most firmly the principle and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation but are easily admitted to one anothers communion So the Roman or rather all the visible Church of God before Luther whether Eastern or Western in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour upon which ground they worship it to worship a meer Creature and so to commit idolatry and give God's honour to another yet this Church holding the contrary principle That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental nor are those unconvinced of their error dying in the Roman communion and in this practice by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 3. p. 78. sect 4. p. 123. But note That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points to regulate and guide our belief and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof because here contrary to the Supposition made before we have a sufficient proposal of the truth or an authorized proposer what in such doubtful points we are to hold For if we know or being impartial might know that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment we are convinced by this authority determining as well as by arguments proving Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place the set number of which varying so much according to several persons and conditions yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can tending any way to their Salvation can much less be prescribed than of the former The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility or Whether we cannot savingly and with such a faith as God requires believe some divine truth unless we be infallibly certain that it is a divine truth 1. First then concerning the object of Saving Faith It is true and granted that the object thereof is only God's Word and that this Word is infallible and that since God cannot lye fidei non potest subesse falsum Which saying refers not to the act but the matter of faith i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false because it is the Word of God which is apprehended by this Faith Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on or ultimately resolved into something which is infallible i. e. God's Word whether this be written or not written and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter tho we may unfeignedly for the act believe any thing but what is certainly true Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word and 2. that it be believed by us to be so So the Schools Fides non assentit alicui nisi quia est a Deo revelatum And 3ly that this word be believed to be utterly infallible From whence this therefore follows 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith 2ly That Faith believing any thing which is true yet not as divine revelation or God's word or this word not to be infallible is no divine or saving faith So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon But our Quaere goes further Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith that we not only believe what is God's infallible word but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty and assurance which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church and Tradition 1. First it seems that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these these again both the authority of the Scriptures and of the Church do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition By which I mean * a Tradition so universal as these things are rationally considering all circumstances capable of i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth and * a Tradition so full and sincere as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute 1. For first supposing the Church infallible yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition which universal Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof and not from the testimony of Scripture and so escapes a circular proof The series then of proof is this The Church is proved infallible at least in Necessaries from our Saviour's promise of assisting her c testified in Scripture These Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from universal Tradition and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible from the evidence and nature of it self because it is morally i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature impossible for so many men of so many ages so dis-interested to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter Or as some others express it such Tradition tho it were not so plenary as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church must be allowed to be infallible from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs amongst which are Miracles as it is contrary to the veracity of God supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship to permit that they should be fallacious The series of the probation runs thus The Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from the testimony of the Church which testimony of the Church or of so many people so qualified is proved to be infallible not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture for thus the proof would run in a circle tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid tho it be true also that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony but as being so universal a Tradition or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed as it is morally impossible especially considering God's veracity and providence that it should deceive us But as I said to prove the Church the other way to be infallible i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures which Scriptures to be divine we learn only from the Church Or more plainly thus to prove the Church to be infallible in
applies a divine revelation which really exists in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith The reason of this seems clear because altho a truth which I know only by probable assent is not certain to me yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that time for which it is c. Thus he The sum of which is That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent but only from God's concourse See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36 37. de resol fid saying the like 2. Again in the 2d place it may be inferred * That receiving of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not necessary to true faith or * That one may truly believe some who doth not believe all the points of faith which the Church proposeth or any for or upon her proposal or lastly * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof I willingly grant here 1. first That he who believes aright any divine truth must believe that it is revealed by God or that God hath said it and That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God can believe no other thing at all as he ought that is as from divine revelation he must believe all such or none at all aright 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation as of the Scriptures or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition I accord that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God but such as he knows to be proposed to him by the Church or Tradition to be such either immediately in her exposition of obscure Scriptures or mediately in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture and therefore that who denies this authority in some points suppose in those points where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points according to the Schools Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae i. e. in omnibus quae proponit omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult quae non vult non tenet non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae sed propriae voluntati But note that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati because he may hold such tenents not quia vult but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point That Scripture is God's word So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture because containing something opposite to their opinions could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest because that Scripture they refused came recommended to them by as much and the same authority as that they accepted But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition because for the former concession it is one thing to believe such a truth to be divine revelation another to be rationally assured thereof the first we grant is the second I think we have proved not to be necessary to all true faith For the second tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit nor upon that principle can believe one thing unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe as I think is before-proved And hence it follows that one may truly believe some other points of faith who doth not believe this point in particular That the Church or Universal Tradition is infallible Thus much * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in every believer to render his faith true divine and salvifical * and of the erring in some one article it s not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest But to conclude this Discourse Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed 1. First that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense that is in rendring his faith in other points tho not false yet non-salvifical to him 2. Again he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church known to him to be so in some point not absolutely necessary I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation as some points there are so necessary tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife yet this opposition in that error is by the common doctrine of the Church accounted so great a crime as that unrepented of it renders his true faith being destitute of due obedience and charity unprofitable for his salvation which I thought fit here to mind you of that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries as long as he stands tho in some as he accounts smaller points after sufficient proposal in opposition and disobedience to the Church i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters See before § 50. 3. And lastly if this Article of Faith That the Church'es authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed or at least so supreme that none may in any wise dissent from her determination can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation to be by every Christian believed then since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article it must follow That every one that opposeth the Church is also from his disbelief of this Article excluded from salvation FINIS OF INFALLIBILITY CONTENTS PART 1. COncerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed § 1 2. 1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant writers § 3. Where How far points necessary are to be extended § 4. That the Church not private men is to define what points be necessary § 6. If these points be necessary at all to be defined and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals § 7. 2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all § 8. 3. Infallibility Universal in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth is not affirmed by the Roman writers §
himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are †Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the H. Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5. 36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. 15. 19. 2 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. Mar. 16. 20. required belief and submission to their doctrine And †Universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus his being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Paul's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jerusalem received from Jesus working miracles and raised from the Dead as Universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Church'es doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the doctrines of the Church and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scriptures very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bid us Hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult in which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17. 8 9 10. Matt. 18. 17. Lu. 10. 16. cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that text Gal. 1. 8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Church-men shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these be Anathema to you But rather it saith this If an Angel or I apostatizing as some shall Act. 20. 30. shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received i. e. from the Church let him c. which makes for the Church'es authority very much The Scriptures then recommending tryal do no way warrant to us a tryal of the publick doctrines of the Church by our private sence upon the Scriptures that so we should adhere to it against them but a tryal of the doctrines of private teachers by the Churches publick sence of the Scriptures that in adhering to it we may be always secure 5ly They question since there are many present divided Churches to the judgment of which of them they shall repair I answer Had this question bin asked an hundred years ago in Luther's time any one could have solved it What any one would have done then let him do now since all grant that the Church which was then Catholick is not changed since in its doctrines or practices only some men are since gone out of it and he may know by this that he is not to follow them because they are gone out if he resolve once to be a follower of the Church'es authority All or most of modern controversies either Councils which the present Church allows have decided or collectively the solution of them may be known by the agreeing tenets of particular Churches and their Bishops even before and without any General Councils Most of the decrees of the Council of Trent tho it should stand for nothing yet we must grant were the general tenets and practice of the present Church of that age and of many ages before that and many Councils also which must be granted at least Patriarchal or Provincial have decided the points now in controversy or many of the most considerable of them and we find no other superior Synod at all contradicting them in those or later times but the same things ratified by the general practice which followed If therefore there was a church Catholick in those days that had or exercised any authority and this I think we confess in our Creed surely such tenets were established by it neither can we acknowledge one Holy and Apostolick Church in those times save only that by whom such things were used and by whom also many of them decreed After that therefore we have once yeilded to conform in our judgment or in not-contradiction to the Church we need not demand and expect for these things a future General Council for we are judged already we learning what is the Church'es judgment sufficiently by the decrees of former Councils Provincial at least which with this universal practice following them are equivalent to General Els many ancient heresies as Pelagianism c remain yet uncondemned in the Church these having bin censured only by Councils Provincial whose judgments afterward were generally approved and by the general practice of that Church which Church we cannot deny to be the same with that which once was the total Catholick and which is also now if we look after the major part of the Church the greatest communion of Christians Such things as these are said and you must tell me what I must reply to them And indeed if Protestants saw no eminent Church to which if all her decisions were made authentical men would presently apply themselves their contention would not be so earnest against our ascribing too much to the Church'es authority But suppose say they that the church present determin things against Scripture and against the former Church Why may not I say I again as well suppose you who think thus of the present Church to mistake Scripture and the former Church your selves and why may I not say again to you suppose that she err in fundamentals where are you that in these do follow her judgment Yes but the fundamentals she directs me in are more plainly set down in Scripture Well then since you may not judg against her in the plain may you in other things less plain But say you our Saviour hath promised in these she shall not err Then you need not fear erring with her in the rest for were truth in the rest so necessary as you pretend God could and would here also have made her an infallible directer And we are to know this that the Church may be faulty in something that she enjoyns and yet he that assents to her judgment not be so but faulty he will be if he do not assent Els what shall we answer to Deut. 17. 11 unles we will say
or God's word §. 21. Concessions 1. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only God's Word §. 22. 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition §. 23. That the authority of Scriptures and Church is learn'd from universal Tradition §. 24. §. 25. Concessions concerning Tradition 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether â—â—fallible or no to ground a firm faith upon §. 26. §. 27. §. 28. 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho notabsolutely un versal §. 29. 3. That no one age of the Ch. is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition §. 30. 4. Thaâ— the testimony of the present age is sufficient to inform us therein §. 31. 5. That Tradition of the Ch. is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures §. 32. 6. That the Ch. is a sufficiently certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary §. 33. Digression That all traditions carry not equal certainty §. 34. Where concerning the Church'es and the Heathen and Mahometan Traditions §. 35. 3 Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward mean. §. 36. 1. That all Faith wrought by the Spâ—rit is infallible §. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science c. §. 38. 4. Thâ—t from these concessions it follows not that all who sâ—vingly believe have or must have aninfallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe §. 39. Nâ—iâ—ther from the evidences * of Scriptures §. 40. Nor * of the Spirit §. 41. Nor * of Church-Tradition §. 42. §. 43. For these following Reasons §. 44. §. 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. §. ◠§. 2. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed §. 3. 1 Infallibility of the Church in Necessaries granted both by Catholic and Protestant writers §. 4. Where How for Points necessary are to be extended §. 5. §. 6. That the Church not private men is to define what Points be necessary §. 7. If these points be necessary at all to be defin'd and exactly distinguished from all other her proposals §. 8. 2. Infallibility of the Ch. in matters of universal tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all §. 9. 3. Infallibility universal in whatever the Ch. proposeth delivereth is not affirmed by Catholic writers §. 10. But only in those points which she proposeth tanquam de side or creditu necessaria §. 11. Where conc the several sences wherein points are affirmed or dâ—nied to be de fide §. 12. That as only so all divine revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide. i. e. the oâ—jects and matâ—ters of Faith. And that the Ch. can make nothing to be de Fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c. which was not so always from the Apostolick times §. 13. §. 15. That all divine revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de Fide i. e. creditu necessaria §. 16. And that the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so §. 17. §. 18. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express iâ— only in points clearly traditional §. 19. §. 20. §. 21. §. 22. §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. §. 27. Whether and by what marks those points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de side or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other proposal §. 28. §. 29. Anathema no certain Index thereof PART II. §. 30. Concerning obedience and submission of private judgment whether due to the Ch. supposed not in all her decisions infallible §. 31. §. 32. §. 33. â—â— That no submission of Our judgment is due to the proposal of the Church where we are infailibly certain of the contrary §. 34. 2. That no submission is due to an inferior person or court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superior to repair to for resolution §. 35. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever short of infallible certainty §. 36. §. 37. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture §. 38. 2. From Reason §. 39. Several objections and scruples resolved §. 40. §. 41. §. 42. §. 43. §. 44. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. Conclusion §. 55. §. 56. §. 57. §. 58. §. 59. §. 60. §. 1. §. 2. n. 1. In what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own judgment §. 2. n. 2. §. 2. n. 3. §. 4. 11. 2. §. 3. §. 4. Concerning the church'es lawful authority to excommunicate dissenters in non fundamentals §. 5. §. 6. §. 7. As likewise to decide which points are fundamental which not §. 8. 2 Tim. 4â— 1 Cor. 12. 7 8. §. 9. Several exceptions against obedience of non-contradiction only for non-fundamentals §. 10. §. 11. And that all at least not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in non fundamentals to anobedience of assent Therefore the most are so bound §. 12. Replies to several Objections 1. Concerning an inferior Council's decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned §. 13. 2. Concerning faith salvifical that it is to be infallible §. 14. 3. Concerning union of Charity sufficient §. 15. 4. Concerning tryal of Doctrines necessary §. 16. 5. Concerning what Churches determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to §. 17 §. 18. Conclusion §. 19. Concerning infallible certainty §. 201 1. Infallible certainty excusing all submission of judgment to anyother §. 21. Infallible certainty to be had in some things §. 22. Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. 3. The plea of infallible certainty at least not usable against any general contrary judgment of the Church §. 27. An instance in the controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only AEn Sylv bâ—st Bohem 35. c. §. 28. §. 29. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible cer tainty not excusing one dissenting from the judgment of the Church §. 30. §. 31. An explication of Rom. 14. 23. §. 1. Sufficient truth alway to be found in the Church Yet false Doctors must be 1 Cor. 11. 19. §.
