municating with them in Sacraments, he hath received an DISCOURsk 173 account formerly; and of our ministers wanting power to offer Sacrifice, he shall receive a just account in due place. SECTION THE EIGHTH. I said that a man might render himself guilty of heretical Four ways pravity four ways; to incur heretical [First way.] First, "by disbelieving any fundamental article of Faith, pravity. or necessary part of saving truthd." For though fundamentals only be simply necessary to be known of all Christians, yet there are many other truths revealed by God, which being known are as necessary to be believed as the fundamentals themselves. And to discredit any one of these lesser truths, after it is known that God hath revealed it, is as much as to deny the truth of God, or to deny all the fundamentals put together. Against this he urgeth, that "heresy is incurred by disbelieving any point of faith whatsoever, if it be sufficiently proposede." Right; if it be so proposed that a man knows it to be a revealed truth, or might know it, if he did not obstinately shut his eyes against evident light. But the Church of Rome is no such sufficient or infallible proposer, that every man is bound to receive its determinations as oracles. But R. C. leaves these words out of my discourse, "or necessary part of saving truth," that is, necessary to some persons, in some places, at some times, to whom they are sufficiently revealed. Is this fair dealing? Secondly, I said that heresy was incurred, "by believing [Second way.] superstitious errors or additions, which do virtually and by evident consequence overthrow a fundamental truth." This is denied by R. C. because "Faith is an assent to Divine revelations upon the authority of the revealer," and therefore "is neither gotten nor lost, nor heresy incurred, by consequences." Doth he not know, that whosoever believeth a revealed truth, doth of necessity believe all the evident con PART I. [Third and 1. The power of general sequences of it? As he that believes that Christ is God, doth of necessity believe that He is eternal. And if he maintain that "erat quando non erath". "there was a time when He was not," he doth implicitly deny His Deity, and incur the crime of heresy. Hath he forgotten what their own doctors do teach, that 'a conclusion of faith may be grounded upon one proposition inevident' (that is, revealed) and another proposition evidenti' (that is, not revealed but evident in itself)? The hypostatical union of the two Natures, Divine and human, in Christ, is a fundamental truth; that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, that Christ had both a Divine and human will, are evident consequences of this truth, not expressly revealed: yet for denying the former Nestorius, for denying the latter the Monothelites, were condemned as heretics. Thirdly, heresy may be incurred by obstinate persisting in lesser errors, after a man is convicted in his conscience that they are errors, either out of animosity-because he scorns to yield, or out of covetous, ambitious, or other sinister ends. And, lastly, heresy is incurred by a froward and peevish opposition to the decrees of a general Council, to the disturbing of the peace and tranquillity of the Church. Against these two last ways of incurring heresy, R. C. saith nothing directly, but upon the by he taxeth me of two errors. First, that I "say, 'No Council can make that a point of Faith, which was not ever such'."" We agree in this, that no Council can make that a fundamental, which was not a fundamental, nor make that a Councils. revealed truth, which was not a revealed truth. I acknowledge further, that a general Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary to be believed; that is, whensoever the reasons and grounds produced by the Council, or the authority of the Council (which is, and always ought to be, very great with all sober discreet Christians), do * [“Ην ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,” was one of the original Arian degmas. Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 5.] i Bellarm., De Eccles. Milit., lib. iii. c. 15. [Op., tom. i. p. 1281. D.] III. convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's DISCOURSE definition. In doubtful questions, if there be no miscarriage, no packing of votes, no fraud used in the Council, like that in the Council of Ariminum for receiving "Christ" and rejecting "homoousios," and if the determination be not contrary to the tradition of the Church, who would not rather suspect his own judgment, than a general Council's? I confess yet further, that, when a general Council hath determined any controversy, no man may oppose its determination, but every one is bound to acquiesce and possess his soul in patience, though he be not convicted in his conscience of the truth of their sentence. And if any man out of peevishness or stubbornness shall oppose their definition to the disturb ance of the peace and tranquillity of the Church, he deserves to be punished as a heretic. Then wherein lies the difference? First, in R. C. his misreciting my words according to his ordinary custom. I said only this, that a Council could not "make that proposition heretical in itself, which was not ever heretical," nor "increase the necessary articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance." What I said is undeniably true. First, "in itself," that is, in its own nature, without any reference to the authority of a