecration (which expressions the Protestants thought fit to change, when they changed their opinion), the like Adoration, and Oblation of these Mysteries for the living, and the dead, used in the Greek, as well as Latin service, as also this, that there hath been no Controversy between these two Churches as touching this matter, do sufficiently evidence a concurrence of their doctrine herein.  
And all the rest of these points also are contained, and apparent, in the former public Liturgies, and Services as well of the Greek, as of the Latin Church▪ to which public Service all those are obliged to conform, who ●ill cont●nue in the Communion of these Churches.  
(b) Concerning the second, a necessary consquent of the first; 
●. 159.  we read thus in the present form of the ●reek Mas— Dehinc adorat Sacerdos, & Diaconus, in quo est loco— Et populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat. Cum autem viderit Diaconus Sacerdotem manus extendentem, & sanctum panem tangentem, ut faciat sanctam Elevationem [which Elevation is mentioned also in St Basils' Liturgy] exclamat: Attendamus. Et Sacerdos, Sancta sanctis, etc.— And afterward— Sacerdos tenens sanctum Calicem vocat Diaconum dicens; Diacon● accede. Et Diaconus aceedit, & adorat, s●mel, dicens— Ecce venio ad immortalem regem, etc.— And again— Diaconus adorans semel, sumit sanctum Calicem cum veneratione & procedit, etc. This also is granted by the same Bishop Forves de Eucharistia, p. 442.— That Graeci venetiis viventes, & reliqui etiam Graeci omnes adorant Christum in Eucharistiâ & quis ausit (saith he) omnes his Christianos Idolatriae arcessere, & damnare?  
(c) Concerning the third. 
§. 160 n. 1  See the solemn performance thereof in the modern Canon of the Greek Mass, as fully, and much what with the like expressions, as in the Roman; for the excluding of which expressions this Canon suffered so great an alteration at the beginning of the Reformation— There we read, in the Mass of S. Chrysostom— Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus per omnia, & in omnibus— Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc, & incruentum cultum [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in consecrando, & offerendo hanc prop●tiationis hostiam; (See Cyrill. Hierosol. Catec. Mystag. c. 5. commenting on the Canon of the Mass) Et supplicamus, emitte Spiritum Sanctum tuum in nos, & in haec dona proposita— Offerimus tibi rationale hoc obsequium pro his, qui in fide requiescunt; pro Majoribus, Patribus, Patriar●his, etc. [i.e. ut illis proficiat ad honorem]— pro requie, & remiss●one animarum servorum tuorum in loco lucido, etc. [ut illis proficiat ad salutem]— pro sanctâ Catholicâ, & Apostoliâ Ecclesiâ▪ etc.— Again—  clemens Deus noster, qui oblata, & sanctificata pretiosa Dona in sanctum, & supercaeleste intellectuale suum altare suscepit in odorem spiritualis suavitatis, nobis divinam gratiam, & sanctissimi spiritus donum rependat, Dominum precemur— And in the Mass of S. Basil— Memento Domine eorum, qui tibi haec dona obtulerunt, & pro quibus & per quos, 
† Mede Christian Sacrif. p. 525. 475— Bp. Bramh. Reply to Chalced. c. 9  & propter quos hae● obtulerunt— And afterwards— Tu Deus noster, qui haec dona suscepisti purga nos ab omni inquinamento carnis, & spiritus, ut puro quidem t●stimonio conscientiae nostrae suscipien●es partem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctificatorum tuorum [st●led also ther● veneranda, supercoelestia, illibata, vivifica, mysteria] uniamur sancto ●●orpori, & sanguini Christi tui. And indeed; Learned Protestants 
† p▪ 371, 372— Thorndik. Epi●og l. 3. c. 5. p. 46. etc.  together with the whole Greek a●d Latin Church, granting the Eucharist to be the Christian, o● Evangelical, Sacrifice, not only in respect of the action, in it, of Praise and Thanksgiving, but also in respect of the Oblation to God of the mysteries, in the Consecration, as a Commemorative, or Representative, of the Body and Blood of Christ offered on the Cross; 2 And, next, the Grecian Church being once conceded to agree with the Western in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or corporal presence, (see before §. 158. n. 2.); it necessarily follows, that the Greek Church doth, together with the Western, hold an Oblation made to God in the Eucharist of that very Body and Blood of Christ; i. e. do maintain the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
§. 161 (d) Concerning the fourth: Multis jam seculis (saith Bishop Forbes) (de Invocatione Sanctorum, p. 321.) in universâ Ecclesiâ, in Oriente non minùs quam in Occidente, etiam in Aquilone apud Muscovitas, Litania est decantata; ut puta, Sancte Petre ora pro nobis. And see in the Officium Exequiarum (apud Goar. p. 325, 528.)— Quae sola pura, & illibata virgo Deum absque semine peperisti: intercede, ut ejus anima salvetur— per te vitam invenit hominum Genus; per te paradisum recuperemus— And— Agni Dei praecones, &, velut oves mactari, sancti Martyres huic assidue exposcite, simulque nobis, debitorum remissionem donari— In the Office in time of pestilence (Gore. p. 793, 795)— Vehementibus, & continuis doloribus perculsi, tibi, virgo, cuncti procidimus: potenti tuâ protectione cunctos salva, O pura; miserere Dei sponsa, ab hae pernicie, & morbo gravi nos praeserva, & infirmit atibus medere, O Domina— And— A grassantis morbi angustiis, Apostoli, Jesum Dominum, & servatorem deprecantes, nos educite— Martyrum turmae, sacri Doctores, etc. aegrotorum dolores, vestris intercessionibus mitigate, & salutem conferte— [Some of these too in as high expressions, you see, as those found in the Roman Church. But if we will permit (which is all reason) those, who use such words to expound their meaning, they understand only by them, the Blessed Virgin, & Saints procuring of God by their intercessions those favours, and mercies, which they ask of them 
† See. Bell. de sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 17. : nor are they apprehended to preserve, of save people any otherwise, than S. Paul did, 1 Cor. 9.22] See Jeremy the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his first answer to the Lutheran Divines 
† p. 128. — Ad Dominam nostram, & ad sanctos exclamamus— Persancta Domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus Omnes sancti Angeli, Apostoli, etc. & foeminarum sanctarum caetus, orate pro nobis. That Exposition, therefore, of this Patriarch (which some 
† See Mr. Stillingf. p. 502.  make use of to persuade the credulous, as if the Grecian, in the Doctrine of invocation differed from the Roman, Church) 
‖ Hierem. p. 127. ; i. e. [Invocatio, quae ad Sanctos fit, non propriè Invocatio fit; sed per accidens (si● dicendo), & per gratiam. Non enim Petrus aut Paulus [i. e. virtue naturali] exaudiunt invocatores suos sed illa gratia, quam habent: secundum illud quod Dominus dixit: Ero vobiscum usque ad consummationem]: is not thus to be understood; that none of these Saints hear, or at least by some other way know, men's prayers (though as Cardinal Bellarmine observes 
† De sanctorum beatitudine. l. 1. c. 20  neither thus could Saint invocation be vain, if others at the least for them heard, and granted their supplicants requests); for the same Patriarch's saying afterward (p. 243.) that it may be many ways showed, that the Saints invocated do help, and relieve, doth presuppose also, that they know, men's necessities; and therefore the Lutheran Divines in their Reply endeavour to prove this against him, among other things; that Saints hear not men's prayers: But he meaneth only, that they hear them not suis viribus naturalibus, but per supernaturalem gratiam Dei, as he explains himself also in his second answer, p. 245.— Sanctos multum posse; cum per gratiam sint Dii (inquit enim Psalmorum author: Deus stetit in Synagogâ deorum; dignitates scilicet distribuens, ut interpretatur divus Gregorius)— And— In sua vitâ plenos fuisse Spiritus sancti; atque post funera ipsorum, ejusdem Spiritus gratiam non excessisse ex ipsis.  
§. 162 (e) Concerning the fifth. The Prayers of the Greek Church for the deceased, are not only made for remission of sin at the day of judgement, a happy resurrection at that time; glory, life eternal, in the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. for the person of the defunct; but also for present remission, rest, light, peace, refreshment, cum spiritibus justorum consummatis, in sinu Abrahae, in Paradiso, in loco refrigerii, & lucis, unde dolour, & aerumna, & suspiriviu exulant, etc. for the souls of the defunct, viz. of such defunct (to use the Patriarch's expression 
† Hieremiaes Patri. primum Resp. c. 21. , Qui, inter paenitendum, preventi morte fuere; nondum autem peccatorum maculas eluere potuerunt; for rest, and refreshment for them, in sinu Abrahae. etc. i e. in the present celestial region of happy souls, imagined inferior to that, they shall inhabit after the day of Judgement. So in the modern Greek Mass it is said— Offerimus tibi, etc. pro requie, & remissione animae servi tui. N. in loco lucido, à quo abest dolour, & gemitus— And— Fac eam quiescere, ubi circumspectat lumen vultus tui. And in their Officium exequiarum (apud Goar. p. 525.)— Cum spiritibus justis consummatis animae servi tui salvator da requiem, & in vitam aeternam, quae à te est, custodi illam benign. In quietis loco, quo sancti tui cuncti resident, animam servi tui compone Domine, quia tu solus es clemens. Tu Deus es, qui in infernum descendisti, & compeditorum aerumnas solvisti; ipse & animae servi tui da requiem.  
§. 163 Next; As these Five Points were universally held and practised at the coming of Luther; so it may seem as clear to any moderate Protestant, that the forenamed Points, together with four more added to them; viz. 1. Communion in one kind. 2. Veneration of sacred Images, and Pictures. 3. Monastic vows, and Celibacy of the Clergy; And 4 Auricular, or Sacramental Confession of all mortal sin, and the injunction of due pennances for them, are the main points in the Roman Church, that are thought to give just offence, and to have necessitated a Reformation. But in these four last also it may easily be showed, that the Roman Church stands not alone; but, that these points also are (and were at the appearance of Luther) the common practice of the Eastern Churches in such a manner, as Protestants disallow, and oppose.  
1st. For Communion in one kind; The modern Greeks also are known to communicate the ecclesiastics, and the Laics after a several manner; for they give the Clergy the Symbol of Christ's Body into their hands, after which in their order they suck the Blood of our Lord out of the Chalice standing on the Altar, with a pipe; but they communicate the people only with the Symbol of Christ's Body intinct in that of his blood, taken out of the Chalice with a little spoon, and so put into their mouths: Not eating therefore, the Body and drinking the blood of our Lord apart, (as, Protestants contend, our Lord not only instituted, but commanded it.) This former way of communicating the people in both kinds having been changed, in both Churches, upon the same ground; namely the many abuses, and irreverences, which have happened in giving the consecrated bread into their hands, and allowing so many Communicants of all ages, and conditions to drink out of the Chalice. Lastly, they communicate the Sick only with the Symbol of Christ's Body, consecrated on Maunday Thursday, for all the year following; and then, on that day, be sprinkled with the Symbol of his blood, and softened again for the sick with common wine at the time, when they administer it 
† See Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149, 150. S. Chrysost. Mass. See below §. 170. . Such is their practice; whilst both East and West, together with the ancient Church, do hold Christ to be totally present, and so also totally exhibited, in any one species.  
2ly. A Relative veneration of the Cross, and of sacred Images or at least of Pictures (which is the same) is also a known practice of the Greek Church, and a macter defined lawful in the second Nicen, entertained by the present Greek Church as the seventh General, Council.  
3ly. As to Monastic vows, and Celibacy of the Clergy. 1st. It cannot be denied; but that the Eastern Churches do, and have always held lawful and used, these vows; and abounded with Monasteries, as well as the Western. 2ly. Amongst these vows, hold lawful and use, that of perpetual Chastity; which vow is generally taken by the cloistered Religious: and enjoined also to all their Priests, who enter into Orders unmarried; though those, that are married before, are also admitted by them into such Orders: which vow, exacted from all such, argues, that they (agreeably with the Western Church, and contrary to the Reformed) hold all persons, using a meet endeavour, to be capable of this gift of Continency: and then, upon this granted, it can be no injustice in the Roman Church, in order to a greater freedom from secular cares, to exact that from the Clergy, that the Eastern doth from the Monks; and to enjoin to so many of her Sons, as shall desire her spiritual preferments, that only, which, it is agreed, all are able to perform.  
§. 165 4ly. For auricular, or Sacramental Confession to the Priest (held necessary for all great, and mortal sins, by which Christians fall from the grace of their baptism); as also the injunction of meet penance for them: That these are taught, and practised in the Greek, as well as the Roman, Church, see Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Resp. 1. c. 11.— Gabrielis Philadelph. Metropolit. lib. de Sacramento penitent.— Simeonis Archiepiscopi Thessalonic. on the same subject apud Morinum de Administrat. Sacrament penitent.— And Goar's Euchologion in the Orationes super poenitentes p. 678, 679. where also he sets down the Officium confitentium; and mentions the several sorts of penances usually prescribed: See also Eugen. Roger. Recollect. Terre Sancte l. 2. tract. 4. c. 5. Thus Jeremias the Patriarch 
† Respons. 1. c. 11. ; to the Tubing Divines affirming,  omnia peccata recenscantur, aut per singulas species enumerentur, non esse necessarium— Respondentes dicimus— Eum, qui confitetur, tum demum perfectam peccatorum suorum consequi curationem, si peccata omnia, omnesque eorum parts, quantum animus illi sufficit, & quantum meminisse potest, cum contrito, & humiliato corde recensuerit atque confessus fuerit; feceritque ea omnia, quae maximè illis peccatis, quae admisit, adversantur; quoting S. Basil 
† Ascetiona. — Omne delictum apud eum, qui praesidet, refer oportet, malitia namque silentio tecta, occultus, ac sub cute latens, morbus est. And, after, concerning Sacerdotal Absolution he saith 
† c. 12. — Neque quenquam absolvimus, nisi primò just as poenas, & castigationes illi pro peccatis admissis injung amus; idque plurimas ob causas. Daille 
† De Confession l. 4. c. 1.  indeed quotes Arcudius 
‖ De Sacramento l. 4. c. 1  as saying, that the Greek, and Russian Bishops, and Priests seldom confessed, and that concerning this matter, Pope Eugenius also, in the Council of Florence 
† Sess. ult. , questioned the Greeks— Curio neque Pontifices neque Presbyteri celebraturi peccata sua confiteri soleant: from which neglect of it, Daille gathers, they hold no necessity of it. But 1st. the neglect of a thing infers not the denial of it to be duty; and why may not Daille rather collect a necessity of auricular confession to have been taught by the Clergy from the constant practice of it by the people, than a nonnecessity held from the neglect of it in the practice of some of the Clergy? 2ly. Arcudius himself (Ibid.) makes another comment upon it, saying, that this was not generally neglected by the Priests, but that some of them confessed more frequently; And again; for the desuetude of confession in others, giveth this reason, not that they allowed what they did, but that many of them being guilty of crimes, for which by the Canons they were liable to be suspended from their functions, chose rather to conceal their faults, & miserè impenitents manere, than to suffer such censures, and public shame; especially whenas, confession being held necessary only in case of mortal sin, it cannot be required that any constantly, before he celebrate, or, within some short space of time, should confess, because it is not certain, that so soon he must fall into such a sin (without which some holy men are thought to have passed a great part of their life): and therefore, though an annual confession is, by the Church, enjoined to all, as being to them some way beneficial; yet is it not so enjoined, as to all, for annual mortal sin, jure divino, necessary. And, some such way, it seems, the Pope in the Council of Florence received satisfaction from the answer of the Greeks, though, what it was, is not there set down. Arcudius 
† Ibid.  imagines some such reply as this returned to him— Nonnullos habere usum confitendi; in plerisque abusum esse; neque enim (saith he) hac nostrâ aetate Graeci hoc benè fieri probare contendunt, etc.  
§. 166 Concerning all the precedents, and several other points; that the full accord of the Greek, with the Roman, belief, and practice, may be yet more confirmed to you; be pleased to peruse, more particularly, the three answers of Jeremias Patriarch C. P. to the Lutheran Divines of Tubing; who sent unto him their Augustane confession, desiring an agreement, and union between the Reformed, and the Greek Churches [ut Constantini urbs Tubing aque Christianae concordiae, & charitatis vinculo mutuo copulentur, quo nihil optatius contingere nobis posset 
† Acta Theol. Wirtenberg. Epist— See Jerem Patriarch. Epilog. fin. ] and that they might the easier obtain their request, telling him that they submitted to the first seven General Councils 
‖ Epist. Theol. Tub. & Hierem. Patriar. praefat. resp. 1.  To whom first the Patriarch, going through all those Articles, declareth the faith of the Greek Church, in the most, and most considerable, points, contrary to their, and consenting with the Roman, Doctrines. And, they still unsatisfied, and replying, writes a second answer, in defence of his first; toward the end of which 
† p. 250. , he thus paternally exhorts them— Stemus itaque, Fratres, in petrâ fidei, & Traditione Ecclesia; non transferentes termino, à S. Patribus nostris positos: non dantes lorum illis, qui rebus novis student, & adificium sanctae Dei, Catholicae, & Apostolicae, Ecclesiae dejicere conantur. Si enim talis licentia cuilibet concedatur: paulatim totum Ecclesiae corpus destruedur. And, they not acquiescing, but a third time reassaulting him, and imposing (as he thought) a sense on the Scriptures contrary to the traditional, and also borrowing weapons out of the Greek Fathers (as they misapplied them) against him, he returns a third answer; in the conclusion of which he thus reprehends them in particular concerning these points— Praeterea (saith he) invocationem sanctorum vanam existimatis; & imagines eorum, venerandasque reliquias, & adorationem rejicitis. Rejicitis item mutuam alterius ad alterum [1. ad Sacerdotem. See Hierem. Respons. cap. 11.] confessionem; praeterea monasticam vitam, angelis aequalem. And then, disallowing their interpretation of Scriptures contrary to their meaning, now somewhat more provoked, he saith— Chrysostomus & ipsius similes, divini viri spiritu sancto pleni [divina dicta] sic interpretati sunt, quemadmodum habemus, caeterique Traditiones tales, cum approbassent ut necessaria, & pia, continuâ successione per manus veluti tradentes, ad nos usque propagarunt; quarum aliquas vetus etiam Roma observat, & nobiscum amplectitur. [Aliquas, he saith, for several Points there are, in which the Greeks oppose the Roman Church, wherein the Protestants do side with the Roman against them; but amongst these aliquas, wherein both the Greek, and Roman Church agree against the Protestant, are all the forementioned points, and many more] Vnde igitur vos rectiùs, & meliùs vetere nouâque Româ sapuistis, ut verorum Theologerum scriptis relictis, vestra ista meliora potioraque duceretis? Et schismata, quae apud vos sunt, quae multi variique Generis sunt, illa scilicet Lutheranorum, Hebraei aliqui, ut fama fert, pietatis simulatione introduxerunt, ac disseminaverunt; Et nunc etiam, sicut oculis cernitur; proficiunt in pejus, & quotidie crescunt. Cum quibus equidem nos prorsùs non communicantes quicquam, Ecclesiae nostrae mysteria immota servamus: manentes in iis, quae dicta sunt à successoribus praeconum Dei Apostolorum— Rogamus it aque vos, ne posthac labores nobis exhibeatis— Nam Theologor, qui Ecclesia lumina fuerunt, alias aliter tractatis; & verbis quidem honoratio eos, extollitisque; factis verò rejicitis; armaque nostra inutilia nobis efficere vultis, &c— Quamobrem quantum ad vos attinet, liberastis nos curis. Vestram ergo viam euntes, ne amplius de dogmatibus, sed amicitiae tantum causâ, si volueritis, scribite.  