OF FAITH Necessary to SALVATION And of the NECESSARY GROUND OF Faith Salvifical Whether this alway in every Man must be INFALLIBILITY OXFORD Printed in the Year M DC LXXXVIII FIVE SHORT TREATISES I. Concerning Faith Necessary to Salvation II. Of Infallibility III. Concerning the Obligation of not Professing or Acting against our Judgment or Conscience IV. Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors and Trial of Doctrines V. Concerning Salvation possible to be had in a Schismatical Communion Estius in Sent. 3. d. 23. §. 13. Utrum in haereticis vera sit Fides Articulorum in quibus non errant Quaestio est in utramque partem probabiliter a Doctoribus disputata Ibid. Fidei impertinens est per quod medium primae veritati credatur id est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum Fidei Ibid. Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Courteous Reader THese Treatises by divers passages may seem to have been written before the Author was fully united to the Catholick Church So that some things in them are not so cautiously and clearly explained as had himself liv'd to publish them they would have been But we thought it our duty rather to represent them as he left them than to make any breach in the Discourse it self or to pull any threads out of so close and well wrought a contexture CORRIGENDA Page 8. Marg. such points very few p. 9. l. penult necessary besides the assent p. 32. l. 18. and is in some l. 38. some degree of incredulity Of Infallibility Pag. 15. l. 12. tho this can never p. 20. l. 1. pertaining to Faith methinks sufficient ibid. l. 9. in Doctrinals pertaining to Faith certain of truth p. 28. l. 17. But I say he shall never be so Of Submission of Judgment Pag. 30. l. 7. that it was generally practised Trial of Doctrine Pag. 21. l. 18. by most of differing p. 28. l. 5. He may be free l. 7. from the sin of Schisin and invincibly ignorant of the errors which are profess'd in his Communion he may attain in such a Church life everlasting because in desire he is hoped to be of the true Church l. 22. sufficient thro Godâ—s infinite goodness l. 23. crimes and invincibly errs in not-fundamentals errors unknown to them l. 30. we may hope Danger of Schism Pag. 3. l. 13. and if she deny it l. 14. which are accounted THE CONTENTS PART I. 1. COncerning Faith necessary for Salvation § 1. 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith. 2. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of Faith. § 2. 1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe whatever is known by us to be Gods word Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be Gods word which knowledg obliges us afterward to belief § 3. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal § 6. 2. That it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is Gods word be known by us to be so or in general be known by us to be a truth § 10. Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all Such points very few Not easily defined § 13. In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large 2. That it is highly advantageous to salvation that several other points of Gods word besides these be known § 14. 3. And our duty each one according to his calling to seek the knowledg of them In respect of which the Apostles Creed is too narrow § 15. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons c. And § 17. That the Decrees of Councils not obligatory at least to some against a pure nescience but only opposition thereof and not any opposition but only when known to be their Decrees PART II. II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical whether it must be in every Believer an Infallibility that the matter of such Faith is a Divine truth or Gods word § 20. Concessions § 21. I. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only Gods word II. Concerning the Act of Faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition § 22. That the Authority of Scriptures and Church is learnt from Universal Tradition § 23. Concessions concerning Tradition § 25. 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether infallible or no to ground a firm Faith upon 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho such Tradition be not absolutely Universal § 28. 3. That no one Age of the Church is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition § 29. 4. That the testimony of the present Age is sufficient to inform us therein § 30. 5. That Tradition of the Church is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures § 31. 6. That the Church is a sufficiently-certain Guide to us in Doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary § 32. Digr 1. That all Traditions carry not equal certainty § 33. Digr 2. The difference between the Church's and Mahometan and Heathen Traditions III. Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit § 35. Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward means 2. That all Faith wrought by the Spirit is infallible § 36. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science § 37. IV. That from these Concessions it follows not that all who savingly believe have or must have an infallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe § 38. Neither from the evidence of Scriptures § 39. Nor of the Spirit § 40. Nor of Church-Tradition § 41. For these following reasons § 43. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons § 51. CONCERNING FAITH necessary to SALVATION AND Of the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether This always in every Man ought to be Infallibility SIR YOU have importuned me to communicate to You my opinion on these four Queries as being you say the chief subjects which are debated by our modern Controvertists and in which if one side should gain the victory there would follow a speedy decision of most other Theological Controversy The First concerning FAITH What or how much is necessary for our Salvation The Second concerning Infallibity in this Faith Whether it be necessary in every Believer to render his Faith Divine and Salvifical The Third concerning the Infallibility of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Fourth concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible For the two latter I must remain for a while your Debter On the two former I have returned you as briefly as
implicit faith is accepted whether in our defects or also errors in matters of faith implicit faith being then only serviceable to us where faith explicit considering due circumstances cannot be attained by us Now what is said hitherto concerning knowledge of the Scriptures may be applied to the knowledge of the Church our guide in the Scriptures and the obedience due to her For he who believes 1. Either that the Church is infallible in her proposals to him what is the word of God or 2. That tho fallible in some things yet she is appointed in those things to be his Judge and the final determiner of them 3. or at least that in the exposition of the sense of Scriptures her judgment is better than his own such a one is bound to believe any thing to be God's word if she affirm it to him to be so And he who doth not believe any of these things of the Church is not presently therefore unobliged to her proposals unless he hath unpartially examined this matter and so finds no just cause to believe any such thing of her wisdom or authority as is pressed upon him For when some argue thus There is no danger to me in so or so disobeying the Church where she ought to be obeyed if having used the uttermost examination I can both of the point and of my own dis-interest I can find no such obedience due to her t is well reasoned tho such obedience were indeed due to her if we grant the Supposition that he hath examined to the uttermost who yet after all remains mistaken for a mistaking examination where there is no further power to discover it is no more blameable than a true one and in this case invincible ignorance or incapacity excuseth And God doubtless imposeth nothing to be believed by us under the penalty of sinning but that he gives sufficient arguments to evidence it to all men endued with the use of reason and void of prejudice and passion But hence is our error that we take an imperfect trial and examination for a compleat and suddenly rest in the dictate of our conscience un or mis-informed which is virtually a going against it and to God must we answer both for such a blind conscience and all the acts of disobedience that flow from it Thus much concerning our obligation to seek after the knowledge of all divine truth and concerning sufficient proposal and that upon this whatever appears to be God's word is necessary to our salvation to be assented to and believed But this granted in the second place you are to observe that it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is God's word be known to us to be so or be known by us to be a Truth For of these parts of God's word which are proposed to us some there are which concern the business of our salvation and again some others which do not as some passages of history and perhaps some subtle consequences of some beneficial point of Faith c Hence therefore ariseth a twofold necessity of belief either only in respect of proposal because we know they are God's word or besides proposal in respect of our salvation because they are some way advantageous thereto Now concerning the first of these tho such things once evidently proposed are necessary to be assented to or rather not dissented from yet it is not necessary at all that they should be either proposed to us or known by us but we may be ignorant of or also err in them without any sin any danger Concerning the second Divine Truths necessary to be believed with relation to our salvation may be taken either in a more strict or in a more large sense Taken in the most strict sense they are such articles or points of faith as without which actually known and believed none at all can possibly enter into heaven and escape damnation and of which not only the denial or opposition but the pure nescience and ignorance is a defect of faith to all adulti absolutely irremissible And these must needs be very few since we must make them no more than the knowledge whereof may be attained by the most illiterate indocile and the lowest conditions of men And likely according to the several degrees of the proposal and revelation of the mysterys of salvation fewer of these are required in some times as those before the Gospel than in some others as those since it Yet that now also in the greatest illumination there are but few we may gather both * from the short abridgment of faith the Apostles proposed in their Sermons to the people commonly including the Articles of the Passion and Resurrection and Kingdom of Jesus the Son of God and of David and the remission of sins to the penitent thro his Name and * from the yet shorter Confessions of Faith which the Apostles accepted as sufficient for bestowing of Baptism i. e. for admitting men to salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven so that in that instant had they died as the good Thief also did doubtless upon such a small stock of faith they had entred into life eternal See Act. 8. 37. 16. 31 33. Act. 2. 38. 10. 43. Now these absolutely necessary points are either 1. of pure faith or also 2. of practice 1. Again those are either * such wherein we more expresly give honor and glory to God in acknowledging Him and his wisdom and his works such as they are and that is much better and more wonderful than any lye can make them or * such whereby we * nourish our hope concerning good things belonging to our selves obedient and * quicken our fear concerning evil things appertaining to the disobedient Yet are not those amongst them which are most speculative to be thought useless or unprofitable to us even in respect of our practice they all generally conducing to the advancing of our admiration love and affection to God and of our confidence and reliance upon him and so to the animating of our endeavours and obedience accordingly to his commands Nullum est dogma Christianum quod non sit quodammodo necessarium ad praxim So that an orthodox faith in Speculatives is a main ground of a right practice and a strong faith of a zealous practice 2ly Those points of faith which are also of practice are such wherein we learn our duty to God. To particularize something in both these 1. Pure faith absolutely necessary to all in general even to those under the law of nature perhaps * is that faith only Heb. 11. 6. made evident evident enough to all by the works of God. Again faith absolutely necessary to those within the Church before the times of the Gospel is perhaps besides the former faith * a general trust and hope in the Messias to come See Jo. 4. 25. 1. 21. Mat. 2. 5. Jo. 7. 42. Again absolutely necessary to those under the Gospel