Council. And, "necessary articles of the Christian Faith," that is, absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians. If the proposition were heretical in itself, then they that held it before the Council were heretics, as well as they who hold it after the Council. And that is a necessary article of the Christian Faith, without the actual belief whereof Christians could never be saved. confirma general This is sufficient to answer his objection. But for the The Pope's reader's satisfaction I add moreover, that the Romanists tion adds believe a general Council, not only to be fallible without the nothing to concurrence and confirmation of the Pope (whose privilege Councils. and prerogative the most of them do make the sole ground of the Church's infallibility), but also without his concurrence to have often erred actually; but with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope, they make the determination of a general Council to be infallible. On the other side we know [A. D. 359. Ruffin., Hist. Eccles., lib. x. c. 21.-August. (?), Opus Imperf. cont. Julian., lib. i. c. 76, tom. x. p. 919. F. Hieron., Adv. Lucifer., tom. PART 2. Acquiescence to no such infallibility of the Pope, but the contrary. After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave, spoiled him of his pontifical attire, cut off his two fingers, and cast his body into Tiber, it "became an usual thing with the following Popes, either to infringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors"." Neither was this act of Stephen an error merely "in matter of fact," but principally in matter of Faith,-that the Episcopal character is deleble. We know no suchconfirmation needful, nor of any more force than the single vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolical Church. And therefore we give the same privileges to a Council unconfirmed (which they acknowledge to be fallible) and to a Council confirmed by the Pope. We have no assurance that all general Councils were and ever shall be so prudently managed, and their proceedings 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. If R. C. be not of my mind, others of his own Church have been, and are at this day; whom I forbear to cite, because I presume it will not be denied. In sum, I know no such 'virtual' Church as they fancy. Antiquity never knew it. I owe obedience (at least of acquiescence) to the 'representative' Church; and I resolve for ever to adhere (to the best of my understanding) to the united communion of the whole essential' Church, which I believe to be so far infallible, as is necessary for attaining that end, for which Christ bestowed this privilege, that is, salvation. Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice, or subterfuge, to decline the authority of general Councils. I know none we need to fear. And I do freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly general, which he shall produce in this question. As for Occidental Councils, they are far from being general. My other supposed error is, that I say, that "though a the decrees Christian cannot assent in his judgment" to every decree of a general Council, yet "he ought to be silent," and possess necessary. his soul in patience :—that is, until God give another oppor of a general Council is n Platin., [in Vitâ Stephani VI., p. 136, 2.] 0 [Bellarm., De Roman. Pontif., lib. iv. c. 12, Op. tom. i. p. 999. D.] III. tunity, and another Council sit, wherein he may lawfully with DISCOURSE modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary. This (he saith) is to "bind men to be hypocrites and dissemblers in matter of religion, and by their silence to suppress and bury Divine truth," and brings them within the compass of St. Paul's woe; "Woe be unto me, if I evangelize not P." 1 Cor. ix. [16.] Excellent doctrine, and may well serve for a part of the rebels' Catechism. Because my superior is not infallible, if I cannot assent unto him, must I needs oppose him publicly, or otherwise be guilty of hypocrisy and dissimulation? If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions, am I obliged to tell the world, that this is "to suppress or bury Divine truth?" If he shall by his authority suspend a particular pastor from the exercise of his pastoral office, must he needs preach in defiance of him, or else be guilty of St. Paul's woe, "Woe be unto me, because 175 I preach not the Gospel?" I desire him to consult with Bellarmine;―" All Catholics do agree, that if the Pope alone, or the Pope with a particular Council, do determine any controversy in religion,-whether he can err, or whether he cannot err, he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians"." May not I observe that duty to a general Council, which all Roman Catholics do pay to the Pope? or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience? Certainly these things were not well weighed. SECTION THE NINTH. meant by land. ] Where I say, that "by the Church of England in this [What is question I understand that Church, which was derived by the Church lineal succession from British, English, and Scottish Bishops, of Engby mixed ordination, as it was legally established in the days of Edward the Sixth, and flourished in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles; and now groans under the heavy yoke of persecution"," to let us see what a habit of alteration is, he excepts against every word of this. First, against the "lineal succession," because none of |