§. 167 And much what the same tenants of the Greek Church, as are vindicated by Hieremias, you may find acknowledged by Sir Edwin Sandys in his relation of the West, Relig. p. 233. &c.— With Rome saith he) the Greek Church concurs in the opinion of Transubstantiation; and generally in the Sacrifice, and whole Body of the Mass. And afterwards (p. 238) he saith— For the form and ceremonies thereof they much resemble the Latin: Their Altar they enclose from the people, that the Arcana of those their ineffable cross, and converting, may not be prostituted, and polluted by an unsanctified view; whereas the Romans lie fair, and open— They elevate the Host forward and near the Body of the Church; as the Latins do backward, and at the Altar. And for their Liturgies 
† p. 235.  he confesseth— That they are the same, that in old time; namely S. Basil's, and S. Chrysostom's, and S. Gregory's translated, and these, without any bending of them to that change of language, which their tongue hath also suffered. [Of which Brerewood in his inquiries c. 2. p. 12. gives this account— That the difference is become so great between the present and the ancient Greek, that their Liturgy, yet read in the ancient Greek tongue, namely that of Basil [the longer] on the Sabbaths, and solemn days, and that of Chrysostom [the briefer] on common days, is not understood (or but little of it) by the vulgar people: And the skilful in the learned Greek cannot understand the vulgar. Thus he for the language: now, for the matter; If you please to peruse this their modern Liturgy, and Church Service, in Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Rituale Graecorum, juxta usum Oriontalis Ecclestae, printed at Paris 1647. or in that printed before at Venice 16▪ 9 and to compare it with ancienter Copies of S. Basil's, and S. Chrysostom's, Missals; and again compare both with the Roman; you shall find them either agreeing; or, where they d●ffer one from another, the Greek as much offensive to Protestants as the Latin Service, so that the Reformation must be confessed to be made against the publ●ck Liturgies both of the Eastern, and Western (1.) of the whole Catholic, Church. To go on]— They agree (saith he) in praying to Saints; in auricular Confession; in offering of Sacrifice, and Prayer, for the dead; in these without any (or no material) difference. They hold Purgatory not ●●y any outward torment [as he explains himself afterw●rd] ●ut that ●he ●ou is not received into glory,— till by an extreme compunction and a●gu●● of mind they have worn out those stains, with which their ●ins doe lea them. [As for the controversy between them, and the Western Docto●s, whether such suffering be by fire, it is a thing never determined one way or other i● a●y Council], And the worshipping of pictures: kneeling to two; that of Christ and of our Lady; passing over the rest with an ordinary reverence— In sum; they still retain those opinions, which grew in●o the Church before the separation between the Greeks and the Latins; [which separation was first made about the year 800, but the Protestants condemn many Roman tenants, and practices, from 600. and then common to them with the Greeks]: And all the Ceremonies, which were then common to both, they still retain; as their cross, tapers, with certain others. Thus he.  
§. 168 As for the differences (mentioned by Sandys) between the Greeks, and Latins, in other points; First, I appeal to the judgement of the ingenuous Reader, whether these points, wherein they are acknowledged to agree, be not the chief, and the main of those, which are debated between the Reformed and Roman Church. Again; many of those, wherein he mentions them to differ, are of small moment; as their using leaven in their Hosts, which the Latins avoid; their tolerating no Images in their Church [when as it is granted before, that they use Pictures in the same manner, as the Roman Church doth]: their using no round counters, or beads, for praying by tale: [these being brought up in the West, after the division of those Churches]. Lastly, as for other things that seem of more consequence, wherein this Author makes these two Churches to descent, See them more fully collected by Dr. Field in his 3. l. 1. c. and spoken to below §. 181. ●n several of which, indeed, the Roman tenants are mistaken, I mean, the tenants of their Councils, and of their more moderate Doctors. In which tenants, if the Greek Churches may be sa●d to agree with the Protestant, so also may these Doctors in the Roman. Concerning some of which I will set you down the late candid concession of Mr. Baxter (no great friend of the Church of Rome), in his Key for Catholics, part. 1. c. 5.— I am satified saith he) that in many doctrinal points, the difference between us and the Papists, is not so great as commonly it is taken to be by many, if not by most, on both sides: as in the points of certainty of salvation, of pardon, of justification, of works, of faith, and in almost all the Cont oversies, about Predestination, and Redemption, Free will, the work of Grace, etc. The Dominicans in sense agree wi●h the Calvinists, (as they call them); and the Jesuits with the Lutherans, and Arminians; and so in divers other points. How near doth Dr. Holden come to us in the fundamental points of the Resolution of our faith? How near come the Scotists to us; in sense about th● point of merit? And Wa●densis, and others, yet nearer? How near comes Contarenus to us in the point of Justification? How near comes G●rson in the point of venial, and mortal sin●? perhaps 〈◊〉 near ●us we are to ourselves. How near come the Dominicans, and J●nse● us 〈◊〉 us in the points of Predestination, Grace, and Freewill? For my own part▪ I scarce know a Protestant, that my thoughts in these do more concur with, than they do with Jansenius. Thus Baxter concerning some of the Roman Doctors (yet who own the Council of Trent) agreeing with Protestants in those points, wherein Sandys and Field suppose the main difference to be between the Reformed, and the Roman Churches.  
§ 169 To this of Sandys may be added the latter collection made by Alexander Ross 
† View of Relig. p. 476, 480.  out of Boterus, Chytraeus, Brerewood; Possevine, Thomas a Jesus, Hieremias Patriarch Chapl. Resp. ad German, & Concil. Florent. The Greeks (saith he) place much of their devotion in the worship of the blessed Virgin Mary; and of painted, but not carved Images; in the intercession, prayers, help, and merits of the Saints; which they invocate in their temples. The Scarifice of the Mass is used for the quick, and the dead; and they use to buy Masses— They do not hold a Purgatory fire; yet they believe there is a third place, between that of the Blessed, and the damned, where they remain, who have deferred repentance till the end of their life. But if this place be not Purgatory, I know not what it is [saith he]; nor what the souls do there. Priests among them may marry once, but not oftener. [but, p. 496. he faith, that Protestants herein differ from the Greek Church; that the Protestants permit Priests after Ordination to marry: But the Greeks permit not this; but only, that a married man may be admitted into Holy Orders, so he abstain from his wife, when he officiates]. They use leavened bread in the Sacrament, and administer in both kinds.  
§. 170 [Butler note, that what he saith of the Moscovian, (p. 485.) is also true of the Greek, Church; that they give to the people at once both the Body, and Blood of our Lord, mingled in the Chalice, with a spoon; and so to the sick only the Symbol of the bread, consecrated on Maunday Thursday for all the year following, and then, on that day, besprinkled with the other Symbol of the wine, and softened again for the sick with common wine when they administer it, as hath been already said §. 163. (See Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 153.) which receiving both species together in a spoon, as it is testified by many Travelers, who have been spectators thereof, so it may be collected out of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, as it is now used by the modern Greeks; where, before communicating the people, it is said— Tunc accipiens Diaconus sanctum Discum; super sanctum calicem sanctâ spongiâ diligenter abstergit [so putting the particle of the Symbol of the bread into the Chalice]▪ & adorans semel [where also observe adoration] sumit sanctum Calicem cum veneratione, & procedit ad ostium, & attollens sanctum Calicem ostendit illum populo, dicens: cum timore Dei, & fide accedite: and so with a little spoon called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which you may see described in Goars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rituale Graecurum, p. 152.) takes out a very small particle thereof, and puts it into the mouth of the Communicant]  
§. 171 He goes on— They have four Lents in the year: They will not have, neither the blessed souls in heaven, to enjoy God's presence, or the wicked in hell to be tormented, till the day of Judgement. They esteem equal with the Scriptures the acts of the seven Greek Synods, and the writings, of Basil, Chrysostom, Damascen, and their Traditions. They believe, that the souls of the dead, are bettered by the prayers of the living. They are no less for the Church's authority, and for Traditions, than the Roman Catholics be. When the Sacrament is carried through the Temple, the people, by bowing themselves, adore it, and falling on their knees, kiss the earth.— They have their Monks, who are all of S. Basil's Order: these have their Archimandrites, or abbots. The Patriarch, Metropolitans, & Bishops are of this Order, and abstain from flesh; but, in Lent, and other fasting days, they forbear fish, milk, and eggs. The Greeks celebrate their Liturgies in the old Greek tongue, which they scarce understand. On the Festival days they use the Liturgy of Basil; on other days that of S. Chrysostom. They have no other translation of the Bible, than that of the 70. Lastly, For auricular or Sacramental Confession to the Priest, though he omits it in the Greek, yet he 
† p. 485.  mentions it as used in the Russian Churches, which follows herein the practice of the Greek. Meanwhile, their chief differences from the Church of Rome he makes to be these: Their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son: their denying the Pope's Supremacy; their not using, either Confirmation, or extreme Unction. But in the first of these, they differ not more from the Roman, than from the Protestant, Churches; In the second, not so much from the Roman, as do the Protestant Churches, (of which see below §. 181, 186.) As for the two last Alexander Ross might have found, in one of the chief Authors (Jeremiah the C. P. Patriarch 
† Resp. 1. c. 7▪ ) both these Sacraments to be acknowledged by, and used in, the Greek, as well as Latin, Church- Confirmation being conferred by them always immediately after Baptism— Ad quod illud dicimus (saith he) in eâ ipsâ orthodoxâ & Catholicâ Ecclesiâ septem divina Sacramenta esse, 1 Baptismum sci: 2 Sacri unguenti Vnctionem [or, as he styles it afterward, sacrum Chrysma, sive Confirmationem] 3 Sacram Communionem: 4 Ordinem: 5 Matrimonium: 6 Poenitentiam: Et 7 Extremae Vctionis oleum. (Of which see below §. 181. Resp. ad. 9)  
sect;. 172 For these many differences of the Greek, as well as the Roman, from the Reformed Churches, it is, that Mason, being to prove a case of necessity for the ordaining of Protestant Ministers, beyond Seas, only by Presbyters, (in §. 23.) on that subject), argues thus.— These Ministers could not receive Ordination from the Popish Churches, because of the abomination of their sacrificing Priesthood; and because these would ordain none, but in a Popish manner to a Popish Priesthood, etc. And neither (saith he) by the same reason, could they obtain Ordination from the Greek Church. For Bellarmine denyeth it to be a Church, because they were lawfully convicted in three full Councils of Heresy; and especially of the Heresy about the proceeding of the holy Ghost; which, to be a manifest Heresy (saith Bellarmine), both the Lutherans, and the Calvinists do confess. Wherefore seeing no Church (as Mason goeth on) will give Orders but only to such persons as approve their doctrine, therefore they could not with a safe conscience seek to the Greek Church, whose doctrine they justly misliked. And being thus excluded from the Greek, and the Latin, from the East, and the West [no Bishop's being as yet turned Protestants to ordain] what should be done? It was the duty of the Magistrates not to suffer false Prophet's, and to plant godly Preachers in their places. But whence should t●●y have them?— the Bishops were so fa● f●om yielding Ordination 〈…〉 tolerable manner, that they persecuted such, as sought th●● 〈…〉 Wherefore it must either be devolved unto Presbyters▪ [〈…〉 ●ad already deserted eur former Church-Commu●●●] 〈◊〉 the Church of God must suffer most lamentable ruin, and desolation 〈◊〉 An● was not this a case of necessity? thus Mason, well ●eeing the Reformation as much destitute of any relief or countenance from the Greek Church, as from the Roman.  
§ 173 And now, by the two Relations of Sands, and Ross, both Protestants, we may see, how much truth the assertion of Cardinal Perron (in his Reply to King James, Observation 3. c. 22) hath in it, who there undertakes to make good: That these doctrines, or customs are common to the Western Church with the Oriental, and Meridional (upon which Doctrines, therefore, the Pope's Supremacy may be gathered to have had no influence): Namely, Transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ; Adoration of the Eucharist; Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living, and the dead; Prayer to Saints; Veneration of Relics, and Images: prayer for the dead; Confession Sacramental, and Auricular; Lent; Vows; Celibacy of Religious; Interdiction of Priests to marry after having taken Orders; Seven Sacraments; using in Divine Service the original Tongue, not understood by the vulgar. The same doctrine of Freewill, and Justification.  
§. 174 To Perron add Grotius his judgement in the Preface to his Votum pro pace; where, giving account of the success of his former Studies, he saith— Two, qui secesserant [the reformed] ut factum suum tuerentur, asserebant validè, doctrinam Ecclesiae ejus, quae cum sede principe cohaeserat esse corruptam per multas haeraeses, & idololatriam. Id mihi causas dedit inquirendi in dogmata ejus Ecclesiae: legendi libros utrinque scriptos: legendi eriam, quae scripta crant de praelenti statu, ac doctrinâ Ecclesiae ejus quae est in Graeciâ, & earum, quae per Asiam & Aegyptum ei cohaeserunt. Inveni in Oriente, eadem esse dogmata, quae essent in Occidenti, Conciliis Vniversalibus definita; de Regiminee Ecclesiae (exceptis cum Papâ Controversiis), [i.e. about his authority] the Sacramentorum perpetuis Ritibus, sententias consonantes. Therefore the Pope easily indulged the Russian Greek Churches, who are subject to the King of Poland, when they reconciled themselves to the Roman Church, and submitted to his Supremacy, to continue all their former Grecian Rites, and Ceremonies; and the same he permitteth also to the Greek Church in Rome.  
§. 175 This of the modern Greek Church, which now hath two Patriarches independent of one another; one residing at Constantinople, and another at Jerusalem, to which later the Greeks in, and about, Palestine do adhere. Now with the Greek Church are joined in Religion, and Communion, * the Russian Churches (excepting those under the King of Poland joined to the Roman); * the Inhabitants of Georgia, or Iberia; and * the Melchites of Syria (called so by other Sectaries, because they adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, i. e. as the other reported it, to the Imperial Faction. To whom also I may join the Maronites, conforming in their Liturgy, and most of the Ceremonies of their Religion to the Greek Church, but, in their Communion, now joined to the Roman. Of these the Maronites, & Georgians have two independent Patriarches of their own, set up without any conciliar authority acting therein; the one residing in a Monastery in Mount Sinai; the other in a Monastery in Mount Libanus. The Metropolitan of the Russians also hath, of late, cast off his subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and stands absolute. Only the Melchites of Syria continue their subjection still to the Patriarch of Antioch translated to Damascus, Antioch now ruined.  
Now if inquiry be made after the judgement or practice in the points forementioned of the other Churches, or Sects, 
§. 176. n 1.  in the Eastern parts of the world,  
1. Here, 1st. If we should admit some variation or disparity of all these Churches from the rest as to several of these points, yet cannot these, reasonably, be put in the scale to counterbalance the Greek and Latin Church, shown already to be united therein. Especially, since these, I mean the remotest Eastern and Southern Churches, and chief those comprehended within the Patriarchate of Alexandria (with which also the Ethiopian or Abyssin Church hath always run the same course, being a constant adherent to it) were the first part of Christianity, that was overborn with the Power of Mahomet (that great false Prophet, and open opposer of our Lord Christ and his Kingdom); and so the first, wherein the Christian Doctrine and discipline, learning and good manners, were oppressed, relaxed, and corrupted: these miserable Churches falling under the Mahometan bondage in the seventh Century (suffering first the Arabian or Sarazen, and then the Scythian, or Turkish, tyranny), whereas the Greek meanwhile, was respited from it, till about the 14th. Against these Churches, also there want not some other prejudices: both, for that several of them have causelessly departed from the obedience of their former Patriarches, and have set up new ones in their stead. And yet more, for that they have made a recession also from the former allowed General Councils; some of them, by maintaining Nestorianism, and others Eutychianism contrary to them; and, as the Greek Church stands divided from the Roman in the procession of the holy Ghost, so these again from the Greek, in the doctrine concerning the unity of the person & plurality of the natures of our Lord.  
Of these Christians, 
§. 176. n. 2.  then, inhabiting the more Eastern Countries, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Persia, India, or the more Southern, Egypt, and Ethiopia; (those called Aegosti or Cophti, these Abyssines); Of these (I say) the Armenians have set up two later Patriarches of their own, the one for Armenia the greater, the other for the lesser. The Assyrians, Persians, and Mesopotamians, are ranged also under a new Patriarch, of Musal, or Babylon; only the Egyptians, and Abyssines are subject still to the Patriarch of Alexandria, now removed to Grand-Caire, and living in a Monastery at some distance from it. Again, of these those Christians that are dispersed in Assyria, Persia, and the more Eastern parts (except such as are reduced by the Roman Missions) are generally said to profess Nestorianism, though this, as Dr. Field observes 
† See Dr. Field of the Church, p. 62— Thom. a Jesus de Conversion gentium. l. 7. c. 2. etc. , somewhat qualified; they not denying Christ the son of Mary from his first conception to be personally God, (as Nestorius did) but affirming his humane nature so perfect also, as not to be separated from its personality. On the other side, the Armenians, and Jacobites in Mesepotamia, and the Egyptians (or Cophthites), and Ethiopians (or Abyssines) in Africa, are held guilty of Eutychianism, or rather of Dioscorism 
† Dr. Field, p. 64, 66— Thomas a Jesus, l. 7. c. 14. ; (who was Patriarch of Alexandria, and condemned in the Council of Chalcedon): they being said to hold Christ 〈◊〉 consist of two natures indeed, and that they are not one by co●●●tion, contrary to Eutyches; but not to consist in two natures, after the union of them; but these two natures, then, to become one by coadunation, according to Dioscorus, who held these two natures so united, that one personated nature arose out of two not personated, quoting for it some expressions of Cyril his predecessor. If this than be true, that Dr. Field, out of Thom. a Jesus, delivers of these two Eastern Sects, that stand distinct from the Greek Churches, though they be not perfect Eutychians, and Nestorians in their opinion, yet such they are, as do still transgress, and offend against the faith, and definitions of the third and fourth General Council; the later of which the greatest body of them expressly declares against. (See Dr. Field c. 1. p. 70, 71.) And, if so; there seems no reason, that they should be reckoned (as by some Protestants they are) not only a part (which some of them Hereticis credentes, or invincibly ignorant, may be internally, as to attaining salvation); but (if the Greek Church be added) the main body, of the Catholic Church; nor any reason, why her Councils should be esteemed defective, without their concurrence.  