believed by us to have bin heavenly inspired and the undoubted word of God and hence the settling of the Canon was no small sollicitude of the Primitive Church a point this of no small consequence for the attaining of Salvation to be believed yet not absolutely necessary since one may be saved without knowing the Scriptures and many were so before these writings * Nothing concerning Ecclesiastical Orders Ordinations Sacraments the Church'es absolving sinners inflicting censures prescribing publick Liturgies points fundamental and so called some of them at least Heb. 6. 2. in respect of the essence and government and unity of the Church tho not in respect of the Salvation of some member thereof Yet why not necessary to every person therein as having reference one way or other to their particular good * Nothing express concerning the obedience due to the Church and her Governours else why do so many deny it who confess the Creed and in it the Catholick Church and yet this a very necessary fundamental also in respect of Christian duties for ignorance whereof whilst especially they will not believe the Church in attesting her own authority how many deprive themselves of the help of her excellent rules not to name here the Evangelical Counsels of Celibacy and emptying our selves of our superfluous wealth recommended to us by her and her many injunctions sovereignly tending to the advancing of piety and bettering of manners which we will suppose here not to be contained in Scripture as frequent confession of sins to the Priest frequent Fasts hours of Prayer Communions which who knows not of how much moment they are for the abstaining from sin acquisition of Christian virtues and so consequently for our Salvation Now the obligation to know and believe these and such like Necessaries of this 2d sort varies according to several persons and conditions and according to the more or less evident proposal of them In this dispute as Dr. Potter acknowledgeth Char. mistak § 7. p. 242. of necessary and fundamental truths both truths and persons must be wisely distinguished The truth may be necessary in one sense that is not so in another and fundamental to some persons in certain respects which is not so to some others 1. * More points ought to be known and believed by one than by another according as more are made manifest to one than another by the Scriptures by the decision of the Church or any other way Where note that before the Church's determination of some points of faith one may have an obligation to believe them when another hath not if before this they be evidenced to him when not to another what I mean by evidence see before § 3. by what means or author soever it be he receives this evidence And after such evidence he that opposeth it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and heretical in God's sight even before that he happens to be declared so by the Church'es censure and is made yet more perversly erroneous after her definitions and such obstinate error again is more or less dangerous besides the sin of obstinacy as the matter of the error is of more influence toward our Salvation whilst mean-while others not having the like evidence of them are yet free to dissent or disbelieve them but then after the Church'es definition those also upon this stronger evidence shall I call it or authority will become obliged to assent to them Again * more points ought to be known and believed by one than by another according as one hath more opportunity than another by studying the Scriptures the Church'es exposition thereof and her decrees to find out and discover such truths Art thou a Master in Israel saith our Saviour and knowest not these things See Heb. 5. 12. There are those who are not excused in acquiescing in the tenents of their particular education but who are bound to examine the general traditions and doctrines of the Church the ancient Fathers Ecclesiastical Histories c. Again others there are of another condition who are not so far obliged And in the former sort if they either depart from the foresaid doctrines themselves or continue a separation first made by others it will be a damnable Schism when perhaps the simplicity of the vulgar their followers will remain excused if the error be not in a point absolutely fundamental or will be much lightlier punished Luk. 12. 48. Which common people we must leave to God's secret mercies in the same manner as we do all those others who have not believed because they have not heard which Heathens also I charitably think shall not suffer for want of that Faith of which they had no Teacher as that Faith mentioned Jo. 3. 36. but for want of that the sound of which hath come to all the world in all times mentioned Heb. 11. 6. compared Rom. 1. 20 21. Thus many truths are necessary to be known by the Pastors and the Learned that are not so by the illiterate people And in respect of some vulgar I conceive that form Quisquis non confitetur or non credit Anathema sit concerning the Creeds drawn up against several hereticks by the four first General Councils is not to be understood to be of force against a pure nescience of some Articles thereof for there are many subtilties exceeding vulgar capacities and which they need not distinctly know but against an opposition of them or denial or non-confession of these points when they come to know the Church hath established them and condemned the contrary for thus to oppose the Church is not to be ignorant of them but heretical in them Tho t is not necessary to Salvation that either they should know the Church hath determined such a thing or that such a thing is a divine truth if such knowledg be beyond the compass of their moral endeavors sutable to their capacity and their vocation in the search of divine truth See this matter more largely discussed in the Disc. of Infallibility § 15. Nay if the Learned also should I say not be ignorant of but err in some point of such moment that by consequence such error destroys some chief principle of our faith yet this being supposed and granted possible that having used their just endeavor in the search of the truth they are by no sufficient proposal convinced of it and that mean-while they contend for the principle with the same or more pertinacity than for it with a resolution to desert it if once appearing to them any way repugnant to the other such an error will no way hazard Salvation Upon such Supposition Tho the Lutheran is conceived from his new fancied Ubiquity by consequence to destroy the verity of Christ's Humanity Again the Calvinist is conceived from God's eternal predetermination of all our actions c. by consequence to destroy God's Holiness and Justice in making him the Author of all sin points highly fundamental yet are not these holding
all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures our Saviour's promise c. delivered there and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible because this is one of her traditions or doctrines is granted even by some of the Roman writers to be a circle See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9. c. Non audentes fidem divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali i. e. in universal tradition and he gives the reason because they cannot be perswaded quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltant c. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it than this of Mahomet If he should first write a law which tells the people that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth and then prove to them that law to be or to say to them an infallible truth because he delivers it A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition that Scriptures are the word of God otherwise to men as to Protestants supposing the verity of Scriptures tho unproved by the Church t is no circle if any one suppose a Catholic from them being granted attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility tho the same Romanist also doth affirm that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church'es testimony or from tradition Only where both these Scripture and Church-infallibility are denied neither can be proved by the other till one is either supposed as true or proved by some other medium which medium is received to be tradition and if so then I say there can be no more certainty that the Church is infallible than that certainty which lies in universal Tradition 2. And secondly the same may be said for Scriptures which being supposed to be infallible because God's word yet if they are proved only by the same tradition to be God's word all the certainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradition For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath Again suppose I were without tradition infallibly certain that such Books are God's word yet can I not for all this quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith For my faith being grounded not on the bare words but sense of those books and the sense of the same words being divers especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary notwithstanding this clearnes become very ambiguous and that in some necessary points of faith as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and matters of faith to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity Grace and Free will Justification c. upon which first known I must ground my faith I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word Here therefore tho the Scripture for the Words should not yet my Faith for their Sense would have a dependance upon and repair unto universal Tradition and where-ever the Sense is doubtful to me as the Scriptures may be doubtful to one where perspicuous to another the chief certainty I can have for that Sense which my Faith ought to embrace will be from the universal Church-tradition Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore on which as the Final assurer of the Scriptures or of the Church'es Infallibility the act of Faith must rest let it be granted 1. First without disputing whether it be absolutely infallible because it is needles to the stating of our business That there is in it certainty or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon For tho t is willingly assented to that Tradition being in its nature a relation of a thing gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible for t is not absolutely impossible for all men in the world from the beginning thereof till this time to have lied in every thing they have said but yet he were no ordinary mad-man that upon this nonimpossibility would believe no relation at all only because t is not absolutely impossible that they may err and himself hit the right yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein or else that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures that they are God's word Which granting that some few learned and studied men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture yet for this the most of men especially as to some of the books thereof depend on the certainty of Tradition And indeed it were impious to affirm that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledg of good and evil upon which our eternal happi nes is to be acquired or misery sustained or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths whereby we are to direct our lives to that end for which he hath created us But this can be assigned no other at least to most men than Tradition Therefore it is the interest of all Christians as well those who submit themselves only to the Scripture as those who submit also to the Church unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty therein lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathematical or sensible demonstration they be made Scepticism and Quodlibets 2. But 2ly we must either hold certainty in Tradition or that we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent Yet transfer this discours to any other temporal matter and who can wish to be more sure of any thing than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them As for example that there is such a City as Paris or was such a man as Henry the 8th But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters that are of the same distance of time from us there seems to be much more certainty in that the providence of God hath appointed a selected company of men successively in all ages to be the Guardians Conservers Divulgers thereof to the world for ever 3. Lastly if this Tradition and the doctrines we acknowledge divine were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men not in all but some determinate time and place see Christ's Ben. p. 35. say how posterity can receive these from any other evidence unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven Christ's preaching miracles death to be presented before us and that before every one of us excluding all relations from others because these may be fallible But such a ground of our faith destroys the nature of faith and it