2. But, next, these considerations omitted, yet, as to the nine forementioned modern controversies of most note, all or the most of these Eastern bodies do seem, for as much as may be gathered, from their public Liturgies and Missals (which they have either the same with those of the Greek Church, viz. S. Chrysostom's and S. Basil's, or very little varying from them 
† See Cassand. Liturg. c. 9 etc. concerning the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian (or Abyssine) Liturgies— See Garetius his collections out of them. Centur. 16. p. 191. ), and from the relations made by Travelers, they seem, I say, much what of the same profession with the Greek Church.  
§. 177 1st. Concerning a substantial Conversion of the Symbols; or the corporal presence of our Lord's Body, and blood in the Eucharist, these all retain the same expressions in the Consecration with the Latin, and Greek, Churches; from which we may presume, that they understand them in the same sense; which sense when the Reformers varied from, they did think fit also, in their new Liturgies, to alter these expressions. The same corporal presence is confirmed, * from their offering in the same service this Body and blood as a Sacrifice pro vivis, & defunctis (a part of the Mass, which is also reform in the new Protestant-Liturgies); and * from the like reverence performed by them, as by the Greek, and Latin Church in the handling, and receiving of these stupendious Mysteries; these Churches, for fear of the least indecencies, either receiving, after the manner of the Greeks, in a spoon the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood; or else some little portion of the blood only in a spoon, if they receive the Body, and Blood apart; and some of these Nations, as the Abyssines, out of the great reverence to what they have received, are not permitted to spit the same day that they communicate; and, if such thing happen, it is scraped off the ground, and disposed of by the Priest; and, if a dog should lick it up, he is presently killed 
† See Eugen Roger Terre Saint l. 2. p. 361. . Lastly, Brerewood 
‖ Inquiries c. 15. etc. , who hath collected out of several Histories and Relations, in what points these Eastern Churches are said to differ from the Roman, (for several Protestants do not so freely give account, wherein they consent), yet mentions nothing of their difference in the corporal presence, or Transubstantiation, save only of the Armenians, out of Guido Carmel: But S. Thomas, and Richardus Armachanus, who have formerly written against their errors, not questioning them for this, and their Mass in this matter not varying from the rest (Saee Cassander's Liturgica c. 12.) do argue their congruence with the rest in this opinion, and an error in Guido. This of the corporal presence.  
For the other points following; 2 Adoration. 3 Offering the Eucharist, or the very Body and Blood of our Lord therein, as a Sacrifice for the living, and the dead, etc. 4 Invocation of the blessed Virgin, and the Saints. 5 Praying for the Dead, as betterable, by their intercessions, and oblations, in their present condition before the day of judgement; these also appear in the same Liturgies; and the second and third necessarily follow from the first 
† See before §. 160. n. 2. : And see Thomas a Jesus l. 7. c. 8. p. 370-383. as to the practice of the Abyssine Churches concerning the two last.  
§. 178 To proceed to the other four points remaining 1 Using Communion in one kind: 2 A relative veneration of the Cross, and sacred Images, or Pictures. 3 Monastic Vows, and Celibacy of the Clergy; and 4 Auricular, or Sacramental Confession, and injunction of penances. Concerning the first, it is granted: that a Communion in both kinds is ordinarily used, (though the Abyssines are said sometimes to receive only our Lord's Body, and so do now the Maronites 
† Roger p. 361, 432. ): but, either after the manner of the Greek Church (§. 163.) not distinct 
* See Dr. Field. p. 63. ; used in Egypt in the fourth age: and then prohibited there by Pope Julius the First 
† De Consecrat. 2. c. 7. ; or, if distinct, a very small quantity of the blood, with very great caution, given in the bottom of a spoon. For the second; the Cross, and Pictures, and a due veneration of them, are used as well in these, as in the Greek, and Roman Church. See for the veneration of pictures in the Abyssine Church (according in most things with the Egyptians) Thom. a Jesus l. 7. p. 380. And the Priests and Religious are said to carry always a Cross in their hands 
† Roger's Terre Saint p. 348. . And for the use of crossing see the Liturgies.  
For the third, Monastic Vows, and Celibacy of the Clergy. The first of these cannot be denied to be practised in them all; 
§. 179. n. 1.  and from this therefore the lawfulness, of the second, I mean, of an injunction of Celibacy to the Clergy, is justified, as hath been showed before §. 164; and a necessity of such Celibacy, jure divino, is not affirmed by the Roman Church. But for this second, The practice in these Churches is much what the same as in the Greek, viz. that persons married are freely admitted to be Priests; but none, after made Priests, suffered to marry: which being a yoke, that few, where liberty to take wives beforehand is granted, have a firm mind to undergo, hence it so happens, that most of the secular Clergy in these other Churches, as well as in the Greek, are de facto married; meanwhile 
† Thom. a Jesus l. 7. c. 9  the Regulars that are Priests do live always in Celibacy, and so do all the Bishops; that are chosen out of Regulars, as they are (so chosen) most frequently; and in some Churches, as in the Abyssine 
† Terre Saint p. 347. , and I think in the Greek, they only can bechosen Bishops.  
For the fourth, Auricular, or Sacramental Confession, 
§. 179. n. 2.  and penance: though such confession in few, or none of these Churches (wherein the Church-discipline, in such a commixture of Mahometanism, and Heathenism, is much decayed) is so strictly observed as in the Roman, or yet as in the Greek Church, either as to their making it so often, as they receive the Communion; or, as to an enumeration of their particular faults, when they make it; yet it seems not to be altogether omitted, or disused, as with Protestants it is. Zaga Zabo an Abyssine Bishop saith 
† Apud Damianum à Goes de Ethiopium morth.  it is used by the Abyssines; and (to give it in Brerewood's words 
‖ Inquiries p. 166. — That presently, upon commission of sin, they resort to the Confessor; and at every Confession (though it were every day) receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist— Again that— Mulieres gravidae ante partus tempus semper confitentur, & corpus Domini confessae accipiunt; ut infans, capiens inde nutrimentum, ex ejus communicatione sit sacratus: And— They have great respect (saith the Fr. Recollect 
† Terre Saint p. 361. ) to all the Sacraments; and as for Confession, they appoint rigorous penances; and those public for public offences. And with these Authors may those, quoted by Daille 
† De confession auriculari l. 4. c. 1.  to say the contrary, well agree: whilst they speak of several parts of a vast Country, or of an usual omission of it by some of these Sonthern Christians before they receive, (for all receive frequently, viz. on all Festivals) 
† Thom. a Jesus p. 371. ; and of a perfunctory performance of it, only in general, by many, when they do it. So Thom. a Jesus, out of the Bishop of Sidon's Relation 
† p. 387.  saith of the Jacobites, and Armenians— Sacramentum confessionis rarissimè [not, nunquam] apud nationes illas frequentatur: multique [not, omnes] communicant sine auriculari confession. And of the Cophthites 
† p. 361. — Moris non est ante vigesimum, aut circiter, annum unquam Sacramentum paenitentiae recipers— And 
† Ib. p. 416. — Sacramentum Confes●ionis auricularts, ut est apud Ecclesiam [Romanam], Confirmationis, & extremae Vnctionis, ferè non agnoscunt. Sacramental Confession therefore, in these Churches seems rather the facto much neglected, than the jure not allowed or required; and looks rather like a custom, by the malignity of time, somewhat defaced, than never at all known, or used. And this neglect of Confession, perhaps, may partly arise from a different judgement they have of mortal sin, (the only necessary matter of confession), whilst they account some few of the greatest, only such.  
§. 180 Yet, for external penances, and austerities, especially in the monastics, and Clergy of these Eastern, and Southern Churches, they are observed to be very great: and one of the chiefest causes of their dislike, and contempt of the Latin Church (besides the difference, which they have in several other Ceremonies of Religion) to arise from hence, that they see many of them, in such corporal severities, more remiss: See Rogers, Terre Saint l. 2. p. 335.— And Thom. a Jesus l. 6. p. 284. Species austerioris vitae, quae in eorum Hieromonachis, Metropolitis, Archiepiscopis frequenter cernitur Latinos contemnendi praebet occasionem, etc. So the Abyssine Religious, and Bishops 
† Roger Terre Saint l. 2. p. 347.  go barefoot, wear haircloth; never eat flesh; and in Lent (which they begin three days after the Purification), and other Fasts eat no Fish, or white-meats; make only one meal a day, without any Collation at Sunset; drink no wine, though when they happen to be in a Country, that affords it; as their own doth not; use disciplines; carry great weights about their bodies. See much what the same abstinences of the Greek Bishops, and Monks 
† Ib. p. 337. Goar. Eucholog p. 407. ; who also keep four Lents, or solemn Fasts in the year, adding to ours, that of Advent: another, from the first of August to the Assumption of our Lady: another, from the Octave of Whitsuntide to S. Peter's day; the same is said of the Maronites 
† Ib. p. 426. , the same 
* Ib. p. 336.  or more of the Armenian Bishops, and Religious; never eating flesh, not indulging themselves in their Lents fish, white-meats, or so much as oil, or any thing boiled. Hence are all these much displeased with the Western liberty of using fish, and wine, and Collations in Lent, and of several Religious Orders eating flesh out of it.  
From what hath been said (then) may be discovered the defects of that summary account, which, after a long discourse, Dr. Field (in l. 1. c. 1. p. 75.) gives of the Agreement both of the Greek, §. 181 and other Eastern Churches with the Protestants, in all the principal modern Controversies, where he thus informs his Reader 1st. (saith he) They all deny, and impugn that supreme universality of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which the. Bishop of Rome claimeth: [Of this see below, §. 186. the Greeks allowing, though not so much as the Pope claimeth; yet more than, I think, many Protestants will consent to]. 2ly. (saith he) They think him subject to error as all other Bishops are. [So do Roman Catholics too.] 3ly. They deny, that he hath any power to dispose the Principalities and Kingdoms of the world, or depose Kings. [The Pope's having lawful power to depose Kings, is no article of faith in the Roman-Catholick Church]. 4ly. They acknowledge all our righteousness to be imperfect; and that it is not safe to trust thereunto, but to the mere mercy, and goodness of God. [And the Roman Catholic doctrine is; That in many things we offend all: that, though some may be, yet most of the good works of the regenerate are not, free from mixture of venial sin, or some imperfection; that none certain, (except by extraordinary Divine Revelation), of his Justification (or, as the Protestants had rather call it, Sanctification); and for this the Cardinal's Tutissimum est, etc. is very famous: But do no Protestants presume further?] 5ly. They admit not the merit of congruence, condignity, nor works of supererogation. And 6ly. They teach not the doctrine of satisfactions, as the Romanists do. [The Doctrine of the Roman Church (rightly understood), concerning these points, is neither contradicted by the Eastern Churches, nor by some sober Protestants; but indeed much misrelated by Dr. Field l. 3. p. 58] 7ly. They believe not Purgatory, neither pray to deliver men out of temporal punishments [I suppose he means, or sufferings] after this life. [It is true, they believe no purgatory-fire; but, that they hold some temporal sufferings, from which they are freeable by prayer made for them, See before §. 192. and Sir Edw. Sandy's testimony §. 167. And enough confessed in this matter even by Dr. Field l. 3. p. 59 if I rightly understand him.] 8ly. They reject the doctrine of the Romanists touching indulgences, and pardons. [The same is returned to this, as to the fifth and sixth]. 9ly. They believe not, that there are seven Sacraments. [This is questioned only for Confirmation, & Extreme Unction; and see these maintained by Jeremias the Patriarch, and many other Authors, as to the Greek Church 
† Resp. 1. c. 7. See Goars Eucholog. concerning confirmation p. 366.— Concerning Extreme Unction, their Officium Sancti Olei, p. 408, 432. . In other Eastern Church's Chrysm, or holy Oil is so used, at least for Baptism, as it is in the Greek Church; and in some Churches also to sick, or dying persons] 
‖ Thom. a Jesus. p. 361, 398. & 387. . 10ly. They omit many Ceremonies in Baptism, which the Roman Church useth, as spittle, etc. [Nor doth the Roman Church hold it necessary, that they should use the same.] 11ly. They have no private Masses. [It is accidental in the Roman Church, that any Masses are private; i. e. that the Priest communicates alone; and happens only, because others are not prepared to receive with the Priest, not because they are prohibited; and if any faulty herein, it is the people, or other Clergy, that attend the Mass without communicating, not the Priest in offering the daily Christian Sacrifice, and himself at least participating thereof; the Greeks never communicating alone, celebrate seldomer, viz. only on Festivals; on those days only one of them, all the rest attending him: and this, in the same Church, but once; so that their more compleatness in one thing is accompanied with some deficiency in another. Lastly, the Church of Rome wisheth, that no Masses at all were private (i. e. where the Priest officiating finds no fellow-Communicants) but is loath to purchase this at such a loss, as some others do, viz. the omission of her frequent, and daily, or also hourly, intercessions with God for all necessities, by this most acceptable sacrifice offered to him by the fervent devotion of so many of her Priests. 12ly. They minister the Communion in both kinds to all Communicants. [Of this see what is said before §. 163. The Church of Rome holds it not necessary but only lawful, and expedient (as the times are) to do otherwise; and also indulgeth receiving in both kinds to several of her Communion.] 13. They believe not Transubstantiation, nor the new real sacrificing of Christ. [In the Eucharist is affirmed by the Roman Church only a Sacrifice commemorative of that of the Cross; and this effective only in the virtue and merit of that. Of the Eastern Church's Tenent concerning Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist, and consequently of their use of this Sacrifice agreeing with the Roman Church, and contrary to the Reformed, See before §. 158. n. 2. & §. 160. 14. They have the Divine Service in the vulgar tongue. [Some Eastern Churches have so, the most have not. The Divine Service is celebrated in the corrupt Chaldee, or Syriack, amongst the Maronites, Cophthites, Nestorians, Assyrians or Jacobites, Indians; and in the Greek, among the Melchites, and Georgians, the vulgar to all these being Arabic, or to some, more Easterly, the Persian tongue; and in the ancient and pure Greek still, among the Grecians, (as it is in the Latin among the Latins), where those, who speak the vulgar Greek do understand little of it. (See Brerewood's Inquiries p. 9 12. 61. 192. 196.) only; in the East, the Armenians; in the North, the Moscovites and some other Sclavonians; in the South, the Abyssines, people most ignorant of the learned languages, have it in their vulgar; and in this have only what the Church of Rome maintaineth lawful, and easily indulgeth to several Nations of its Communion, as it did long ago to the Sclavonians, by Pope John 8. and now of late to the Chineses by Pope Paul 5. at the request of the Jesuits]. 15. Their Priests are married; and though they permit them not to marry a second wife without special dispensation, yet if any do, they do not void nor dissolve the marriage. [To this see what is said before §. 164. with them men married may receive Orders, after Orders received none may marry] 16. They make no image of God. [Nor any among the Latins, with the same intention, as other images; viz. thereby to resemble the figure, or nature of God; such an image verum Idolum constitueret (saith Bellarmine) 
† De Imag. l. 2. c. 8. . Only this is by many held lawful, an holy History in a Table, and that to represent to some men's eyes, what hath been seen by other men's; as the sitting of the ancient of days in Daniel c. 7. or the descent of the holy Ghost in Mat. c. 3. That is, not to show what these persons are, but how they have appeared, where is no danger of mistake by it what they are; as also incorporeal Angels are innocently represented winged boys].  
17. They have no Massy images, but pictures only. [But they give the same relative veneration to sacred pictures (which Protestants omit to mention) as the Latins to their images; though some Latins also do forbear the use of embossed images.  
18. They think, that, properly, God only is to be invocated; and howsoever they have a kind of invocation of Saints, yet they think that God only heareth them, and not the Saints. [God only is properly invocated, as the only fountain, and donor of all we petition for, say also Roman Catholics; and the Saints only are sued to, as Comprecators; that what follows, is misrelated, see before §. 161.] This is opposed to Dr. Fields account, how rightly, is left to your judgement. Meanwhile as in these points Dr. Field hath noted the Eastern and Western Churches to differ; so we may conclude, that, in those other points of modern controversy that are omitted by him; (as Freewill, Justification not by faith alone; adoration of the Eucharist; and offering it pro vivis, & defunctis; Monastic life, and vows; Sacramental Confession, and penances; their public service, and the Ceremonies attending it, they do agree; or that this Doctor was somewhat overseen in his choice.  
To this consent of the modern Greek Church with the Roman, in many of the modern Controversies much urged by Roman Catholics (especially from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople his censure) to prove the Protestant's departure not from the Roman only, but the whole modern Catholic, Church, you may see, if you please, what answers have been returned by several other late Protestant Writers; by Archbp. Lawd § 29. n. 4. by Bp Bramhal Reply to Chalced. c. 9 p. 356. by Dr. Gunning in a conference with some of the Roman party called Schism unmasked p. 605. by Mr. Stillingfleet Rational account part. 2. c. 8. p. 500 etc. And by the Wittenberg Divines against Socolovius in the preface before their Acts with the same Patriarch.  
To give you some account of them; and here to begin with these last, who first apologized. These Tubing Divines in their Reply to Socolovius, whilst they produced nothing, wherein the Patriarches doctrines suited with theirs, save Communion in both kinds, and the admitting married men to take Orders, thought fit rather to justify the lawfulness of a reformation, though against the whole Catholic Church of that time, on this manner— Defectionem porrò à Romanâ pontificiâ Ecclesiâ, immò, ut Rhetor amplificat, ab ipso terrarum orbe, omnibusque Ecclesiis, quòd nobis objicit, sciat Polonus iste, & discat, si ignorat, non omnem defectionem vitio vertendam esse hominibus. Quoties enim Deus populum suum per Prophetas suos hortatus est, ut averterent se à viis suis pessimis, quas à suis majoribus pessimis didicerant? Johannes in suâ Apocalypsi hortatur Ecclesiam, ut exeat à Babylone (quam Hieronymus Romam intelligendam docet), ne plagarum ejus fiat particeps— And there also they declare the intention of their sending their confession into the East (notwithstanding what is said before §. 166.)— Si quo modo (say they) per gratiam Dei, & operati●nem Spiritus sancti, oculi caecutientium; hoc modo, & medio aperi ntur, & erroribus usitatis aliquot saeculorum agnitis, eisdem valedicentes, adveritatis agnitionem pervenirent— And afterwards— See Graecos non constituisse communis causae judices, neque studiesè ab illis recipi petiisse; sed hoc egisse studiosè, quod bonos, cordatos, & pios decet viros, ut ad agnitionem syncerae doctrinae Religionis eos perducerent. And they apologise for their not publishing the Patriarches answer— Quòd nullam admodum ex istâ editione ad Ecclesiam Christi utilitatem perventuram sperare possent; cùm alia exstent plurima ac meliora scripta, & malorum alias plus satis sit. Lastly, make their appeal, notwithstanding, to the Catholic Church; but this collective of all ages, and including the Apostles— De nostro cum Apostolicis Ecclesiis dissidio mentitur. Nos certe non solùm ad has, sed etiam omnium temporum universalem, Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, & Apostolorum Ecclesiam p●ovocare non dubitamus: cum quibus nos conjunctissimos esse luculenter supra, ex ipsâ Scripturâ Propheticâ, & Apostolicâ est demonstratum. Such was the reply of these Germane Divines.  
§. 183 To come to our own men. Mr. Stillingfleet (α) 1st. endeavours to weaken the Patriarch's authority by saying) 
† Rat. account p. 503. — That it is well enough known, how much Barbarism had crept into the Greek Church after their being subdued by the Turks, the means of instruction being taken from them; and that it is therefore more to be wondered, they should preserve so much of the doctrine of faith entire as they have done, than that any corrupt practices should prevail amongst them. 2. Next, (β) That, as in some things he is opposite to the Protestants, so in other things to the Church of Rome 
† p. 500 : that it is sufficiently known, how much the Greeks agree with the Protestants (γ) in the opposition to the great points, of the Pope's Supremacy; (δ) and the infallibility of the Church of Rome; (ε) how far they are from the belief of Purgatory in the Roman sense. That the Patriarch doth also profess his consent with Protestants; 
† p. 502.  (ζ) that the Sacrament was to be received in both kinds; (η) that the use of Marriage was not absolutely to be forbidden the Clergy. And (θ) that he opposed also invocation of Saints in such a sense, as that they hear us. Thus he; and some of these are mentioned also in the forecited conference with Dr. Gunning.  
§. 184 To what he saith first, (α) I answer; that, as Protestants urge this present illiterate, and desolate condition of the Eastern Churches, when their opinions or practice make against them; so it is meet they should remember it, when, in their appealing to a General Council, they seem to set so high a value on the judgement, and sentence of these remote Churches therein; resting no way satisfied with that of the West. Next; I say, whatever corrupt practices have prevailed of late times in the East, yet that as for those, wherein both East, and West (that is, the whole Catholic visible Church) at Luther's coming agreed in (especially, when at such enmity between themselves), these Churches, in both of them having the like customs, do bear mutual witness to one another, that they could be no innovations in either of them.  
§. 185 Too (β.) viz. the Greek Churches their agreeing in some things with Protestants against the Church of Rome, 
To β.  as in others with the Roman Church against Protestants; from which it seems to follow, that the Church of Rome, must as well be culpable of Schism, or any other crime, in what the Greeks, and Protestants differ from it; as the Protestants, in what the Greek, and the Roman accord in, against it: I answer, that any Churches  may, without Schism, or fault, differ from one another, or one of them from all the rest, in several doctrines, and opinions; if such opinions or doctrines, be not defined, or the practice of them not required by any the●r Superiors; but, any Church differing from the rest in any doctrine formerly defined, or to which conformity is required by their Superiors, or by the whole, I mean either by a General, or any other Superior Council, wherewith also the belief, or practice of the whole consenteth; such Church cannot be freed from Schism. Now that several of those points, wherein the Protestants have left the Greek, and Roman, when agreeing in them, are such, See Disc. 1. §. 50. n. 2. But not such those, wherein the Roman, and Western Churches adhering to it, do differ from the East and Protestants.  
§. 186 Too (γ.) The first of those instances, wherein he urgeth the consent of the Eastern Churches with Protestants, 
To γ.  viz. their opposing the Pope's Supremacy, I answer, that, though there are several branches of the Pope's Supremacy, which the modern Greeks allow not, (but, so, there are also some, that the French Church doth not admit); yet it is well known, that thus much the Representatives of the Greek Church, in the Council of Florence, subscribed; That the Bishop of Rome was Successor Petri. Principis Apostolorum, totiusque Ecclesiae Caput; & cui, in Beato Petro, gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam plena potestas tradita est; and the Greek Church never denied his Primacy, and Presidency in General Councils, as appears, * by the fifth Canon of the second General Council at Constantinople consisting only of Eastern Bishops— Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Episcopum Romanum: * By the Eastern Bishops in the fourth General Council (the most numerous of any that hath been) allowing the Presidency to the Roman Bishops Legates (witness Archbp. Lawd 
† p. 214. ): * By Cyril an Eastern Bishop his presiding in the third General Council,  Celestini, Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis, locum obtinens; (witness Evagrius) 
† Evagrius 1. c 4. , whose Deputy, or Legate also he was made for the Excommunication of Nestorius by the authority of the Apostolic See; witness, the Pope's Letter to Cyril 
† Act. Conc. Ephes. tom. 1. — [Nostrâ vice, & loco cum potestate usus ejusmodi sententiam exequeris, etc.] and Mr. Stillingfleet 
† p. 487.  * by the Roman Legates also subscribing the first general Council of Nice before all the patriarchs; and I know not why it is, that Protestants, granting this Bishop the Primacy among the Patriarches; (and, why should he, being the Bishop of the chief See, saith Mr. Stillingfeets 
† p. 488. , in case of general concernment of the Church, as that of Chalcedon [I add, and of other General Councils] not be allowed by his Legates to have the prime place?) yet should take so much pains 
† See Stillings. from p. 482. to 489  to show de facto, that in some Councils, He, or his Legates, had it not, or did dot preside therein.  
§. 187 To the second: (δ.) I answer, had Mr. Stillingfleet not thrust in the term Roman (the infallibility of which, 
To δ.  taken singly, is no Article of Faith in the Western Church 
† See Bellarm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 4. ); that, as for the infallibility of the Church Catholic; or of her lawful General Councils in their definitions concerning matter of Faith; I suppose he knew the Greek Church to ascribe therein no less to It, or Them, than the Roman doth. Of which thus Jeremy the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his first answer to the Lutheran Divines— Quod [i.e. ut legi divinae adversentur] the his, quae à nobis dicta sunt, nullo modo vere intelligi potest.— Ea enim, quae Synodicè constituta sunt omnes Christi fideles tanquam divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae consentanea recipiunt atque amplectuntur semper. To which Synodical decrees therefore this Patriarch requires a most strict submission of judgement, and constitutes them the ultimate establishers of the Christian Faith in all matters controverted, seriously advising the Lutherans to a final acquiescence therein— Neque enim nobis licet (saith he 
† Respons. 1. Epilog. ) pr●vatâ confisis interpretatione, aliquid divinitùs— inspiratae Scripturae aut ipsos intelligere, aut aliis tradere, nisi quantum cum scopo sanctorum Synodorum, Ecclesiaeque sancta Theologorum, illud ipsum convenit. [why so?]— Ne semel ex recto Evangelicae doctrinae tramite abrepti, praecipites feramur; neve sensus deinceps noster more Protei, in hanc & illam formam fidei transferatur. Again— At fort dicet quis vestrum [of the Lutherans], quae igitur earum rerum, quae suo loco dimotae sunt, correctionis spes? Quae ratio? Haec, inquam, si nihil praeter ea, quae nobis à sanctis Apostolis [including the Canon's Apostolici] sanctisque Synodis divinitùs ordinata sunt ordiemur, nihil aliud sequemur. And— una & sola rerum recuperandarum ratio superest, idem semper cum sanctis Conciliis sentire, Canonibusque Apostolicis per omnia inhaerere, & sic in omnibus Christum Dominum, & Magistrum sequi. Thus you see East and West (excepting the Protestants) do agree in the same language concerning the infallibility of, and duty of adherence to, the Church and her Councils for matters of Faith. And even those Eastern Sects, who refuse submission to the third or fourth General Council, do it not on this account, that lawful and free General Councils may err; but, that these, overpowered by the Emperor, were not free; thence calling their followers, Melchites.  
To the third; 
To ε.  (ε.) I answer, That their difference is only about Purgatory-fire, a thing never defined in the Roman Church. But for the agreement, and practice of both Churches in prayer for the dead with the same intentions, See before §. 162.  
To the fourth: 
To ζ.  (ζ.) See what is said before §. 163.  
For the fifth: 
To eegr.  (eegr.) I refer you to §. 164.  
And for the sixth: 
To θ.  (θ.) to §. 161. leaving to the equal Readers judgement, whether, in any of those here named, there be any considerable difference, save in the first. This, in answer to Mr. Stillingfleet.  
§. 188 The Archbp. saith— As for Jeremias; 'tis true, his censure is in many things against the Protestants, but I find not, that that censure of his is warranted by any authority of the Greek Church. To satisfy this, see their modern Liturgies, and Rituals, and the other authorities, that are quoted before for several points, (§. 158. n. 2 etc. 〈◊〉. 165.) concurring with what Jeremias hath delivered.  
§. 189 Bishop Bramhal opposeth to this testimony of Jeremias the contrary testimony of Cyril a late Patriarch there in the Confession of his Faith; which, had not the new set up press at Constantinople been disturbed, he intended to have printed there, and to have dedicated to the King of England (See Knowles Tur. Hist. A. D. 1628. etc.) having sent also some, who had relation to him, to be educated in Divinity in one of our Universities. To which I answer. 1st. That, to show, that the Protestants Reformation was not made from the whole Church Catholic, but only the Roman, we are to prove, not what the Grecian opinions are since, but what they were, when first the Reformation was made. Now Jeremias his declaration was not long after the beginning of the Reformation, and Cyrils above 50. years, after his. 2ly. Concerning the newness of Cyril's opinions, the words of Knowles (ibid.) are considerable, who there saith— That he was a reverend, and learned man, and that he desired to reform many errors, and to enlighten much of the blindness of his Church. So that it seems he was a Reformer in the Greek Church, as these others were in the Western; which also appears from the complaints, and persecution against him, more than against his Predecessors, by the Agents of the Roman Church, upon this pretence (Knowles, ibid.) And he is said 
† Spondan. A. D. 1638. Franc. à S. Clarâ system fidei, p. 528.  at last, for certain crimes objected to him, and among others charged with innovations in Religion by the Greeks, to have been imprisoned, and shortly after executed, and another Cyril ab Iberia, formerly rejected, to have been repossessed of his Chair. But 3ly. How contrary soever Cyril's opinions are to those of Jeremias; yet the same testimonies  
† §. 158. n 2.— 165— 162. , that show Jeremias' to be the doctrines of the Greek Church, show Cyrils (whoever had new reform him) not to be so. But 4ly. Indeed his declaration, though it seems purposely moulded according to the Calvinists expressions, is very short, and sparing; general, and unclear; extending to few points, and waving the rest, and forbearing there to mention any one point (save that of the procession of the holy Gho t) wherein the Greeks differ from the reform (as, surely, in some they do); and again, those points therein, in which Cyril seems more clearly to contradict, both Jeremias', and the Roman tenants: namely, the denying of Purgatory, and of Transubstantiation; (if therein he intent to deny all sorts of Purgatory, though not by five; and all transmutation of the Elements in the Eucharist); are unquestionably singular, and not owned by the Greeks, as is showed before, and as is witnessed also by some reformed 
† §. 167, 169. etc. , out of the common relations of the Grecian opinions, and practices. 5ly. If Cyril, or any other Patriarch of Constantinople should entertain any reform and new opinions divers from his predecessors, whilst such a one is not followed in them by the rest of the Church; These are to be styled, not its doctrines, but his own; and it is not denied that Patriarches as well as others, may be heretical, for in several ages some have been so. But 6ly. If the rest of the Greek Church should also have concurred with Cyril in such innovation, then will this only follow, that it is true of the Greek Church, as of the Protestant, that they also have reform from the whole Catholic Church, (1.) from the former, as well Greek Church, as Latin; and so, this fact of theirs will prove no just plea for the Protestant practice, (if a departure from the Church Catholic b● Schism), but only the enlargement of the same guilt to another Church.    

THE FOURTH DISCOURSE Containing the SOCINIANS Apology for the believing, and teaching, his Doctrine, against former Church-Definitions, and present Church-Authority, upon the Protestant's Grounds.  
Divided into Five CONFERENCES.  

The I. CONFERENCE.  
The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures, §. 2.  
1st. THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word; and therefore implicitly believes those truths, against which he errs. Ib.  
2. That, also, he useth his best endeavours to find the true sense of Scriptures: and, that more is not required of him from God for his faith or salvation, than doing his best endeavours for attaining it. §. 3.  
3. That as for an explicit faith required of some points necessary; he is sufficiently assured, that this point concerning the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, as to the affirmative, is not so, from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture, even to the unlearned; which this, in the affirmative, is not to him. §. 4.  
4. That several express, and plain Scriptures do persuade him, that the negative (if either) is necessary to be believed; and that from the clearness of Scriptures, he hath as much certainty in this point, as Protestants can have; from them, in some other, held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church. §. 6, 8.  
5. That, for the right understanding of Scriptures, either he may be certain of a just industry used; or else, that Protestants, in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious; and then, that none are certain, when they have used a just industry, thus must still remain also uncertain in their faith; as not knowing, whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures.  
6. last; That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture, than the Socinians, as appears by their writings, addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God, and not suffering themselves to be any way byass'd by any other humane, either modern, or ancient, authority. §. 5.  
Digress.  
Where the Protestant's, and Socinian's pretended certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them, and (made the ground of their faith) against the sense of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church, is examined. §. 9   

The II. CONFERENCE.  
His Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sense of the Catholic Church, so far as this can justly oblige. §. 13.  
1st. THat an unanimous consent of the whole Catholic Church in all ages, such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary, can never be showed, concerning this point of Consubstantiality. §. 13. And that the consent, to such a doctrine, of the major part is no argument sufficient, since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points. §. 14.  
2. That, supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholic of all ages in this point, yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles, if this point, (whether way soever held) be a non-necessary; for that in such, it is said, the whole Church may err. §. 15.  
3. That this Article's being, in the affirmative, put in the Creed proves it not (as to the affirmative) a necessary. §. 16.  

1st. Because not originally in the Creed, but added by a Council; to which Creed if one Council may add, so may another of equal authority in any age, and whatever restrain the made by a former Council.  
2. Because several Articles of the later Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed, but upon a previous conviction, that they are divine revelation. §. 16.   
4. Lastly. That, though the whole Church delivers, for truth, in any point, the contrary to that he holds; he is not obliged to resign his judgement to hers, except conditionally, and with this reservation, unless, on the other side, there appear evidence to him in God's Word. Now, of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side, that he hath no doubt. §. 17.   

The III. CONFERENCE.  
His Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the definitions of lawful General Councils, the just conditions thereof observed. §. 18.  
THat he conceives he owes no obedience to the Council of Nice.  
1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty, as is necessary for the ground of his faith, as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chilling-worth, Stillingfleet, and other Protestants, wherein he must first be satisfied, concerning it: which see Disc. 3. § 86. &c— §. 18.  
2. Because, though it were a General Council, yet it might err even in necessaries, if it were not universally accepted; as he can show, it was not.  
3. That, though yielded to be generally accepted, it might err still in non-necessaries; and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise.  
4. That the leaders of this Council were plainly a party, contestingt his, for many years before, with the other side, condemned; and were Judges in their own cause.  
5. All these exceptions canceled, and obedience granted due to this Council; yet, that so, there is due to it not that of assent, but only of silence. §. 19  
6. But yet not that of silence neither from him; considering his present persuasion, that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest, and intolerable: concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors, and produced sufficient evidence; yet these have proceeded to no redress of it. §. 20.  
7. But yet, that he will submit to the judgement of a future Council, if it, rightly considering the reasons of his tenant, decree that, which is according to God's Word, and he be convinced thereof, §. 22.   

The iv CONFERENCE.  
His Plea, for his not being guilty of Heresy. §. 23.  
THat he cannot rightly, according to Protestant Principles, be accused as guilty of Heresy, for several reasons.  
1. Because, Protestants holding Heresy to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental, he thinks, from hence his tenant freed from being an Heresy, as long as in silence he retains it, unless he engage further, to a public pertinacious maintaining thereof. §. 23.  
2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons, and sufficient proposal; none can conclude this point, in the affirmative, to be, as to him, a fundamental, or, of the truth which he hath had a sufficient proposal.  
3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresy, doth not necessarily argue, that it is so; because they may err in Fundamentals; or at least in distinguishing them from other points. §. 26.  
4. That he can have no autocatacrisie, or obstinacy, in a dissenting from their Definitions, till he is either actually convinced, or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined: Or that such Councils have authority to require submission, of judgement, and assent, to their Definitions: of which conviction, or sufficient proposal (that varies much, according to the differing conditions of several persons), as to himself, none can judge save himself: and consequently, neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresy. Ib.   

The V CONFERENCE.  
His Plea, for his not being guilty of Schism. §. 28.  
1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholic, or the external Communion of it: but only left one part of it that was corrupted; and reform another part, (i. e.) themselves. Or, that he, and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholic, they have not separated from the whole, because not from themselves. §. 28.  
2. That, their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them, as a condition of Communion, the Schism is not theirs, who made the separation; but theirs, who caused it. §. 29.  
Besides that, what ever the truth of things be; yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe, what they do not, their separation cannot be said causeless, and so, Schism. §. 32.  
3. That, though he, and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches, yet not the internal; in which they remain still united to them: both in that internal Communion of charity, in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick; and in that of Faith, in all Essentials, and Fundamentals, and in all such points, wherein the unity of the Church Catholic consists. §. 30.  