such a matter but to the judgment or directions of your father or master for your reason that is considering another argument of the prudence and experience of his father or master c or of the command which God hath given him to obey them teacheth you that you subject or you unskilled should yeild to their judgment Thus may not one truly say For this reason I think such a thing is so but for such a reason again I think it is not so Els how come any to doubt Now when one sort of these reasons is a natura rei such as his own brain suggests to him and the other ab authoritate and this ab authoritate sways and is the more powerful with him then may he be said to side with authority against his private opinion or judgment But then here by private opinion or judgment is meant not simply that which is so i. e. as he now assents to authority for two contrary judgments or opinions swaying him none can have but that which abstracting from authority c from other reasons his opinion or judgment would be professed to be should any one demand it But indeed whilst against such reasons he yeilds to authority and yeild he may where-ever such reasons are conjectural or less than certain his private judgment simply considered is the same with the publick judgment of that authority and such a one suppose a Catholic that is perswaded that he ought to assent to all the Church shall decree should he notwithstanding against this follow his own private reason or reasons which may be many times contrary to such decree as also they are sometimes to divine mysteries may rightly be said in this doing to go against his judgment or conscience But if a man cannot submit his judgment against his private opinion then cannot a Council justly oblige any to believe any thing tho never so necessary and clear a point unless they know first that his private reason is not against it for they may not oblige him to impossibilities But how often is this done by them even the four first generally allowed and that under Anathema And St. Austin also writ a Treatise De Utilitate Credendi he means of believing the Authority of that Church which was found first to be the Church Catholick from seeing the great benefit that came by this captivating our reason to authority by which act of believing he observed Epist. 48. men not unfrequently came at length to be assured also by true reason of those things which first they believed only from authority Quamdiu intelligere sincera non possumus authoritate quidem decipi miserum est sed certe miserius non moveri Si enim Dei Providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Sin vero c. non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine De Util. Cred. 16. c. This he writ to a Manichean endeavouring to perswade him in religione turpe non esse credere antequam scire Thus much of the possibility of thinking or believing a judicial determination right when it seems in our private opinion as explain'd above not so But note here that I do not extend our yeilding assent to authority against private reasons in all matters when-ever this assent is given to a necessary belief in all such things that what they say is absolutely just and right but this our assent is capable of less degrees as a belief that what they say is more likely or probable to be so or also that it is more safe for me to err with them as long as I am not by any private reason infallibly certain that they err but have reason to think they do not err than to oppose their authority perhaps with the retaining of a truth but to me uncertain Thus much of Mr. Hooker's testimony and the justification thereof against Mr. Chillingworth's exposition See also Dr. Potter speaking the same thing much-what with Mr. Hooker sect 4. p. 105. where after he hath said It is not lawful for a private man to oppose his judgment to the publick he adds He may offer his contrary opinion to be consider'd of c. but if he will factiously advance his own conceits conceits I suppose he means that which seems reason and the sence of Scripture to him yet of which he is not infallibly certain Advance i. e. against the contrary determinations of the Church and despise the Church so far as to cast off her communion he may be justly condemned for a Schismatic for casting off her communion yea and an Heretic also i. e. for advancing his own conceits in some degree and in foro exteriori tho his opinion were true and much more if it be false Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori Sure Dr. Potter saith he is this because he allows him some-way faulty in factiously advancing his own conceits against the Church and then I ask why is he not an heretic or if that name may not be so used guilty of an equal crime in foro interiori too For what great difference is there between him that having no sufficient reason for it obstinately defends against the Church'es determination that which happens but is not to him certainly known or by him proved to be a truth and him that obstinately defends an error Those reasons which such a one hath but short of certainty I grant afford him some but not a sufficient excuse of his opposition This for Protestants Next for Catholicks that they also allow a submission of judgment to an Authority fallible See what Bellarmin who holds that particular Councils are fallible yet saith concerning submission of judgment to these errable de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Etsi hoc judicium non sit prorsus infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And tamen debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio si secus egerint merito excommunicantur donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale Therefore if these have formerly decreed nothing contrary we are to submit to it until they shall Again There is no reason of non-acquiescing to such a sentence but only the contrary judgment of a superior Court therefore if the Court be supreme there is no reason at all Again Quod Concilium particulare facit argumentum adeo probabile ut temerarium sit ei non acquiescere planum est and before he saith ex communi sententia Catholicorum asserimus quia si aliquot sancti Patres casu in eandem sententiam convenientes faciunt argumentum probabile quanto magis 50 aut 60 Episcopi simul convenientes
in things wherein he finds all or many of them unanimously agreeing or being established by some not contradicted or amended by any other succeeding but by the General practice of particular Churches conformed to these he may presume to be truths from their accord as the other falsities from their variance and therefore by no means may plead a release from the one by shewing the other FINIS CONCERNING The OBLIGATION of not professing or acting against our JUDGMENT or CONSCIENCE AND Whether the obedience of Non-contradiction only or also of Assent be due to the Decrees OF COUNCILS CONTENTS IN what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own Judgment § 2. Concerning the Church'es lawful Authority to excommunicate dissenters in non-fundamentals § 4. As likewise to decide which Points are fundamental which not § 7. Several exceptions against obedience only of non-contradiction for Non-fundamentals And that at least all those not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in Non-fundamentals to an obedience of Assent and therefore the most are so bound § 11. Replies to several Objections § 12. The 1. First concerning an inferior Councils decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned 2d Concerning faith salvisical that it must be infallible 3d. Concerning union of Charity sufficient § 14. 4th Concerning trying of doctrines necessary § 15. 5th Concerning what Church'es determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to § 16. A Post-script 2d Paper Concerning infallible Certainty § 19. 1. Infallible Certainty excusing all submission of judgment to others 2. Infallible Certainty to be had in some points Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain 3. Infallible Certainty at least not pretendable against any General contrary judgment of the Church An instance in the Controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only § 27. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible Certainty not excusing our dissenting from the judgment of the Church An explication of Rom. 14. 23. Conference at Hampton-Court p. 72 73. Mr. Knewstub's 2d quest Lastly if the Church have that power also i. e. to ad significant Signs as the Cross in Baptism c. yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was How far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King in his Answer hath these words I will have one doctrine and one discipline one Religion in substance and in 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 A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judgment or Conscience SIR YOU ask my Opinion 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Non-contradiction or also of assent to the Decrees of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Non-fundamentals wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable supposing that such Councils require our assent therein And 2ly Whether one is or can be bound to assent when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgment and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing Answ. I answer on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discours of Infallibility § That if you take judgment here for infallible certainty which see more largely explained below § 19. c. I can soon resolve it negatively That you are not nor cannot be so bound Of which see more below § 20. But if you mean by your private judgment opinion short of infallibility i. e. some reasons that you have either drawn from the natures of things on from the sence you make of divine revelation to think that a thing is thus or so contrary to that general judgment 1. First this question seems * decided on the affirmative part viz. that you may go against your private judgment in mens ordinary practice In secular affairs do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend both believe him to be in the right and do a thing contrary to our own judgment i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have not to do it Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own reason Rom. 4. 17 18. And so the man in the Gospel Mar. 9. 24 Yet I know you will not say that they went in this against their conscience What is the meaning of that ordinary saying These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit to the Church Is it only I submit my judgment in regard of the publishing of it So Dr. Fern comments upon it 2. Treat 1. c. numb 1◠But thus the phrase seems very improper for this is a submission of our speech or silence but not of our judgment at all and is a submission which may well be professed also in things wherein our judgment is utterly unchangeable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain 2. Again * decided by the concessions of several Protestants which seem to yeild the very same thing See Dr. Fern ib. n. 13. where he alloweth that in matters of opinion and credibility or of discipline and rites till we have sufficient evidence or demonstration of truth to the contrary our conformity i. e. of judgment which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our practice remains secure Secure saith he till we have sufficient evidence c. But sufficient evidence we have not in opposition to the Church in things where possibly we may be mistaken and we may be mistaken in any thing whereof we are not certain ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty Likewise Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit his assent alloweth a bare yeilding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve them Which he saith may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the governors of it without deeming them inerrable And in Schism 2. c. 10. s. he saith A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Where surely this submitting and depositing our own judgment implies something more than the concealment of it only since the concealment of our judgment being the least degree of obedience we can