4. That the doctrine of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denied by them to be any Fundamental; nor can the Churches, from which they depart for it, be a competent judge against them, that it is so. §. 34.  
5. That, though they are separaters from the Roman, yet not from the Reformed, Churches, which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgement; nor require any internal assent to their doctrines (in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church) save only conditional, if any be convinced of the truth thereof; or, not convinced of the contrary. §. 35.  
6. In fine; that for enjoying, and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her doctrines, as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book, which yet was accepted as sufficient. 〈◊〉. 41.    

The Fourth DISCOURSE.  

CONFERENCE I.  
The Socinian's Protestant Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the holy Scriptures.  
§. 1 THat those things, which have been delivered in the three former discourses, concerning the invalidity of the Protestants Guide for preserving the true faith, and suppressing Heresies, may be clearlier seen, and more seriously considered, I have thought fit in this (for an Example) to show what Apology a Socinian, upon the forementioned Protestant-positions, may return for himself to a Protestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true faith, and using any of these five motives thereto; the testimony 1. of Scriptures; 2. Of Catholic Church; 3. Of her Councils; 4. The danger of Heresy; 5. The danger of Schism. In which would not be thought to go about, to equal all other Protestant-opinions to the malignity of the Socinian errors: but only to show, that several defences, which, in respect of the former motives, Protestants use for retaining theirs, if these are thought just and reasonable, the Socinians may use the same for much grosser, Tenants.  
For, suppose a Protestant, first, concerning the Scriptures, question a Socinian in this manner. Prot. Why do you, to the great danger of your soul, and salvation, not believe, God the Son to be of one, and the same essence, and substance with God the Father, it being so principal an Article of the Christian faith, delivered in the Holy Scriptures? Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter. I do believe, with other Christians, that the Scriptures are the Word of God; and, with other Protestants, that they are a perfect Rule of my faith.  
§. 2 Prot. But this secures you not, unless you believe according to this Rule; which, in this point, you do not. Soc. However, I believe in this point; truly, or falsely; I am secure, that my faith is entire, as to all necessary points of faith. Prot. How so? Soc Because, as Mr. Chillingworth saith 
† p. 23. p. 159 367. — He that believes all that is in the Bible, all that is in the Scriptures (as I do) believes all that is necessary there.  
Prot. This must needs be true: but meanwhile, if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you; or the true sense of some part of that you know (for the Scripture, as that Author notes 
† Chill. p. 87. , is not so much the words, as the sense) be mistaken by you, how can you say, you believe all the Scriptures: For, when you say, you believe all the Scripture, you mean only this: that you believe, that, whatsoever is the true sense thereof, that is God's Word; and most certainly true: which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing, or also your believing the contrary to, the true sense thereof: and then you, not believing the true sense of some part of it at least, may also not believe the true sense of something necessary there; which is quite contrary to your conclusion here.  
§. 3 Soc. 
† Chill. p. 18. — I believe, that that sense of them which God intendeth, whatsoever it is, is certainly true: And thus I believe implicitly even those very truths, against which I err. Next: 
† Chill. Ib. — I do my best endeavour to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof. [By my best endeavour I mean 
† Chill. p. 19 , such a measure of industry, as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion (my abilities, and opportunities, my distractions, and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise me unto, in a matter of such consequence. Of using which endeavour also, I conceive, I may be sufficiently certain: [for otherwise, I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this complete Rule of Scriptures; this due endeavour being the condition, which Protestants require that I shall not be, as to all necessaries, deceived in the sense of Scripture.] Now, being conscious to myself of such a right endeavour used: 
† Chillingw. p. 102.  For me, to believe, further, this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures; or to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary, either to my faith, or salvation. For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will, and end; as to speak obscurely? Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed? 
† Chill. p. 18.92. — For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture, after my best endeavour used, to say that God will damn me for such errors, who am a lover of him, and lover of truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness; is to make man desperate, and God a tyrant.  
§. 4 Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of faith revealed in Scripture: for you ought to have of some points, an express and explicit faith. Soc. Of what points? Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary. Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals, and necessaries, wherein I am to have a right, and an explicit faith, the account I have given you already, I hope, is satisfactory.  
§. 5 ●. But next: I am secure, that this point, which is the subject of our discourse, at least in the affirmative thereof, is no fundamental; for, according to the Protestant principles 
† Chill. p. 92. — The Scripture is a Rule, as sufficiently perfect, so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary, to all that have understanding; whether learned, or unlearned. Neither is any thing necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed: for to say, that when a place of Scripture, by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true, and the other false, that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error, and humane frailty, is to make God a tyrant, and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end▪ for the attaining whereof, we have no certain means. In fine 
† Chill. p. 59 , where Scriptures are plain, as they are in necessaries, they need no infallible Interpreter, no further explanation [too me]; and where they are not plain, there if I, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it, and fall into error, there is no danger in it. Prot. True. Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned, using a due industry, void of a contrary interest, etc. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured, I have not been deficient: having bestowed much study on this matter, read the controversy on both sides; compared Texts, etc. (as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my persuasion); and after all this, the sense of Scripture also, which I embrace, (a sense, you know, decried and persecuted by most Christians) is very contrary to all my secular relations, interest, and profit.  
Now, after all this search I have used, I am so far satisfied, that this point, on the affirmative side, is not clear, and evident in Scripture (and therefore no Fundamental, that I can produce most clear, and evident places out of the Scriptures (if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its expressions) that the contrary of it is so.  
[See Crellius in the preface to his book de uno Deo Patre— Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis, ac clarissimis sacrarum liter●ram testimoniis nititur— Evidens sententiae veritas, & rationum firm●ssimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo, ingenii nostritenuitatem sublevat, &c— Argumenta, quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus, per se plana sunt, ac facilia adeo quidem, ut eorum vim de●linare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii, quam ut à verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant, tum nos abducere conentur. And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge (where, as to the expression, & other texts being laid aside, that seems to be said, as it were totidem verbis, which the Socinians maintain). Joh. 14.28. 17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6.— Col. 1.15. & Rev. 3.14. I set not down this, to countenance their cause but to show their confidence.]  
§. 7 Prot. O strange presumption! And is not your judgement, then, liable to mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures, because you strongly persuade yourself, they are most evident on your side? Soc. 'Tis true, that I may mistake in the sense of some Scripture; but it follows not from hence, that I can be certain of the sense of no Scriptures. To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth 
† Chilling. p. 111. — Though I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places, as are obscure, and ambiguous, yet this methinks should be no impediment, but that we may have certain means of not erring in, and about the sense of those places which are so plain, and clear, that they need no Interpreters; and in such this my faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be sure, that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again; can you be sure, you understand, what I, or any man else saith? They, that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach, can they have sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time, what they would have them do? If not; to what end did they hear them? If they could; why may not I be as well assured, that I understand sufficiently, what I conceive plain in their writings? Again; I pray tell me whether do you certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, for the evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther, requiring conformity to the contrary doctrines, as a condition of her Communion? If you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. For if all Scripture be obscure, how can you know th● s●nce of these places? If some places of it be plain, why should I stay here?— 
† Id. p. 112.  If you ask, seeing I may possibly err, how can I be assured, I do not? I ask you again; seeing your eye sight may deceive you, how can you be sure, you see the Sun, when you do see it? 
† Ib. p. 117.  A Judge may possibly err in judgement, can he therefore never have assurance, that he hath judged rightly? A Traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful, whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his wits, that he is in his way to London— 
† Id. p. 112:  This I am certain of, that God will not requ re of me a certainly unerring belief, unless he hath given me a certain means to avoid error; and, if I use those, which I have, will never require of me, that I use that which I have not 
† See also Chilling. p. 140. 366. 307. — This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid plea against the Papist's grand objection, for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture.  
§. 8 Prot. But the Scriptures, which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God with God the Father, carry not the same evidence, and clearness, as those Scriptures do, whereon Protestants build the certainty of their faith against the Papists, or against the common Church-doctrines that were before Luther. Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures, which you of mine: I pray, what can be said, more plain, or in what point, in your opinion, more fundamental (wherein we contend Scripture is most clear, even to the unlearned), than this, in Joh. 17.3.—  cognoscant te [Pater] solum verum Deum; &, quem misisti, Jesum Christum— And, 1 Cor. 8.6. Vnus Deus, Pater, & unus Dominus Jesus. And, Eph. 4. ver. 5. Vnus est Dominus, [i. e. Jesus; and then ver. 6. Vnus est Deus, & Pater omnium— And Joh. 14.1. Creditis in Deum, & in me credit— And ver. 28. Pater meus major me est. I say, what more clear for proving the Father his being the true, most high, God, and excluding the other persons [the Son, or the holy Ghost] from being the very same God. Prot. And 1 what more clear, on the other side, than these Texts, Rom. 9.5. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is, over all, God blessed for ever— And, Tit. 2.13. The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. And 
† 1 Joh. 5.20. — We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life, spoken by S. John, the great vindicator, against Ebion, Cerinthus, Cerpocrates, and others in his time, opposers of our Lord's Divinity 
† S. Hieron. de viris illust. — And Apoc. 1.8. compared with 1.17.— I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. I say, what more clear than these Texts, for showing the true Deity of Christ. 2 And then, how many other clear Texts are there, asserting the Eternity of our Lord; that he is nothing made or created, but pre-existent before the constitution of the world; equal with God; & that heaven, and earth, and all things were made by him, that were made; and that he descended from heaven from his Father, when he took our nature upon him. See Joh. 1.1 etc.— 3.13 Heb. 1.2, 3, 10. etc.— Joh. 17.5, 24. Phil. 2.6.— Joh. 6.38.— 16.28.— 1 Tim. 3.16.— Heb. 2.14. And 3 then, his Deity and Eternity thus cleared; his Deity can be no other, than, in the total essence thereof, numerically the same with that of God the Father. For those of your own Sect, together with the whole Christian world, do acknowledge, 1 That there is but one numerical most high God, an inseparable attribute of whom is the Creation of the world, and his preexistence before it. And again; 2 That the substance or essence of this most high God, is not any way divisible, partible, or multipliable; so that, Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit, tota ei Patris substantia, eadem numero, communicata suit. See Volkel. de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned, your predecessors were constrained to desert Arrianism, or semi-Arrianism, and to take in other respects a more desperate way, of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation: To return, then, to our business. All Scripture being equally true; you know, no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense, which others, as clear, contradict. The non-consideration of which, by the passionate or unlearned, is the mother of all errors. The Texts therefore that you produce here to manifest on your side, that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you, are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation, Messias-and Mediator-ship, in which he hath an inferiority to the Father, and is our Lord, by a special Redemption w●th his blood, in another manner, than he together with his Father, in the same essence, is the one true God. Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered, and answered, by our party. Prot. And your answer's, new, forced, absurd, as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter. But to omit this dispute, as now beside my purpose. If your sense of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest, and clear, as you pretend; how comes so great a part of the Christian world (doubtless rational men) in the sense of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you? Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry, well comparing these Scriptures, and void of pride, passion, and other interest. Soc. And I return the like question to you. If, on the clearness of the express sense of these Scriptures, I cannot infallibly ground my faith, against many other rational men contradicting; on what plainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it, that Protestants can ground theirs, against a contrary sense given by the learned; by several Councils; by the whole Church of some ages; as they do; not promising to the Councils, even to the four first, an absolute, but conditional assent, viz. only so far, as their decrees agree with these clear Scriptures? If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter, which Scriptures, you say, in fundamentals are to all perspicuous (and such do many deem this point); nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbeast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures, and also in the comparing them with others, in which I am conscious to myself of no neglect, I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture▪ and then, wherein can lie the assurance of a Protestant's faith, for his not erring in Fundamentals at least? Bishop Lany tells me 
† Serm. at Whitehall, March 12.1664. p. 17. , That, when we have certain knowledge of a thing, we may safely learn from the Schools, viz. Vbi non est formido contrarii; that after diligent search, and inquiry when there remains no scruple, doubt, and fear of the contrary, when the understanding is fixed, we are said to be certain— And that they who will say it, and do think so too, may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience. Prot. 
† Dr. Ferne Division of Churches, p. 47.61— Chillingw. p. 57  You have a judgement of discretion I grant, and may interpret Scripture for yourself: without the use of which judgement you cannot serve God with a reasonable service, who are also to give account of yourself, and are to be saved by your own faith, and do perish upon your own score.— 
† Stillingf. p. 133.  None may usurp that royal prerogative of heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned, but leave all to judge according to the pandects of the divine laws, because each member of this Society, is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things that tend thereto— 
† Chillingw. p. 59, 100  In matters of Religion, when the question is, whether any man be a fit judge, and chooser for himself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a moment, and eternity. And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain, and easy, and consequently every man in this case to be a complete judge for himself, because it concerns himself to judge aright, as much as eternal happiness is worth: and if through his own default he judge amiss, he alone shall suffer for it. To God's righteous judgement therefore I must finally remit you. At your own peril be it. This of the Socinians plea concerning the Scripture on his side.  
§. 9 Where the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures, not mistakable in Fundamentals, or necessaries, upon a due industry used (of which also rightly used, men may be sufficiently assured) being made the ground, as you see; of the Protestants, and Socinians faith, before these two proceed to any further conference, give me leave to interpose a word between them, concerning this certainty so much spoken of, and presumed on.  
§. 10 And here first; from this way, lately taken by many Protestants, there seems to be something necessarily consequent, which I suppose they will by no means allow; viz. That, instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men, (the Church Governors), as infallible in necessaries, here is set up by them every Christian, if he will, both infallible in all necessaries; and certain, that he is so. For the Scripture, they affirm, most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry; and of this due industry they also affirm; men may be certain, that they have used it; it being, not all, possible, endeavour; but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion, etc. adviseth to. (See Mr. Chillingworth, p. 19) And next, from this affirmed; firmed; that, every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals, it must be maintained also; that their spiritual Guides, in a conjunction of them, nay more, every single Prelate, or Presbyter, if they are not, yet may be, an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary. And therefore Mr. Chillingworth freely thus vindicates it 
† p. 140. — That these also may be both in Fundamentals, and also in some points unfundamental, both certain of the infallibility of their Rule, and that they do manifestly proceed according to it: and then, in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken, they may (saith he 
† p. 118, 140. & 166. ) lawfully decide the controversies about them, and without rashness propose their decrees, as certain, divine, Revelations; and excommunicate, anathematise also any man persisting in the contrary error. And there seems reason in such Anathema; because all others either do, or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means, as these Governors do. Now then: what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have, I hope may also those of the Church Catholic: and then, obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors, this will restore all things to their right course. All this follows upon certainty, 1 That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals; And 2 that due industry is used to understand them. But, if you should deny, that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used; then again, is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries, quite vanished.  
But now to pass from this consequence, (to which I know not what can be said), and to inquire a little after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing, which is here so much pretended.  
1st. It cannot be denied, that he, that doth err in one thing, may be certain, that he doth not err in some other; because he may have sufficient ground, and means for his not erring in one thing, which he hath not in another. Nor again denied, that he, who possibly may err, yet in the same thing may be certain, that he doth not err, if not neglecting some means, which he knows will certainly keep him from error.  
§. 11 2. But, notwithstanding these: This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side (and is so by learned Protestants). That, in what kind of knowledge soever it be (whether of our sense, or reason, in whatever Art, or Science) one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge, that he is certain of any thing for a truth, which all, or most others, of the same, or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties, in all the same external means, or grounds of the knowledge thereof, do pronounce an error. Not, as if truth were not so, though all the world oppose it; nor had certain grounds to be proved so, though all the world should deny them; but because the true knowledge of it, and them, cannot possibly appear to one man's intellect: and, omnibus paribus, not to others. Now for any disparity, as to defect, whether in the instrument, or in the means of knowledge, there, where all, or most differ from me, it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in myself, rather than them; especially, * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them; and * whenas, for my own mistakes, I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions. I say, be this in what knowledge we please; in that of sense, seeing, hearing, numbering, or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned §. 7. So, I can never rationally assure myself of what I see, when men, as well, or better sighted, and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same, see no such matter. And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Fanatic from pleading certainty in his own conceit. See Archbp. Lawd (〈◊〉. 33. Consid 5. n. 1.)— and Hooker (Preface §. 6.) their defining of a clear evidence, or demonstrative argument, viz. Such, as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent to it; and therefore, surely proposed to many men, the mind of the most cannot descent from it.  
§. 12 Consequently, in the Scripture; abstracting from the inward operations of God's holy Spirit, and any external infallible Guide, (which infallible Guide Scripture itself cannot be to two men differing in the sense thereof): I see not, from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons, for so many Texts, or places thereof, concerning the sense of which, the most, or the most learned, or their Superiors, to whom also all their motives, or arguments are represented, do differ from them. From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words, such certainty cannot arise; unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished, or taken in a divers or unliteral sense; but, if it cannot be so taken, than all Expositors must needs agree in one, and the same sense. For example. For the literal, and Grammatical sense, what Text plainer, than [Hoc est corpus meum], and yet Protestants understand it otherwise? Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingwoith's to Fr. Knot 
† Chill. p. 307 , urging: That the first Reformers ought to have doubted, whether their opinions were certain— Which is to say (answers he), that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture; which in formal, and express terms, contains many of their opinions [whenas the greater world of Catholics sees not such matter]. Besides; as these is no term almost in any sentence, but that is capable of several acceptions; so, since no falsehood, no discord is in the Scriptures, there is no senrence in it, however sounding for the expression, but must be reconciled in its sense to all the rest; and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary, to attain the true meaning of many places, that seem, at the first sight, most clear in what they say, but that there are also other places as clear, that seem to say the contrary: And some such places it was, (and that in very necessary points too) of which S. Peter saith; That some wrested them to their own damnation: wrested them, because they wanted (not industry, but) learning; which the unlearned (saith he) wrist— And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe, 
† 2 Pet. 3.16.  because they know fewest reasons against it; whilst, by much study, and comparing several Revelations one with another, those come at last to doubt, or deny that sense of some of them, which at the first they took for most certainly, and evidently true. Pardon this long Parenthesis.   

CONFERENCE II.  
2. The Socinians Protestant-Plea, For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sense of the Catholic Church, so far as this can justly oblige.  
§. 13 Now to resume the Conference. The Protestant, better thinking on it, will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sense of Scripture; but thus proceeds.  
Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear, and perspicuous to every one 
† Stillingf. p. 58, 59  as that Art, and subtlety may not be used to pervert the Catholic doctrine, and to wrest the plain places of Scripture, which deliver it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes, even in the great Articles of the Christian faith. Therefore why do not you submit your judgement and assent to the sense of Scripture, in this point unanimously delivered by the consent of the Catholic Church; which also is believed always unerrable in any necessary point of faith; as this is? Soc. First. If you can show me an unanimous consent of the Church Catholic of all ages in this point, and that as held necessary, I will willingly submit to it. But this you can * never do according to such a proof thereof, as is required, viz 
† Stillingf. p. 57  That all Catholic Writers agree in the belief of it; and none of them oppose it: and agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians. * That no later Writers, and Fathers, in opposition of Heretics, or heats of contention, judged then the Article so epposed to be more necessary, than it was judged before the contention. * That all Writers, that give an account of the faith of Christians, deliver it: And deliver it, not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is of divine Revelation, but with a necessiity of its being explicitly believed by all. See before Disc. 3. §. 52. Now, no such unanimous consent can be pretended for Consubstantiality. For, (not to speak of the times next following the Council of Nice, nor yet, of several expressions in the ancients, Justin Martyr, Iraeneus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, that seem to favour our opinion 
† See Petavius in Epiphan. Haer. 69 : Nor, of those Bastern Bishops, which Arrius, in his letter to Eusebius Nicomed 
‖ Apud Epiphan. Haer. 69— Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. , numbers on his side), Hilarius 
† De Synodis.  relates, no less than eighty Bishops, before that Council, to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and, in the Council also, seventeen (some of note) at first to have dissented from the rest.  
§. 14 Prot. Not yielding what you say for truth; but, for the present, supposing it; yet the judgement of so small a party may by no means be adhered to by you, it being inconsiderable in respect of the whole Body of the Catholic Church declaring against you.  
Soc. If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the whole, than the reform cannot maintain their dissent from the much more numerous body of Christianity, that opposed their opinions, and sense of Scriptures, at the beginning of the Reformation, and do still oppose them. But, not to stand upon this, I would willingly conform to the unanimous, or most general judgement of the Church Catholic; if I were secure that she could not be mistaken in it. But 
† Stillingf p. 59  The sense of the Church Catholic is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the rule of faith— 
† Stillingf. p. 133.  Nor may she usurp that royal prerogative of heaven, in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned. Prot. You may be secure, that she never erreth in any point necessary. Soc. But you tell me, that, though she never err in necessaries, yet it follows not, that she is an unerring Guide, or witness therein 
† Stillingf. p. 154, 252.— Chilling. p. 150.— Dr. Hammond Defence of the L. Falkl. p. 23. §. 15. : or, that she must unerringly declare, what points are necessary, and what not; and I must first learn, whether this point of Consubstantiality is to be numbered among necessaries, before I can be assured, that the sense of the Church Catholic errs not therein.  
Prot. But 
† Stillingf. p 58.  It is a sufficient prescription against any thing which can be alleged out of Scripture, that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of Scripture, if it appear contrary to the sense of the Church Catholic from the beginning; and therefore such doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of faith, which have been so unanimously condemued by the Church Catholic. Soc. Why so?  
Prot. 
† Stillingf. ib.  Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of faith can be held by the Catholic Church; for it's very Being depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation. Soc. This last is most true; but then, if you mean to make your discourse cohere, you must say, it is a sufficient prescription, etc. if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholic Church, viz. in a point necessary: for the reason you give carries, and secures you no further; and then, that which you say is no great matter: For, here we are still to seek, whether the point we discourse of, is in the affirmative, such a necessary.  
§. 16 Prot. But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath put in her Creeds. Soc. From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed; and, though it should be granted, that all points necessary are contained in the Creeds, yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary: 
† Stillingf. p. 70. 71.  Necessary so, as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof: which conviction I yet want.  
§. 17 Prot. But yet, though first the Catholic Church may err in non-necessaries; and 2ly, in what points are necessary, what not, her judgement be not infallible, yet you have still great reason to submit your judgement to hers; because, if it happen to be a point necessary, she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in it; not so, you. And 2ly. If not necessary, and so both she and you therein liable to error, yet you much the more, and she also in these things is appointed by God for your Teacher, and Guide.  
Soc. Therefore I use the help, and direction of my spiritual Guides; consider their reasons; do not rashly departed from their judgement; but yet 
† Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 19  The due submission of my assent, and belief to them is only to be conditional, with reservation of evidence in God's Word. For in matter of faith, (as Dr. Ferne saith), I cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of my judgement and belief to receive for faith all, that they shall define, for such resignation stands excluded by the condition of the authority which is not infallible; and by the condition of the matter, faith, of high concernment to our own souls, and to be accounted for by ourselves: who therefore stand bound to make present, and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word, upon which we may finally, and securely stay our belief— And 
† The Case between the Churches. p. 40. — The Church determining matter of faith (saith he) ought to manifest it out of God's Word: and we may expect such proof, before we yield absolute assent of belief. And so Mr. Stillingfleet saith 
† p. 133. — All men ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws, because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his soul, and of all things that tend thereto. Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the Scripture for Consubstantiality, but rather for the contrary; which several of our Writers have made appear to the world. And therefore unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined, or at least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err, from the rest, it seems no way justifiable, that she puts this her definition into the Creed; she as I conceive, thus requiring from all an absolute consent thereto; and not only (as some 
† Still. p. 70.  would persuade me) a conditional, for some of them; viz. whenever I shall be clearly convinced, that such point is of divine Revelation.   

CONFERENCE III.  
3. Or contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils, the just conditions thereof being observed.  
§. 18 3. PRot. But do you not consider, by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed: Namely, by the first General, and the most venerable, assembly of the Fathers of the Church that hath been convened since the Apostles times; celebrated under the first Christian Emperor by a perfect representative of the Catholic Church; and by such persons, as came very much purified out of the newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution, that the Church hath suffered, that under Dioclesian; will not you then at last submit your judgement to the Decree of this great, and holy Council; one and the first, of those four which, S. Gregory said, he received with the same reverence, as the four Gospels.  
Soc. No: And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons, as I conceive, satisfactory. For 1st. Had I an obligatior of submission of judgement to lawful General Councils, you cannot prove this such a one, and those the decrees thereof, which are now extant, with such a certainty, as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my faith. For, to prove this, you must satisfy me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by Mr. Chillingworth, p. 94. * By Dr. Pierce in his answer to Mr. Cressy, p. 18. etc. * By Mr. Whitby from p. 428. to p. 433. [where he concludes: 1st. That we never had a General Council. 2ly. That a General Council is a thing impossible]— * By Mr. Stillingfleet p. 508. etc.— 495. 119-123. etc. Who also, against the being of such a General Council as is the representative of the whole Church Catholic, thus disputes 
† p. 515. 516. — The representation of a Church (saith he) by a General Council, is a thing not so evident, from whence it should come: for if such representative of the whole Church there be, it must either be so by some formal act of the Church, or by a  consent. It could not be by any formal act of the Church; for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council, by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church. Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated, either that it could be, or that it was. But if it be said, that such a formal act is not necessary, but the  consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it; then such a consent of the Church must be made evident, by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a Representative. And all those must consent in that act, whose power the Council pretends to have; of which no footsteps appear— The utmost then (saith he) that can be supposed in this case, is, that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council; and, by that voluntary act, or by the supreme authority enjoining it, such decrees may become obligatory. Thus he. But I suppose its decrees obligatory, then, only to those parts of the Church, that voluntarily consent to accept of them, which the Arrians did not to receive the Decrees of Nice. 2ly. Though it be showed a lawful General Council, representing the whole Church (as it ought, if such) yet what obligation can there lie upon me of consenting to it? since it may err even in Fundamentals; if it be not universally accepted, as indeed this Council was not, for several Bishops there were, that were dissenters in the Council, and many more afterward. 
† See before § 13.  3ly. Were it universally accepted; yet unless you can show me by some means; that this point, wherein I differ from its judgement, is a fundamental, or necessary point to salvation, both it, and the Catholic Church also that accepts it, may err therein. 4ly. The judgement of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account. That whereas the Guides of the Church, many years before this Council, were divided in their opinion, Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria, and Hosius a Favourite of the Emperors heading one party, and Arrius, and the Bishops adhering to him, whom I mentioned formerly 
† §. 13. , heading another, and whereas afterward, in the prosecution of this difference, both the foresaid Alexander in one Provincial Council held in Egypt, and Hosius sent thither by the Emperor in another, had there condemned Arrius, and his Confederates; yet so it was ordered, that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing, and decision of this Controversy, of these two professed Enemies to the other party; the one (Hosius) was appointed to sit as Precedent of this Council; and the other (Alexander) held in it the next place to him; and poor Arrius, excluded; and the Bishops, who favoured him in the Council, though at first freely declaring their dissent, yet at last overawed to a subscription; as also was Arrius himself chief by the Emperor Constantine's overbearing authority; who, before somewhat indifferent in the contest, yet, upon Arrius his undutiful, and too peremptory letters, had, some years before, taken great offence at him; and also, (as he was very eloquent) publicly written against him 
† See Baronius. A. D. 318, 319.  Which over-awing hence appears, in that the same Bishops that were adherents to Arrius, when, this Emperor being deceased, Constantius his son countenanced their cause, returned, I say not to their former opinion only, but to their public profession of it. By which we may guests, that if the Controversy had at that time been committed to equal, and disengaged Judges, and such as had not formerly showed themselves a party: or, if the Oriental Bishops, without any fear of the Prince upon them, might have given free votes, and the Arrian cause, than had a Constantius instead of a Constantine, (things, wherein Protestants well understand me, because on the same grounds they have rejected the Council of Trent) we may presume, than the issue would have been under Constantine the same, that it was under his Successor, I say before Judges equal, and indifferent, and not such as were, before, a party, though this party should be compounded of the chief superior Prelates of the Church. For as Mr. Stillingfleet urgeth 
† p. 478 — We must either absolutely, and roundly assert, that it is impossible, that the superiors in the Church may be guilty of any error, or corruption; or that, if they be, they must never be called to an account for it; or else, that it may be just, in some cases, to except against them as parties. And if in some cases, than the question comes to this; whether the present. [he speaks of Idolatry, I of Consubstantiality] be some of these cases, or no? And here if we make those superiors Judges again, what you grant before comes to nothing. Prot. I perceive Mr. Chillingworth's observation is right. 
† p. 60.  That, in controversies in Religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided, but the Judge must be a party: [I add also, that in matters of Religion; where every man is concerned, and in great Controversies, especially where is any division of Communion, all both Laity, and Clergy speedily own, and range themselves on one side, or other; Clergy interessing themselves for the necessary direction of their Subjects; Laity, in obedience to their Superiors; neither can such a Judge be nominated, that is not to one side suspected. So that in controversies of Religion, we must deny any Judge (as he did 
† Ib. §. 17. ): or this plea that the ordinary Judge, that is assigned us, 〈◊〉 is a party, must not be easily harkened to.  
§. 19 Soc. But I have not yet said all. For 5ly. Were there none of the forenamed defects in it, 
† Whitby p. 15— Stillingf. p. 506. 537.  No authority on earth can oblige to internal assent in matters of faith; or to any farther obedience, than that of silence. Prot. Yes, you stand obliged to yield a conditional assent at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts, i. e. unless you can bring evident Scriptures, or Demonstration against them. Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this. I find indeed the Archbp. 
† §. 32 n. 5. & §. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1.  requiring evidence, and demonstration for inferiors contradicting, or publishing their dissent, from the Councils decrees, but not requiring thus much for their denial of assent: and I am told 
‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48. 49. & Division of Churches. p. 45. — That in matters proposed by my Superiors, as God's Word, and of faith, I am not tied to believe it such, till they manifest it to me to be so; and not, that I am to believe it such, unless I can manifest it to be contrary, because my faith can rest on no humane authority, but only on God's Word, and divine Revelation. And Dr. Field saith 
† p. 666. — It is not necessary expressly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it be true; unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare determination of the Council. Till I am convinced then of my error, the obedience of silence is the most, that can be required of me.  
§. 20 But 6ly. I conceive myself in this point not obliged to this neither; considering my present persuasion, that this Council manifestly erred; and that, in an error of such high consequence (concerning the unity of the most high God) as is no way to be tolerated; and I want not evident Scriptures, and many other unanswerable Demonstrations to show it did so; and therefore being admitted into the honourable function of the Ministry, I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an higher authority, to publish this great truth of God, and to contradict the Councils decree.  
§. 21 Prot. But you may easily mistake that for evident Scripture, and those for Demonstrations, that are not. Concerning which you know, what the Archbp. and Mr. Hooker say 
† Ap. Lawd. 245. — That they are such, as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose, but inwardly assent to them 
† Id. p. 227.  You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors, or to the Church, desiring a redress of such error by her calling another Council. And if these Superiors, acquainted therewith, dislike your demonstrations, which, the definition saith, if they be right ones, they must be by all, and therefore by them, assented to, methinks, (though this is not said by the Archbp.) in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations, and remain in silence at least, and no further trouble the Church. Soc. May therefore no particular person, or Church proeed to a Reformation of a form: doctrine, if these Superiors, first complained to, declare the grounds of such persons, or Churches, for it, not sufficient. Prot. I must not say so. But if they neglect,, (as they may) to consider their just reasons so diligently as they ought, and to call a Council for the correcting of such error according to the weight of these reasons, than here is place for inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such error without them. Soc. And who then shall judge, whether the reasons pretended are defective, or rather the present Church negligent in considering them? Prot. Here, I confess, to make the Superiors Judges of this, is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his grievance, these Superiors, whose faith appears to adhere to the former Council, being only Judges in their own cause; and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing 
† Still. p 479.292.  Soc. The inferiors then, that complain, I suppose, are to judge of this. To proceed then. To these Superiors in many diligent writings we have proposed, as we think, many unanswerable Scriptures, and reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our party to the former Nicen Council (and therefore from which evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary sentence); and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this point, we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church; Pastor, or Bishop, for to reform for themselves, and the souls committed to them in an error appearing to them manifest, and intolerable: as for the Protestants, or for Dr. Luther, to have done the same for Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, and other points that have been concluded, against the truth, by several former Councils. Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils, as that of Nice was. Soc. Whatever these Councils were, this much matters not, as to a reformation from them: for had they been lawfully General, yet Protestants hold 
† See before Disc. 3. §. 34. etc. , these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals; or when so accepted, yet may err, in nonfundamentals, errors manifest, and intolerable, and so may be appealed from to future; and, those not called, their error presently rectified by such parts of Christianity, as discern it; and also S. Austin 
† De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c.  is frequently quoted by them, saying— That past General Councils erring, may be corrected by other Councils following.  
§. 22 Prot. But I pray you consider, if that famous Council of Nice, hath so erred, another Council called may it also not err, notwithstanding your evidences proposed to it? For, though perhaps some new Demonstrative proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared, and explained; yet you will not deny this sufficient evidence to have been extant for that most learned Council to have seen the truth, having then the same entire rule of faith as you now the Scriptures, (in which, you say, your clearest evidences lie), for their direction. When a future Council (then) is assembled, and hath heard your plea, will you assent to it, and acquiesce in the judgement thereof? Soc. Yes; interposing the Protestant-conditions of assent, if its decree be according to God's Word, and we convinced thereof. Prot. Why; such a submission of judgement, and assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing, whereof you are convinced by me; may this future Council, then, challenge no further duty from you? why then should the Church be troubled to call it? Soc. 
† Stillingf. p. 542.  Though this future Council also should err, yet it may afford remedy against inconveniences; and one great inconvenience being, breaking the Church's peace; this is remedied by its authority, if I only yield the obedience of silence thereto. Prot. But, if your obedience oblige not to silence converning Councils past, because of your new evidences, neither will it to a future, if you think it also doth err, and either these evidences remain still unsatisfied: Or, these satisfied, yet some other new ones appear, to call for a new consideration.  
Soc. 
† Stillingf. ib.  Because it may also err, it follows not, it must err; and it is probable, that it shall not err, when the former error is thus discovered, and if the Council proceed lawfully, be not overawed, etc. 
† Idem p. 526 . But however; if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence, yet, I not convinced of the truth of its decree, this silence is the uttermost, that any future Council, after its rejecting my reasons, can justly exact of me; and not belief, or assent, at all, it may not oblige me, that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all, but that, not divulge it; whereas now by the Acts of former Councils (I would gladly know upon what rational ground) an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary; and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresy merely for retaining this opinion; which retaining it, is called obstinacy, and contumacy in me, after the Councils contrary Definition.   

CONFERENCE. iv  
4. His Plea for not being guilty of Heresy.  
§. 23 4 PRot. You know, that all Heretics are most justly anathematised, and cut off from being any longer members of the Catholic Church, and so do remain excluded also from salvation. Now this Tenent of yours hath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresy. Soc. I confess Heresy a most grievous crime dread, and abhor it; and trust, I am most free from such a guilt; and from this I have many ways, of clearing myself. For, Heresy (as Mr. Chillingworth defines it) 
† p. 271.  being not an erring, but an obstinate defence of an error; not of any error, but of one against a necessary, or fundamental Article of the Christian faith, 1st. Though this, which I hold should be an error, and that against a Fundamental, yet my silence practised therein, can never be called an obstinate defence thereof, and therefore not my tenant an Heresy. 2ly. Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons, and (as Mr. Chillingworth saith †)— No Catalogue thereof, 
p. 134.  that can be given, can universally serve for all men; God requiring more of them, to whom he gives more, and less of them, to whom he gives less— And that may be sufficiently declared to one (all things considered) which (all things considered) is not to another sufficiently declared: and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals, as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes: And (as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him 
† p. 98, 99 ) since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition; and none can assign, what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons, or set down the exact bounds, as to all individuals, when their ignorance is inexcusable, and when not; or tell, what is the measure of their capacity: what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education, etc. Hence I conceive myself free from Heresy, in this my opinion, on this score also; because, though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth, and to be explicitly believed by them; yet to me, as not having any sufficient proposal, or conviction thereof, but rather of the contrary, it is no Fundamental, and consequently, my tenant opposing it, if an error, yet no Heresy.  
Prot. Do not deceive yourself; for though, according to different revelations, §. 24 to those that were without Law; or those under the Law; or those under the Gospel; Fundamentals, generally spoken of, might be more to some, than others; yet to all those, who know, and embrace the Gospel, we say 
† Chillingw. p. 92. ; all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men, even the unlearned; and therefore the erring therein, to all such, cannot but be obstinate, and Heretical. Soc. Unless you mean only this: That all Fundamentals, (i. e. so many as are required of any one) are clear to him in Scripture: but not all the same Fundamentals, there, clear to every one: but to some more of them, to some fewer; I see not how this, last said, accords with that said before by the same person. But if you mean thus: then consubstantiality, (the point we talk of) may be a Fundamental to you, and clear in Scripture: but also not clear to me in Scripture, and so no Fundamental; and hence, I think myself safe. For,— † I believing all, that is clear to me in Scripture, must needs believe all fundamentals, I cannot incur Heresy, which is opposite to some fundamental— 
† Chilling. p. 367.  The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith, must of necessity also teach me, what is Heresy: That which is straight will plainly teach us, what is crooked; 
* Id. p. 101  and one contrary cannot but manifest the other.  
Prot. I pray you consider a little better, what you said last, for since Heresy, as you grant it, is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith; and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such; unless you can also distinguish, in Scripture, these points of necessary Faith from others, you can have no certain knowledge of Heresy: and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture, though it may preserve you from incurring Heresy, yet cannot direct you at all for knowing, or discerning Heresy, or an error against a fundamental, or a necessary, point of Faith, from other simple and less dangerous errors, that are not so: nor by this can you ever know, what errors are Heresies, what not; and so, after all your confidence, if by your neglect, you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sense, you can have no security in your Fundamental, or necessary, Faith; or of your not incurring Heresy. Neither, Secondly, according to your discourse, hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretic; because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals. And so Heresy will be a grievous sin indeed; but walking under such a vizard of nonsufficient proposal, as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it. Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith, there hath been always acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresy: and it may seem conviction enough to you, that her most general Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain; and received it for a fundamental. Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresy, thus Dr. Potter, 
† p. 97 — The Catholic Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith, upon the divine authority of Gods written word. And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement so well grounded, is justly esteemed an Heretic; not properly; because he disobeyes the Church; but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded, or cleared unto him [i. e. by the Church.] Where the Dr. seems to grant these two things: That all that the Catholic Church declares against Heresy, is grounded upon the Scripture; and that all such as oppose her judgement are Heretics: but only he adds, that they are not Heretics properly, or formally for this opposing the Church, but for opposing the Scriptures. Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresy is disputed, that all such are Heretics, seems granted. And the same Dr. else here concludes thus, 
‖ p. 132. — The mistaker will never prove, that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholic Church, [he means such a Church as makes Declarations, and that must be in her Councils]— and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresy. And again, he saith, 
† p. 103. — Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers [St. Austin, Epiphanius, and others] conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians, that they called an Heresy, because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church: where in saying, not because it opposed, any Definition, he means; not only because. For, whilst that, which differed from the received opinion of the Church, was accounted an Heresy by them, that, which differed from a formal definition of the Church, was so much more. Something I find also, for your better information, in the learned Dr. Hammond, 
† Titus 3.11.  commenting on that notable Text in Titus,— A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition, reject, [a Text implying, contrary to your discourse, Heresy discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self condemned, not to signify a man's public accusing, or condemning his own doctrines, or practices; for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's censures. Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against conscience, and though he knows he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the Church, for so, none but Hypocrites would be Heretics; and he that stood out against the Doctrine of Christ, and his Church in the purest times [you may guess whom he means] should not be an Heretic: and so no Heretic could possibly be admonished, or censured by the Church, for no man would acknowledge of himself, that what he did was by him done against his own conscience [the plea which you also here make for yourself.] But to be an expression of his separation from, and disobedience to the Church; and so, an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and without excuse. 
† See more Protestants cited to this purpose. Disc. 3. §. 19 § 26.  What say you to this?  
Soc. What these Authors say, as you give their sense, seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles 
† See Dr. Potter p. 165.167.— Dr. Hammond of Heresy. § 7 n. 3— §. 9 n. 8 Des. of L. Faukl. c. 1. p. 23.— See before Disc. 3. §. 41 n. 1.  and their own positions elsewhere; neither, surely, will Protestants tie themselves to this measure, and trial, of autocatacrisy. For since they say; That lawful General Councils may err in Fundamentals; these Councils may also define, or declare something Heresy, that is not against a Fundamental; and if so, I, though in this self-convinced, that such is their Definition, yet am most free from Heresy, in my not assenting to it, or (if they err intolerably) in opposing it. Again, since Protestants say, Counsels may err in distinguishing Fundamentals, these Counsels may err also in discerning Heresy, which is an error against a Fundamental, from other errors that are against nonfundamentals. Again: Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions, thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me, for fear of my incurring Heresy: a consequence, which Protestants allow not. Again: Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture, why should they place autocatacrisy, or self-conviction, in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather, than of the Scripture? But to requite your former quotations, I will show in plainer language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning autocatacrisy as to the Definitions of the Church, under which my opinion also finds sufficient shelter; We have no assurance at all (saith Bishop Bramball 
† Reply to Chalced. p. 105. ) that all General Councils were, and always shall be so prudently managed, and their proceed always so orderly, and upright, that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians, which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation. [I add, or under pain of Heresy]— And Ib. p. 102.— I acknowledge (saith he) that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary to be believed; that is, whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council, or the authority of the Council (which is, and always aught to be very great with all sober discreet Christians) do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions: [which truth I am as yet not convinced of, neither from the reasons, nor authority, of the Council of Nice.] Or, if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter— It is not the resisting (saith he 
† p. 128. ) the voice, or definitive sentence, which makes an Heretic; but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared, unto him. And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared, when it is so opened, that a good, and teachable mind (loving, and seeking truth) [my conscience convinceth me not, but that such I am] cannot gainsay it.— Again 
† p. 129. — It is possible (saith he) that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous, either because the opinion condemned is no Heresy, or error against the Faith, in itself considered; or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding (not clouded with prejudice, ambition, vainglory, or the like passion) that it is an error [one of these I account myself] Or out of Dr. Hammond, 
† Heresy. p. 114. — It must be lawful for the Church of God, [any Church or any Christian, upon the Drs. reason,] as well as for the Bishop of Rome, to inquire whether the Decrees of an universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition, or no; and if they be found otherwise, to reject them out, or not to receive them into their belief. And then still it is the matter of the Decrees, and the Apostolicalness of them, and the force of the testification, whereby they are approved, and acknowledged to be such, which gives the authority to the Council; and nothing else is sufficient, where that is not to be found. And, elsewhere, he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils, 
† See before, Disc. 1 §. 6.  and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture words understood with piety, and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof, which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles. 
† Of Heresy p. 96.  [Upon which follows, that, in such case, where a Lawful General Council doth not so, (as possibly it may, and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether, it doth not) there may be no Heretical autocatacrifie in a descent from it, nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his being perverted and sinning wilfully, and without excuse.]— Lastly, thus Mr. Stillingfleet, concerning Heresy 
† p. 73. — The formal reason of Heresy is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation; and therefore, 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresy, but such as have sufficient reason to believe, that that which they deny is revealed by God. And therefore, 3ly, None can be guilty of Heresy for denying any thing declared by the Church; unless they have sufficient reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God; and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any Heretics, but such as have reason to believe, that she cannot err in her Definitions. From hence also he gathers, That Protestants are in less danger of Heresy than Papists, till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove, that whatever the Church declares, is certainly revealed by God. Thus he. Now such sufficient proving reasons, as Protestants plead, that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-authority, I allege, that neither have they, nor others, given me. To be self-condemned, therefore, in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice, I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe, (and so to remain self-condemned, and Heretical in disbelieving it) this point; viz. That the Church, or her Council, hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner, as to require my assent thereto. Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe, I suppose I am freed (without obstinacy, or Heresy, or being therein self-condemned,) from yielding assent to any particular matter of Faith, which the Church defines. And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point, yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof, I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance, not obstinacy, or autocatacrisie, or Heresy; for if I am self-condemned, or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points 
† See Mr. Stillingf. p. 99  Then I become so, either by the Church's definition of this point, or without it. By reason of the Church's definition of this it cannot be; for this very power of defining is the thing in question, and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Church's defining it 
† Still. p. 74 : and thus, That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed, which must be supposed to be believed by me already, before such proposal or definition; or else the definition is not necessary to be believed. 
† Ib. p. 99  Nor without, or before such definition, can I have an autocatacrisie; because this autocatacrisy, you say with Dr. Hammond, ariseth from my disobedience to the Church. Prot. Methinks, you make the same plea for yourself in this matter, as if one, that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts, or not believing the divine revelations delivered in Scripture, should think to excuse himself by this answer; that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be God's Word; and therefore he conceives, that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that, which is contained therein. And, as such a person hath as much reason (though this, not from the Scripture, yet from Apostolical Tradition) to believe, that Scripture is God's Word, as to believe what is written in it; so have you, though not from the Nicen Council defining it, yet from Scripture, and Tradition manifesting it, as much reason to believe its authority of defining, as what it defined. It's true indeed; that had you not sufficient proposal, or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice, you were faultless in it; but herein lies your danger, that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth, within, (hindered there by I know not what supine negligence, or strong self-conceit etc.) you gather a non sufficient proposal, without.  
§ 37 Soc. It remains then to inquire, who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal, or sufficient reason, which I am said to have, to believe what the Nicen Council, or the Church hath declared in this point. 
† Stillingf. p. 73.  Whether the Church's judgement is to be taken by me in this, or my own made use of; If her judgement, the ground of my belief, and of Heresy lies still in the Church's definition; and thus it will be all one in effect, whether I believe what she declares, without sufficient reason; or learn this of her, when there is sufficient reason to believe so. It must be then, my own judgement, I am to be directed by in this matter 
† See Stilling p. 479. : and if so, than it is to be presumed, that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein; and also some certain knowledge, when I do use this means aright: (for without these two I can have no security in my own judgement in a matter of so high concernment, as Heresy and fundamental faith is.) Now this means, in this matter, I presume I have daily used, in that I find my conscience, after much examination, therein to acquit me, unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence, without sending me back again to the authority of the Church. Prot. Whilst your discovery of your tenant to be an Heresy depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so:  
And, 2ly, The judgement of your having, or not having sufficient reason to believe this, is left to yourself, the Church hath no means to know you, or any other to be an Heretic, till they declare themselves to be so. And thus, in striving to free yourself from Heresy, you have freed all mankind from it, (as to any external discovery and convincement thereof) and canceled such a sin; unless we can find one, that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own conscience. Soc. If I, so do the Protestants; for they also hold none guilty of Heresy, for denying any thing declared by the Church, unless they have reason to believe, that what ever is declared by the Church is revealed by God; and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church, or Superiors, but themselves, the Judge.   

The V CONFERENCE.  
His Plea for not being guilty of Schism.  
5. PRot. I have yet one thing more, about which to question you. If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresy in opposing the public judgement, §. 28 and definition of the Catholic Church in that most reverend Council of Nice, upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal, that this Definition was therein made according to God's Word, or the Scriptures; yet, how will you clear yourself, or your Socinian Congregations, of Schism? avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture, if it shall appear, that you have, for this opinion, deserted the Communion of the Catholic Church; out of which Church is no Salvation. Soc. 
† Dr. Potter. p. 75.  I grant, there neither is, nor can be any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself: therefore I utterly deny, that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholic at all: and this for many reasons. For 1st 
† Chillingw. p. 274. — We have not forsaken the whole Church, or the external Communion of it: but only that part of it, which is corrupted, and still will be so, and have not forsaken, but only reform another part of it, which part we ourselves are: and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that we have forsaken ourselves, or our own Communion. And if you urge, that we joined ourselves to no other part, therefore we separated from the whole: I say, it follows not, in as much as ourselves were a part of it, and still continued so, and therefore can no more separate from the whole, than from ourselves.  
Prot. So then, it seems, we need fear no Schism, from the Church Catholic tilla part can divide from itself, which can never be.  
§. 29 Soc. Next: As for our separating from all other particular Churches, the ground of our Separation being an error, which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches, and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion, we conceive, in this case, if any, They, not We, are the Schismatics: for as the Arch. Bp. 
† Lawd. p. 142. — The Schism is theirs, whose the cause of it is; and he makes the separation, who gives the first just cause of it, not he that makes an actual separation, upon a just cause preceding.  
§. 30 Again— Though we have made an actual Separation from them, as to the not-conforming to, or also as to the reforming of, an error: yet, 1st. As to Charity: we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion.— 
† Dr. Ferne Division of Churches. p. 105. and 31 32.  Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity; Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholic Church, and drawing the Communion wholly to ourselves, as did those famous Schismatics, the Donatists.  
§. 31 Next: as to matter of Faith: We hold, that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing, wherein the unity of the Catholic Church doth not consist, is no separation from the whole Church, nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches, till such their error is reform. For as Mr. Stillingf. 
† p. 331. — There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things, wherein the unity of the whole Church lies— Whos's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is only separated from the Communion of that Church, and not the Catholic. Now: that for which we have separated from other Churches, we conceive not such, as is essential, or concerns the being of a Church so, that without it we, or they, cannot still retain the essence thereof; we declare also our readiness to join with them again, if this error be corrected, or at least not imposed: And 
† Stilling. Ib.  (as Mr. Stillingf. faith)— Where there is this readiness of Communion, there is no absolute separation from the Church as such, but only suspending Communion, till such abuses be reform, [or not pressed upon us], And, as Bp. Bramhall 
† Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9 — When one part of the universal Church separateth itself from another part, not absolutely, or in essentials, but respectively in abuses, and innovations, not as it is a part of the universal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted, and degenerated [whether in doctrine, or manners], it doth still retain a Communion not only with the Catholic Church, and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholic Church, but even with that corrupted Church, from which it is separated, except, only in such Corruptions.  
§. 32 Prot. Saving better Judgements, methinks a separation (if causeless) from the Communion of all other Churches, or from those who are our Superiors, in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental, or essential point of Christianity, as destroys the being of a Church, should be Schism; and the smaller the point for which we separate, the greater the guilt of our separation. Were not the Donatists' Schismatics in rejecting the Catholic Communion, requiring their conformity in such a point, in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches defining thereof was very excusable; and the African Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby? Soc. 
† Dr. Potter. p. 76. — But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which they separated, which is the property of Schismatics.— And 
† Stillingf. p. 359. Division of Churches. p. 106. — They were justly charged with Schism, because they confined the Catholic Church within their own bounds. But as Dr. Ferne saith †— Had the Donatists only used their liberty, and judgement in that practice of rebaptising Heretics, leaving other Churches to their liberty; and (though thinking them in an error for admitting Heretics, without baptising them, yet) willing to have Communion with them, as parts of the Catholic Church (saving the practices wherein they differed), then had they not been guilty of Schism. In that which I hold I only follow my conscience, condemn not the Churches holding otherwise: On the other side 
† Chillingw. p. 278.  Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not [be it small or great] and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion, in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing, which I am convinced to be eroneous. 
† Ib. 279.  At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen, to me seems true; and the contrary, which I have forsaken, seems false: and therefore, without remorse of conscience, I may profess that, but this I cannot: and a separation, for preserving my conscience, I hope will never be judged causeless.  
§. 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatic, but he who knows he erreth (i e. not who holdeth, but only who professeth an error); or who knows, that the point, for the nonconformity to which required of him he deserts the Church, is a Truth, and the contrary, which he maintains, an error. But Dr. Hammond 
† Of Schism. p. 23. 24. 25.  tells you. That he that doth communinate with those [I suppose he means superiors] the condition of whose Communion contains nothing really erroneous, or sinful, though the doctrine, so proposed as the condition of their Communion, be apprehended by him, to whom it is thus proposed, to be false,, remains in Schism. Soc. And, at this rate, all those, who separate from the Church, requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth, will be Schismatics, (and that, whether in a point fundamental, or not Fundamental,) though they have used all the industry, all the means, they can (except this, the relying on their Superiors judgement) not to err; unless you will say, that all truths, even not Fundamental, are in Scripture so clear, that none using a right industry, can (neither) err in them; which not Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto.  
§. 34 Prot. But we may let this pass, for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture (and so you void of such excuse): was in a point Essential, and Fundamental, and in which a wrong belief destroys any longer Communion of a particular, Person, or Church, with the Catholic. Soc. This I utterly deny; nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me, for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals, Necessaries, or Essentials, from those points that are not so; as hath been showed already. And as Mr. Stillingfleet 
† p. 73.  urgeth concerning Heresy, so may I concerning Schism:— What are the measures whereby we ought to judge, what things are essential to the being of Christianity, or of the Church? Whether must the Church's judgement be taken, or every man's own judgement: if the former, the Ground of Schism lies still in the Church's definition, contrary to what Protestants affirm: if the latter: then no one can be a Schismatic, but he, that opposeth that, of which he is, or may be convinced, that it is a Fundamental, or essential matter of Faith. If he be only a Schismatic, that opposeth that, of which he is convinced; then no man is a Schismatic, but he that goes against his present judgement; and so there will be few Schismatics in the world; If he, that opposeth that, which he may be convinced of; then again, it is that, which he may be convinced of, either in the Church's judgement, or in his own: if in the Churches; it comes to the same issue, as in the former: If in his own, how, I pray, shall I know, that I may be convinced of what, using a due endeavour, I am not convinced already? or, how shall I know, when a due industry is used? and, if I cannot know this, how should I ever settle myself unless it be upon Authority, which you allow not. Again, I am taught, that any particular, whether person, or Church, may judge for themselves with the Judgement of Discretion: And, in the matter of Christian Communion.— 
† Stillingf. p. 292.  That nothing can be more unreasonable, than that the Society [Suppose it be a Council] imposing conditions of its Communion [Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so] should be Judge, whether those conditions be just, and equitable, or no: And especially in this case, where a considerable Body of- Christians judge such things, required, to be unlawful conditions of communion, what justice, or reason is there, that the party accused should sit judge in his own cause? Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatic if he is constituted the judge, whether the reason of his separation is just. Soc. And in the other way, there can never be any just cause of separation at all, if the Church-Governors, from whom I separate, are to judge, whether that be an error, for which I separate.  
§. 35 Prot. It seems something that you say; But yet though, upon such consideration, a free use of your own judgement, as to providing for your own Salvation, is granted you; yet, methinks, in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it, since several Churches, having of late taken liberty to examine by God's Word more strictly the corrupt doctrines of former ages, yet these reformed, as well as the other unreformed, stand opposite to you; and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures, nor those professing to follow Tradition, and Church authority; neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgement, nor those indulging Christian liberty, countenance your doctrine. But you stand also reformers of the reformation, and separated from all.  