that those Judges were absolutely infallible Now after all let Non-contradiction be all the obedience we when otherwise perswaded ow to the Church and this Non-contradiction be due only from the subjects of a Diocese in respect of the Bishop or Diocesan Synod not from the Bishop or Diocese to superior Synods yet hence it will follow 1. First that the Reformation abroad was unlawful which we followed and that no Minister might then preach against Popish doctrines unles these things had bin first decided by his Bishop which I think is more than many of the reformed will defend 2. Again from this distinguishing of our obedience to the Church according to several things commanded by her methinks this may reasonably be demanded since neither King nor Church can justly punish or anathematize any for not yeilding that obedience to them which God hath not bound men to yeild them Therefore if they are bound to yeild obedience of consent in some points as in fundamentals and only obedience of Non-contradiction in others as in Nonfundamentals when our private judgment therein happeneth to be contrary to the publick methinks I say this may reasonably be demanded That there should be some certain way how both the Church may know when to enjoyn the one and when only the other and how the subject may know also when the one and when the other is due for none can be justly punished in an invincible ignorance of his duty And if this be the rule of their non-obligation to consent namely when the point is not fundamental and when they are also infallibly certain of the contrary there must also be some way for men to know when they are infallibly certain and when they think only that they are so For I should have thought any one might know when he is sure but that I see so many that say they are sure when mistaken and but that I have also found my self afterward mistaken in things of which I once thought my self infallibly sure Another thing methinks Non-contradiction sounds well in speculatives but in practicals what must be done For unles the Church in practicals may bind men tho of a contrary perswasion to consent to what she defines she cannot enjoyn them to do what she commands or to forbear what she forbids because this doing or forbearing necessarily presupposeth consent first to the lawfulnes thereof els the action will be sin Now the Church many times commands and forbids several practices doubtles not-fundamental under Anathema's And indeed might not people in matters practical be tied beyond their own inclinations and opinion to conformity in these the church that is founded by the God of holines and order what a disorderly Society would it be and how full of several impieties To conclude the whole matter since in this division of Christendom one party in general seems many ways to crush the Church'es authority and the other to crush private judgment and since there seem to be some inconveniences on all hands a wise man will chuse that way which seems the more safe which I think is to adhere not to our own but the common judgment of the Church In which there seems to be much humility also and mortification of our rationale in which we are all very strong and also the not hazarding the breach of the great duty of our obedience to the Church which I think had far better be yeilded too much than too little And besides these motives we have seen more evidently the effects of both these tenets upon men in our days and there seems to be no comparison between the mischiefs which too much obedience to the Church hath wrought and those which the following of private judgment hath produced A Postscript IN the former Discours § 2. it is said That our Judgment if it be taken for any degree of private opinion short of infallible certainty ought to be submitted to the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Superiors Where infallible certainty a thing so ordinarily mistaken seems to stand in need of some further explication By infallible certainty therefore I mean either * that which ariseth from demonstrative arguments drawn from the nature of the thing but this is a certainty which consists not with faith for faith walks not by sight or which most concerns our busines * that certainty which ariseth ab authoritate dicentis when we know infallibly both that he saith it who cannot lie and that such is the meaning of what he said els the former of these without the later breeds no certainty 1. Now if you make your proposal thus Supposing that I am infallibly certain of a thing that is contrary to the Church'es judgment whether am I obliged to consent to that judgment c I must answer No by no means For indeed if we speak of interior assent such a thing as this assent cannot be at all unles one can hold two contradictories to be true And 2ly for exterior assent that is professing an assent when you do not assent this you may not do neither for this is hypocrisy and lying which the God of truth always hates and forbids neither hath he tied any man to forsake or renounce tho in profession only an infallibly known truth great or small And therefore from hence as long as you cannot believe that the Church hath any authority to guide you or that her judgment is so good as your own or fit to be followed so long you cannot profess a consent unto her judgment against your own without sinning but whilst you may not do this without sinning you sin again in not believing otherwise For no man may do what he thinks he ought not to do and yet he doth sin in not so doing because he ought to think otherwise When I shew you that you may without sin obey the Church contrary to what your judgment is in the thing which you assent to I do not tell you that you may without sinning obey the Church contrary to this your judgment that you ought not to obey her or when your judgment is that you ought not to obey her Where ever the mouth or hand goes contrary to the heart t is hypocrisie and lying contrary to Christian simplicity and unlawful But if the mouth and hand go with the heart and the heart go not right here also will be sin tho not the same sin 2. Now in the 2d place if you ask me Whether hoc dato that such a book is the word of God rightly translated c you may be infallibly certain of the sence of it in some things This I also grant you may be for hoc dato that the New Testament which we have is the word of God and that God in this word meant to speak so that it should be intelligible to us els it were no revelation of any thing a private man that hears or reads it may be as certain of something
to the Church in fundamentals were performed from any such obedience as we confess is by the command of God's word due to her determinations then the texts which may be urged to oblige us to obedience in these points would oblige us also in others for these texts are without any limitation of our obedience to fundamentals only But indeed our not so much assenting to her as consenting with her in fundamentals seems to proceed from other motives than obedience as from this that our Saviour hath promised that the Church for fundamentals at least shall not err and from a second that all fundamentals are most plain in Scripture and therefore as they cannot be hid to us so neither can they to her and therefore in fundamentals we must necessarily both agree in which agreeing we obey not her but together with her the Scriptures Mr. Chillingworth well saw this And hence those who withdraw one of these motives as those amongst the reformed who say Christ's promise before-mentioned is only conditional i. e. if the Clergy shall do their duty or who say that Christ's promise is more general i. e. made to Christianity but not to the Clergy thereof or to any General Council those I say make nothing to dissent from any Council or any Church that can authoritatively declare her opinion To conclude this Query I do not see then how any man can be or at least can know that he is infallibly certain of any point wherein the Church'es judgment is contrary to his 4. Now next if you be not infallibly certain then tho you have never so great probability that is short of certainty for your private opinion yet I think and I think the Reformed Divines conclude that you are notwithstanding to consent to the contrary determination of the Church or Council Els if only probabilities may serve to counterpoise the Church'es or Council's authority when or where will these be wanting You have seen Mr. Hookers and Bishop Laud's and Bishop White 's opinion in Church-gov 2. part § 36. Infallib § 45. And Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. I find saying thus Our disobedience is unwarrantable unles we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express law of the most high And elsewhere he saith Every doubt or scruple that the Church'es edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's law is not sufficient to deny obedience And again In doubts saith he and I say all is but more or less doubt until we be certain it will abundantly suffice to make sincere protestation in the sight of God or before the Magistrate if need require that we undertake not such actions upon any private liking of the things enjoyned but only upon sincere respect of performing obedience to Superiors c. And elsewhere We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary Again We can no more obey than love God whom we have not seen but by obeying our Superiors whom we have seen True Spiritual obedience will bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for Authorities sake than to disobey Authority for the private dislike of the things commanded Again 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 whomsoever for whosoever shews the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me the flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them and so the donation of Spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer titles You see how we plead for obedience against our own Non-conformists yet for the former Church we support our selves against her authority with having infallible certainty But the Non-conformists cease not to plead this certainty also against us But indeed this he saith here is most reasonable For if you do not submit to the Church'es judgment when you have greater probability to the contrary you never submit to her judgment at all for when ever you have not greater probability to the contrary you have either greater probability of what she saith or are in a pure equilibration and in either of these you do nothing with or for which you would not and may not also do without her Well then we may not exact of the Church that she should prove nor may not only then yeild obedience i. e consent and conformity when she doth prove to us that that is truth which she commands us to believe and that that is lawful which she commands us to do But it is our duty to obey if our selves have not infallible certainty and proof that such things are untrue or unlawful It is not enough to license us to withdraw our obedience or assent to her that she may possibly err in what she commands us unless also we know that we cannot err our selves for the power of giving our assent requires not infallible knowledge that the thing we assent to first is true but only a not knowing infallibly that it is false It is not enough that we are not certain that she erreth not not enough that we have some scruples some reasons and arguments whereby it seems to us that she erreth but only certain infallibility that she doth err this indeed excuseth our non-obedience Els our Spiritual Superiors are in the place of God and of Christ to us and we are to shew to them whom we do see and hear the humble obedience we are ready in all things to render to God whom we do not see nor hear and as we are to shew our love to God in our Neighbour so are we to shew our obedience to him in his Substitutes 1 Thes. 4. 8. compared with 2. And it is not only lawful but a great virtue in us since the contrary is most-what an effect of self-conceit and arrogancy of wisdom and knowledge as to suppress the seeming suggestions of reason and sence about natural things which suggestions are against the revelations of God and divine truths so to captivate our understandings also and crush the suggestions of any singular interpretations and sences about these divine revelations which are against I say not every private teacher but the common exposition of the Church Were then all those which are the Church's decrees acknowledged and 2ly our infallible certainty so much pretended by us so strictly examined that weak probabilities be not accepted by us in stead thereof how few would the points be in which upon our concessions we could oppose the H. Church But again were all those people that had not in these few points that infallible certainty which the others learned have as one may be certain of a thing
they should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine by the steight of men till they may all come in the unity of the doctrine of faith to the fulness of Christ Jesus Eph. 4. 11. Heb. 13. 7 9. Neither may we say that so also we quit only our own reason to accept another man's for as we are guided by their authority so are they guided not by their own reason only but by former authority till we ascend to the first founders of Christian religion See Ecclus. 8. 9. To the judgment therefore of such visible Doctors and Teachers of the Church we ought to repair to some or other of these nay to some or other external communion of them For the promises of perpetual assistance c are not made to the Church at random or in obscurity and unknown viz. that some man or other on earth either of the Clergy or if not of the Laity shall be an orthodox Christian so far as to be capable of salvation till the end of the world but * to those to whom our Saviour also committed the Keys to whom indeed t is most necessary they being the Shepherds and the rest the flock committed always to their guidance See Matt. 16. 18. compared with 19. 28. 20. compared with 19. 18. 20. compared with 18. * to such a Church †as people might know and repair and make their complaints to Matt. 18. 17. †as is a light of the world set on a Candlestick and shining before men a city set upon a hill that cannot be hid Matt. 5. 14 15 16. never was nor never shall be hid of the perpetual being of which we make confession of our faith in the Apostolical Creed the holy Catholick Church and yet plainer in the Nicene one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which who so understands not of an external visible profession and communion as theirs then was may retain the words but not the sence and faith of that Council See this matter more largely discoursed in Succession of Clergy § 2. c. and in Church-government 2. part § 25 26. First therefore in this humble repair to their Judgment where we find all these Doctors of Christianity disagreeing from what we take to be Scripture which holds also in the determinations of any Christian Church whatever so long as we can come to know no other or no better see § 36. we ought in such a case to relinquish our judgment and submit to theirs who also have the same light of Scripture as we and in humility we ought to think more ability to judge of it and who likewise have the promise of indefectibility in truths necessary to salvation Therefore here also the more high and weighty the point is the more firmly ought we to adhere to them trusting to the protection of our Saviour the Head of the Church that in these points especially they shall not all so conjoyned be mistaken And again in smaller points since there is less danger in our erring in them and the more guilt still the smaller they are in our making a schism from or division in the Church for them more humility exercised in obeying no truth of consequence vindicated by contention wisdom perhaps would think it fit to subscribe to the same Guides For as the Apostle said in another case If they are sit to judge the greatest are they not so to judge the smallest matters 1 Cor. 6. 2. And if any thing herein may be indulged to singularity of opinion t is only so far as to make known the reasons that move us to it to the Church or some few therein whom we count men of learning and integrity and void of passion and after this to submit to whatever they who now together with us apprehend all the reasons which sway us shall determin The contrary to which can be only the fruit of self-conceit or obstinacy This if they unanimously deliver any thing to us which we think against Scripture and much more yet ought we to submit to any order of their's tho we do not find it in Scripture if we find nothing in Scripture against it without calling such their sanctions Will-worship and Superstition making sure to use the same charity to the Church which we are obliged-in to private men in whom nihil est damnandum quod ulla ratione bonum esse queat Neither is this assenting to them against our own reason or judgment as we call it going against conscience which conscience is nothing but our judgment and that we call judgment many times nothing but our own and that a slight opinion In not following of which opinion or judgment we are faulty only then where we have no wiser person caeteris paribus nor no established law to guide and direct it Nor is it going against our reason when as nothing is more reasonable than to go against some of our own particular reasonings when we have another stronger reason to the contrary that is the submitting of it to such an authority nothing being more ordinary than for arguments from a Reason to give place to those from an Authority upon which Authority also and not upon Reason is grounded our Faith. See Submiss of Judgment § 2. c. But let me add this for our further contentment that he who not only demands of the Church but takes pains also as all ought to be informed by the Church concerning the proof and evidence of what she requires him to believe shall seldom or never be put to believe that what she saith is truth only from her authority because she saith it but also from his own judgment because she manifests it Obj. But doth not an erring conscience then bind us to follow it tho it be so or may I sometime do a thing which I think unlawful upon another's judgment without sinning Answ. He that is perswaded in conscience that tho he thinks such a thing unlawful yet he ought rather to follow a wiser man's judgment than his own whose judgment saith t is not unlawful cannot absolutely say he is perswaded that it is unlawful And he who thinking such a thing is more likely in reason yet thinketh likewise that he ought rather to obey the Church's judgment than his own reason if he here follows his conscience that is in respect of his own reason he goeth against his conscience as I call it in respect of the submission he thinks he ows to anothers judgment For whilst his judgment prefers another man's judgment before his own this man in following the others must needs also be said to follow his own judgment and consequently his conscience Now he that is not thus perswaded of the duty of submission of his judgment c to wiser men or men authorized to guide his judgment t is true that he sins in doing against his own opinion or conscience so long as he is not so perswaded but then he ought
matters deserving her anathema's as well as the dissenters from her faith in greater whilst she determins some matters for settling peace as well as others for necessary faith See Notes of Infallibil § 29. I think none will deny this lawful enough and what communion is there which doth not require it 8ly But if she requires to them also a Subscription not only of non-contradiction but of assent and of submission of our private reason or judgment to hers yet I see not considering that she in such a collective body is much wiser and more seen both in the holy Scriptures and writings of the Ancients than we and the duty we owe to her as being our appointed Guide in such things our Guide I dare say as much as those under the Law were Deut. 17. 8. c. to the 14th I see not I say but that in things where we are not infallibly certain but only have some private reasons or opinion that is short of assurance that such things are untrue or unlawful we may thus subscribe her decrees or practise her commands See what Dr. Hammond saith Schism 2. c. 10. § A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Church's communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice I suppose he means such as are immediately built upon the fundamentals are not concerned in the concessions one would think in these points especially that a person to be safe should rather trust to the Church's judgment than his own he will chearfully express his readines to submit or deposit his own judgment in reference and deference to his Superirors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due for the Church where his lot is fallen may by heresy or schism stand divided from the Church Catholick See this point discoursed at large in Obligation of our judgment or conscience § 2. and in Infallibility § 35. Now a subscribing professing or acting in this manner I conceive will never be construed a going against our conscience or judgment considered in general tho it should be against some private reasons of ours because this preferring of hers before our own judgment is also an act of our judgment For there being such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of my own but short of certainty on the other my judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is more safe for me to submit to the first than to rely on the second Here therefore I shall only go against my conscience if I go against this my judgment in adhering to the 2d and forsaking the first But indeed if the Church should require me to subscribe not that I believe her authority more than my private reasons but that I have no private reasons nor scruples in my mind for the contrary of her tenet when indeed I have so the subscribing thus would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done But I am confident no Church will exact such a confession nor would ever reject I say not from bearing any office in her wherein perhaps she may be more strict but from her communion such a submission as this Wherein one first acknowledgeth her infallibility or actual unfailance in all doctrines necessary to salvation and 2ly promiseth in no other point publickly to gainsay her Conciliary doctrines and 3ly in these points to endeavour as far as is in his power to submit his private reason and judgment to hers tho perhaps the repugnances of some verisimilities of the contrary may hinder his yeilding so plenary an act of belief to the truth of some of them as some others do Or again if any one is perswaded in his judgment or conscience that when the judgment of the Church is contrary to this his private reason or judgment so often he ought to adhere to his own not to hers such an outward submitting or subscribing to her judgment when this is against his own private reason in that matter would be going against his conscience and he ought at no hand to do it But yet in the not doing it he may be guilty of great crimes heresy schism c. But 9ly such subscription of a firm belief of all her doctrines or of exact conformity to all her publick rites I think is by no Church required from all that either are born in or are afterward converted to her communion but only from those whom she prefers to be the Spiritual guides of others and admits into Ecclesiastical revenues For those of the Roman communion of the strictnes of whose profession of faith I find our men much complain the Council of Trent requires a profession of their faith to be made or her decrees of which Pius 4tus hath compacted a form particularly expressing the chief of them to be subscribed or sworn to only by Bishops and by others who undertake curam animarum See 24. Sess. 1. c. and 12. c. de Reformat Neither doth Pius the 4ths Bull so much accused require it of more unless it be of Regulars In which Bull observe that the Oath or Subscription of such persons having curam animarum c is required not only to some Articles or Canons of the Council namely to those expressed in the Bull for the naming of which being about some twelve Heads the Council of Trent is said to have added twelve new Articles to the Apostles Creed to be believed under peril of losing salvation but to all the rest of the decrees of that Council whatever as well as those and likewise to all things tradita definita declarata by any other Council which by the Roman Church is reckoned Oecumenical as well as those delivered by that of Trent See the words Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus that is yet something more too Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuera sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita definita ac declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor c. After which it follows Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest sponte profiteor veraciter teneo From which words if we will say the Roman Church hath added new Articles of Faith to the Apostles Creed to be explicitly professed and believed under pain of damnation we must argue not only those 12. points to be added by her but also all the rest not only whatever the Tridentine but any other of those she calls General Councils hath delivered or declared But indeed from this large reception of and subscription to not only some but all points determined by such Councils we may gather 1. That it is only a subscription and profession in such a manner to and of them as the Councils have proposed to be received and