Soc. Soft a little. Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches; or also (if you will) from the whole Church that was before Luther; yet I both enjoy the external Communion, and think I have reason to account myself a true member, of the Churches reform; and as I never condemned them, or thought Salvation not attainable in them; so neither am I (that I know of) excluded by, or from, them; so long as I retain my opinion in silence, and do not disturb their peace; and I take myself also on these terms to be a member, in particular, of the Church of England, wherein I have been educated. For all these Churches (as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees) do not require of their Subjects to yield any internal assent to their doctrines; or to profess any thing against their conscience, and in Hypocrisy; and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion, which they so much condemn in that Church, from which, for this very thing, they were forced to part Communion, and to reform. Of this matter, thus, Mr. Whitby 
† p. 100 — Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees? Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement?— They do not require, that we should in all things believe, as they believe; but that we should submit to their determination, and not contradict them; their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to peace, and unity— So that their work is rather to silence, than to determine disputes, etc.— and p. 438. We grant a necessity, or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies, but how? Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees, upon the sole authority of the Council; but by silencing our disputes, and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any public opposition to it, keeping our opinions to ourselves— A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered, or not, in Scripture, we think aught to be allowed; for faith cannot be compelled; and by taking away this liberty from men, we should force them to become Hypocrites, and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve.— And see Mr. Stillingfleets— rational account, p. 104. where, speaking of the obligation to the 39 Articles, he saith,— That the Church of England, excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrine, supposing her fallible; the Roman Church excommunicates all, who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly true.— That the Church of England blindeth men to peace to her determinations, reserving to men the liberty of their judgements on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace. For it is plain on the one side, where a Church pretends infallibility, the excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to what she defines: But where a Church doth not pretend to that, the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act, whereby the Church's peace is broken. And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace, no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it; which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve herself in unity; but where it is given out, that the Church is infallible, the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable, because it is against those internal acts of the mind, over which the Church as such, hath no direct power.— And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall 
† Schism guarded, p. 192.  To the same sense,— We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of Christ, and his Apostles; but, in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. By which we see what vast difference there is, between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace, and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome etc. Lastly, thus Mr. Chillingworth 
† p. 200.  of the just authority of Councils and Synods (beyond which the Protestant Synods, or Convocations pretend not.)— The Fathers of the Church (saith he) in after times [i. e. after the Apostles] might have just cause to declare their judgement, touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed: but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation, what warrant they had, I know not: He that can show either that the Church of all ages was to have this authority; or, that it continued in the Church for some ages, and then expired: He, that can show, either of these things let him; for my part I cannot. Yet I willingly confess the judgement of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that (without apparent reason to the contrary) it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for public peace sake. [Thus much, as the Protestant Synods seem contented with, so I allow.]— Again p. 375. He saith—, Any thing besides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable, consequences of it, Well may Protestants hold it, as matter of opinion; but, as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. Thus he, now I suppose that either no Ptotestant Church or Synod will style the Son's coequal Godhead with the Father a plain, irrefragable, indubitable Scripture, or consequence thereof, about which is, and hath been so much contest; or, with as much reason, they may call whatever points they please such, however controverted, and then, what is said here signifies nothing.  
§ 36 Prot. Be not mistaken, I pray: especially concerning the Church of England. For though she, for several points, imposed formerly by the tyranny of the Roman Church, hath granted liberty of opinion; or at least freed her subjects from obligation to believe so in them, as the Church formerly required, yet, as to exclusion of your doctrine, she professeth firmly to believe the 3. Creeds; and, concerning the additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first, Dr. Hammond 
† Of Fundamentals p. 90.  acknowledgeth:— That they being thus settled by the universal Church, were, and still are in all reason, without disputing, to be received and embraced by the Protestant Church, and every meek member thereof, with that reverence, that is due to Apostolic truths; with that thankfulness, which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions, for their seasonable, and provident propugning our faith; with such timely and necessary application to practice, that the Holy Ghost, speaking to us now, under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches, (Christ's mediate successors in the Prophetic, Pastoral, Episcopal, Office) as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament, sent immediately by him, may find a cheerful audience, and receive all uniform submission from us. Thus, Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds. She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 first General Councils: And the Act 1. Eliz. 
† cap. 1.  declares Heresy, that, which hath been adjudged so by them; now in the definitions of these first 4. General Counclls your tenant hath received a mortal wound. † But lastly, the 4th. Canon in the English Synod held 1640. 
† Can. 4.  particularly style Socinianism a most damnable, and cursed Heresy, and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England: and orders that any, convicted of it, be excommunicated, and not absolved, but upon his repentance, and abjuration. Now further than this [namely, excommunication upon conviction.] No other Church I suppose hath, or can proceed against your Heresy; It being received as a common axiom in the Canon Law; that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis,— And— cogitationis poenam nemo patitur.— And— Ob peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest. And in all Churches every one, of what internal persuasion soever, continues externally at least a member thereof, till the Church's censures do exclude him.  
§ 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth, assenteth to, and teacheth, what she judgeth evident in the Scripture; for so she ought; what she believes, or assenteth to, I look not after, but what she enjoins. Now I yield all that obedience in this point, that she requires from me; and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son. Prot. what obedience, when as you deny one of her chiefest, and most fundamental, doctrines? Soc. If I mistake not her principles, she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrines, but only, 1st, silence, or noncontradiction 
† See Disc. 3 § 84. n. 2. & n. 4. , or 2ly, a conditional belief, i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof. Now in both these I most readily obey her. For the 1st, I have strictly observed it, kept my opinion to myself; unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it; but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse; and for the 2d, whether actual conviction, or sufficient proposal, be made the condition of my assent, or submission of judgement, I am conscious to myself of no disobedience, as to either of these; for an actual conviction I am sure I have not: and supposing, that I have had a sufficient proposal, and do not know it, my obedience, upon the Protestant principles, can possibly advance no further, than it now doth. The Apostles Creed I totally embrace, and would have it the standing bound of a Christian Faith. For other Creeds: I suppose, no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicen Creed, than is required to those of the Athanasian. And, of what kind the necessity is of believing those, Mr. Stillingfleet states on this manner 
† p. 70.71. — That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary, either as to the matter, because the matter to believed is in itself necessary; or because of the clear conviction of men's understandings, that though the matters be not in themselves necessary; yet being revealed by God, they must be explicitly believed: but then, the necessity of this belief doth extend no further, than the clearness of the conviction doth. Again: that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition [upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality] doth depend up on the Conviction, that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed. And, where that is not received as an antecedent principle, the other cannot be supposed. [Now this principle neither I, nor yet Protestants, accept] Then he concludes— That as to the Athanasian Creed [and the same it is for the Nicen] It is unreasonable to imagine, that the Church of England doth own this necessity, purely on the account of the Church's definition of those things which are not fundamental, it being directly contrary to to her sense in her 19th. and 20th. Articles. [Now, which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental, she defines nothing nor do the 19, 20. or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Church's Definitions, even as to Fundamentals.] And hence, that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must, according to the sense of the Church of England, be resolved, either into the necessity of the matters, or into that necessity, which supposeth clear conviction, that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation. Thus he. Now, for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed, that it is in itself necessary; or, that they are divine Revelations, I do most readily yield my faith, and assent thereto. Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected.  
§. 38 The Act 1ᵒ Eliz. allows no Definitions of the 1st. General Councils in declaring Heresy, but with this limitation, that, in such Councils, such things be declared Heresy by the express, and plain words of the Canonical Scripture. On which terms I also accept them.  
§ 39 Dr. Hammond affirming: That all additions settled by the Universal Church [if he means General Councils] are in all reason, without disputing, to be received as Apostolical Truths, that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches, Christ's Successors, may receive all uniform submission from us, suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned. 
† See before §. 26.  For thus (if I rightly understand him) all the definitions of General Councils, and, of the Christian Governors in all ages, as these being still Christ's Successors, are to be, without disputing, embraced as truths Apostolical.  
§ 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signify any more, than this; That any person, convicted of Socinianism (i. e. by publishing his opinion) shall, upon such conviction, be excommunicated; and if it be understood adequate to this. Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri, Anathema sit, and, that the Church of England, for allowing her Communion, is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism, but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary; then, I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like anathemas or exactions of assent required by that of Trent, or other late Councils, or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here: the reason of such faulting them is, because these require assent, not being lawful General Councils, such reason will not pass; 1st. Because, neither the English Synod, exacting assent in this point, is a General Council. 2ly. Because: it is the Protestant tenant, that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions. Or, if it be affirmed (either of General, or Provincial Councils) that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees: Viz. Those evidently true, and divine Revelation; such as Consubstantiality is; but may not to others; Viz. Those not manifested by them to be such; then, before we can censure any Council for its anathemas, or its requiring of assent, we must know, whether the point, to which assent is required, is, or is not, evident divine Revelation. And then; by whom, or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged, or decided? for those that judge this, who ever they be, do sit now upon the trial of the rightness, or mistake, of the judgement of a General Council? Or when, think we, will those who judge this (i. e. every person for himself) agree in their sentence? Again: If, on the other side, the former Church in her language, Si quis non crediderit, etc. Anathema sit, be affirmed (to which purpose the  Axioms are urged by you) to mean nothing more, than, Si quis Haresin suam palam profiteatur, & hujus professionis convictis fuerit, Anathema sit, Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such anathemas will be concluded causeless, and unjust. But indeed though, (according to the former sentences), her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion, if wholly concealed, so far, as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated, and lie actually under this censure of the Church, because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears, nor is any damage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby: Yet her Anathema also extends, even to the internal act, or tenet, after the Churches contrary definition known (which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience, and contempt of her authority) so far, as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin; and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christ's Body; though externally he is not as yet so cut off. And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated, before, and without conviction, if externally he doth, or speaketh any thng, whereby he is convincible; and not if there be any thing proved against him, but if any thing at least provable; and such a one, upon this, to be obliged in conscience, not only to confess his heretical opinion, for his being absolved from mortal sin; but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred, for his reinjoying the Church's Communion. Thus you see a rigour in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresy much different from the more mild Spirit, and moderate temper of the reformed.  
§ 41 To conclude. For the enjoying the Protestant Communion, I conceive that, as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrines, it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth (as I do 
† Chillingw. Preface § 39 )— That the doctrine of Protestants, though not that, of all of them, absolutely true, yet is free from all impiety, and from all Error destructive to salvation, or in itself damnable. And 
† Ib § 28. — whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the consent of Protestants, or even of the Church of England, [which, indeed, hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries], that, against the Socinians, and all others whatsoever, I do verily believe, and embrace.— And (which is still the same) 
† Ib. § 39 — I am persuaded, that the constant doctrine of the Church of England, is so pure, and Orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved. [For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it, then, so, is no error, opposite, or destructive to Salvation, held by it, and so, living according to the truths it holds, I may be saved] Again 
† Ib. — I believe, that there is no error in it, which may necessitate, or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the Communion of it, [For, though I believe Antisocinianism, an error; Yet if I hold it not such, as that for it any man may disturb the peace, or aught to renounce the Communion, of this Church, I may profess all this, and yet hold Socinianism.] Lastly as he, 
† Chill. p. 376  so I— Propose me any thing out of the Bible, seem it never so incomprehensible, I will subscribe it with hand, and heart. In other things [that I think not contained in this Book], I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine from me; for I am fully assured, that God doth not, and therefore that men ought not, to require any more of any man, than this; To believe the Scripture to be God's Word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it; and to live according to it. Without pertinacy I can be no Heretic; And 
† Ib. §. 57  endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture, I cannot but, hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready to forsake it, when a more true, and a more probable sense shall appear unto me.— And then, all necessary truth; being plainly set down in Scripture, I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth; and in doing so, my life being answerable to my faith, how is it possible I should fail of Salvation? Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sense. Prot. I see no other cure for you: but that you learn humility and mortification of your understanding (in which lies the most subtle, and perilous of all Prides): And, It will reduce you to Obedience: and this, to Truth; That, with all the Church of God, you may give glory to God the only begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, coessential with God the Father. To which Trinity in Unity, as it hath been from the beginning, and is now, so shall all Honour, and Glory be given, throughout all future ages. Amen.   
FINIS.   

Addenda.  
PAge 30. line 31. After Turkey Add. Brerewood 
Brerw. Enquir. p. 84. & 88  computing the whole Body of Christians in Asia (including also those united with Rome) not to amount to a twentieth part of its inhabitants: and all the Turks Dominions in Europe not to exceed the magnitude of Spain. 
Ib. p. 67.  Throughout whose Dominions also the chief, etc.  
Page 30. line penult. After Field p. 63. Add. And Brerewood's inquire. c. 19 p. 147.  
Page 31 line 17 After reside, Add. (To which in the last place may be added that great Body of the same Communion, that hath long flourished, and daily enlargeth itself, throughout the West-Indies.)  
Page 51 line 4. After [practice] Add. To all these may be further added the early Condemnation, that is found in Antiquity, of those modern tenants of several Protestants in opposition, to a subordination of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, to the utility of Prayer for the Dead, of Invocation of the Saints, Veneration of Saints Relics, set Fasting-days, Festivals, Vigils, Abstinence from certain meats, Monastic vows, especially that of Virginity and Celibacy, Hermitages, Disparity of the Celestial Rewards, and degrees of Glory. The maintainers of which long ago, Arrius 
Vid. Epiphan Haer. 75.— August. Haer. 53. , Jovinian 
Vid. Hieron. contra Jovin.— Austin. Haer. 82. , Vigilantius 
Vid. Hieronym. contra Vigilant. , were condemned as Heretics, (i. e. as opposers of those points, that the general Church practise received and allowed as lawful,) by the Fathers of those times, and being crushed by their Censures were prevented from receiving any further sentence from a Council. Lastly, why was there made a departure from the Church, at least for many of these points, etc.  
Page 66 line 19 After Himself, Add. And so this Person, supposed by Protestants to have been raised up by God to vindicate his Truth, yet was permitted by him to die, in their conceit, a Desertor of it; i. e. reconciled to the doctrine of the Church.  
Page 93 line ult. After exordium unitatis, Add. The Ecclesiasticalunity in which Bishop, Grotius conceiveth so necessary, as that he saith, 
Rivet. Apol. discussio p. 255.  Non posse Protestants inter se jungi, nisi simul jung antur cum iis, qui sedi Romanae coherent; sine qua (saith he) nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen.— Again— Inter causas [divulsionis Ecclesiae] non esse primatum Episcopi Romani secundùm Canon's, favente Melancthone, qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem. Neque enim hoc esse, Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini, sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum. Thus moderate Protestants of the Church's unity founded Supremely, as to single persons, in the Bishop of Rome.  
Page 96 line 15. After, Coeteris, Add. And accordingly, in all those instances, gathered out of Antiquity by Archbishop Lawd, 
§ 24. n. 5.  where inferior Synods have reform abuses in manners, or made Decrees in causes of Faith (as it is willingly granted, many have done) it cannot be showed, that any of them hath done either of these in matters stated, before, contrarily by a Superior Authority (a thing with which Protestants are charged.) Something was, then, stated or reform, by Inferiors without; nothing against, their Superiors.  
Page 103 line 36. After, times, Add. Baron. saith, 
A. D. 358.  That— In tantâ errorum offusâ caligine, qui substantiae Filii Dei assertores essent, a nostris in pretio habebantur, ut pote quod (ut soepius est dictum) nullâ aliâ re viderentur a Catholicis differre, nisi quod vocem Consubstantialitatis non admitterent.  
Page 104 line 8, After, mentioned, Add. So, but that the words are well capable of an Orthodox sense. So that the seventeenth and twenty sixth Articles in the first Sirmian Confession as they are understood by Sozomen in the Semi-Arrian 
l. 5. c. , so are they (compared with the antecedents) expounded by St. Hillary 
De Synodis.  in a Catholic sense. The Semi-Arrian Bishops, it seems, etc.  
Page 125 line ult. After errores, Add. And Ib. q. 5. a. 3.— Omnibus articulis fidei inhaeret fidei propter unum medium, sci: propter veritatem primam propositam a nobis in Scriptures, secundùm doctrinam Ecclesiae, sane intelligendis. See several Authorities to this purpose collected by Fr. a S. Clara in System. Fid. c. 7.  
Page 206 line 3. After, Accesserunt, Add. Concerning, 1, the corruption of humane nature and bondage under sin; 2 Justification gratuital, and 3, Christ's Sacerdotal Office, thus he censures ancient Church-Tradition 
Resp. ad Cassand. offic. Pii viri in Cassand. oper. p. 802. — Verum, si quid in controversiam vocetur, quia flexibile est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [the holy Scriptures] inter nasi cerei si absque Traditionis subsidio, quicquam definire fas non sit, quid jam fiet praeciputs Fidei nostrae capitibus? Tria solum, exempli causa proferam, 1. Naturae nostrae corruptio, & misera animae servitus, sub peccati Tyrannide, 2. Gratuita justificatio, 3. Et Christi Sacerdotium, apud vetustissimos Scriptores ita obscurè attingitur, ut nulla inde certitudo possit elici.— Si ex eorum Traditione haurienda sit cognitio salutis nostrae, jacebit omuis Fiducia, quia ex illis nunquam discemus, quomodo Deo reconciliemur; quomodo illuminemur a Spiritu sancto, & formemur in obsequium justitiae; quomodo gratis accepta nobis feratur Christi obedientia; quid valeat sacrificium mortis ejus, & continua pro nobis intercessio; quarum rerum luculenta explicatio in Scripturâ passim occurrit. Itaque (novo hoc Magistro [Cassandr] Authore,) quaecunque ad salutem apprimè cognitu necessaria sunt, non tantùm manebunt semisepulta, sed, quia nulla Traditio suffragatur [i. e. in Antiquity] certitudine carebunt. Thus he, And it is very true, that of such a Doctrine, as many Protestants deliver in these matters, no footsteps will be found in antiquity; and that nulla Traditio suffragabitur.  
Page 230 line 35. After, censetur, Add. And Ib. q. 5. ar. 3.— Si quis non pertinaciter discredit articulum Fidei, paratus sequi in omnibus doctrinam Ecclesiae, jam non est haereticus, sed solùm errans.  
Page 342 line 28. After, Prot. Add. No person, that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversy (as those Bishops, you have mentioned, were in the cause of Arrius) can rightly, or properly, be said to be on that side, for which he gives sentence, a Party. Nor doth their giving sentence once against any side prejudice them (as enemies, or opposites, or interessed,) from sitting on the Bench, as oft as need requires, to pass it again, alone, or with others. But, if every one may be afterward called an Anti-Party, who once declareth himself of a contrary Judgement, I perceive, etc.  
FINIS.