having stronger adherence upon smaller evidence provided no evidence attainable be neglected 1 Pet 3. 15. See Jo. 20. 29. The reason of which is because faith is no way acceptable to God or saving so far as it is by true or by seeming demonstration forced upon the understanding with a reluctance mean-while of the will for then the faith of Devils would be so who doubtles have much more evidence of their faith than many Christians but only so far as it is embraced and accepted of by the will and affections and in some manner becomes our election and choice which election so contrary in many things to the flesh being never made without the power of the Spirit hence chiefly is faith such as is saving said to be its work See Ben. Spirit § 4. Again if men for the sufficiency of their faith depended on the infallibility of the Church or her traditions it follows none can have of any thing true faith which is not first determined by the Church or known from universal Tradition Therefore none can be said fide divina to believe or assent to any of those Theological verities which are ordinarily drawn by clear and necessary consequence from the Scriptures and tho not by the Church decided by the Schools which seems absurd 5. Lastly Let but a rational certainty from the infallibility of Tradition be necessarily required to faith for one point namely this That our Scriptures are God's word for which all sides are agreed in admitting it and I do not see how it can be denied that for many other points i. e. those wherein God's word is clear and which are by no side controverted one may be sufficiently certain from the Scriptures themselves independently on the Church or Tradition fave for the one point above-named For since God's word may be in some things I mean such as are uncontroverted as plain and consonant to it self as any Synod-Catechism if such a Catechism is thought a sufficient ground to one to assure his faith why may not the Scripture Now after all that I may not seem to you in this my judgment heterodox at least to other Catholic writers you may be pleased to view what Estius the famous Divinity-Professor at Doway and what Card. Lugo a Spanish Jesuit have delivered on this subject See Card. Lugo tom de virtute fidei dis 1. § 12. n. 247. c. where he brings reasons for this opinion not much differing from those above-mentioned As 1. Since the belief of Infallibility it self must be produced from some other motives if such motives be sufficient for the begetting the faith of this why may they not be sufficient for some point of faith besides it 2. New converts embrace and truly believe some other articles of faith before they are acquainted with that of Infallibility 3. Rusticks commonly resolve their faith into no further proof than their Parish-Priest and what he relates to them 4ly Under the law of nature before Moses most were believing only upon the authority of their Parents without any Church-proposal His words are these num 247. Probatur facile quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus Sancti creditur fide divina quae docet in Ecclesia 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 in Ecclesia hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus Sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem articulum authoritatis Ecclesiae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesia secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universa fidelium congregatione Again num 252. Probatur Conclusio 1. Quia in primis in lege naturae plures credebant ex sola doctrina parentum sine alia Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scripta plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur proponerentur quia soil vitae sanctitate rerum convenientia aliis de causis objectum reddebatur prudenter credibile praesertim cum viderent aliqua ex iis quae Prophetiae praedicebant quotidie impleri Denique in lege Evangelica Act 3. 4. c. Beatus Petrus miraculo facto testatus est se illud fecisse in nomine Christi nulla facta mentione authoritatis Ecclesiae vel suae convertit tria millia hominum qui sane prudenter moti sunt licet non conciperent Ecclesiae authoritatem And num 251. Non requiritur ex natura rei Ecclesiae propositio ad credendum In all which note that this Author speaks of sides divina salvifica as appeareth in the first instance naming fides divina in St. Peter's converts c. and all his discourse otherwise were besides the purpose See Estius to the same purpose in 3. sent 23. dist 13. sect where after many considerable arguments he goes on Fidei impertinens esse quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchisedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderunt cum nondum de infallibilitate Ecclesiae quicquam eis esset annunciatum Sic ergo sieri potest ut aliquis non inhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiae 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 manifeste videt vel alia quacunque ratione inductus licet alia quaedam credere recuset Again Haereticus potest quaedam tenere ea firmitate assensus promptitudine voluntatis qua ab aliis omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Again Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Where note that Estius also speaks of sides vera and fides donum Dei quo divinitus illustramur such as that was of Abraham Melchisedech and the Apostles converts And note again that tho this Fides vera divina is in no Heretick's integra as to all points of faith perfect because if one failed not in some point of faith he could be no Heretick yet many times it is
revelasse or se hanc fidem Deum revelasse habere ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti and this a motive morally infallible namely consensum Ecclesiae or Universal Tradition concerning which he thus goes on Verum in ordine ad nos revelatio divina credibilis acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva inter quae unum ex praecipuis merito censetur authoritas consensus Ecclesiae tot saeculis tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held always necessary neither for the humane inducement to divine faith For he goes on quamvis id non unicum neque simpliciter necessarium motivum est quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur His adde Non tantum variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri sed etiam alios aliis facilius partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem impulsionem sicuti not avit Valentia q. 1. p. 4. arg 18. partim propter animi sui simplicitatem quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt Qua ratione pueri apud Catholicos cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt acceptant sidei mysteria tanquam divinitus revelata quia natu majores prudentes quos ipsi norunt ita credere animadvertunt So then if all saving faith must be sides divina infallible that which can rightly be produced to advance sides humana into it is not the authority of Scriptures or of the Church for Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humana credit but only auxilium Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui c in the stating of this learned Casuist Thus you see by what is quoted here out of Estius Lugo and Layman that the moderate Catholick writers concede divine and salvifical faith where no infallibility of any outward evidence or motive And perhaps it might conduce much more to the prayed-for union of Christ's Church if so many Controvertists on all sides perhaps out of an opinion of necessary zeal to maintain their own cause to the uttermost did not embrace the extreamest opinions by which they give too much cause to their adversaries to remain unsatisfied and to make easie and specious replies being helped also by the more moderate writers of the other side As if they chiefly endeavoured to fright their enemies from any yeilding or hearkning to a peace whilst they hold it still upon higher terms than those the Church Catholick proposeth which hath redounded to the multiplication of many needles controversies From what hath bin said I think we may infer 1. First That it is not necessary to true and saving faith that all the mediums by which we attain to it be infallible That neither an infallible Judg nor a known-infallible argument from the Scriptures or writings of Fathers c. is absolutely necessary to it but that it is sufficient to believe the things revealed by God as revealed by him see § 1. holding whatever is his word to be infallible which is a principle to all men and needs no proof by what weak means soever we attain the knowledge of such revelations whether it be by Scriptures Catechisms read or Parents Pastors instructing yea tho these instructers did not know whether there were any Scriptures as the Eunuch believed without those of the New Testament and how unevident soever their confirmation thereof to us be only if we receive from them whether from the credit we give to their authority or to their argument so much light as together with the inward operation of the Spirit opening the heart to receive and accept of it of which Spirit yet we are not so certainly sensible as to know the proper movings thereof for then this were a motive all-sufficient without Scripture or Teacher doth sway and perswade the understanding and so produceth obedience Which faith tho it is not such for its immediate ground as cui non potest subesse falsum by reason of any humane evidence it hath yet many times it is such as cui non subest dubium of which we doubt no more than we do of a Demonstration by reason of the strong adherence we have to it either from the power of God's Spirit or probability of arguments c. See § 35. c. But neither is this actual non-doubting necessary for there is many times doubting in a true but weak faith see § 46. but this is enough if any thing be so far made probable as that it turns the ballance of our judgment so far as to win our assent nay nothing can be without sin disbelieved which seems generally including here also the argument from authority more probable than another thing tho it have no demonstration Which demonstration or also an infallible proponent that the faith of most men wants see the plain confession as it seems to me of Mr. Knot in his Answer to Mr. Chillingworth 4. cap p. 358. A man may exercise saith he an infallible act of faith tho his immediate instructer 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 true act of divine faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons from whom 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 St. Peter converted did hear every sentence he spoke but might believe some by relation of others who stood near And 1. c. 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 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 proposes 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 tho not certainly known by me to be so and so
thereof or require submission of their judgment also to her not as she declares her judgment infallible but only as it is definitive and unappealable else her orders are no more than good counsel On the gainsayers c. not as subverters of some necessary faith but as troublers for an unnecessary if truth of the Church'es peace and rebels to her authority whom Christ hath commanded to hear not only how far they list or in their private judgment see cause And if she may impose some penalty then why not anathematize or excommunicate This Anathematizing even Protestants do not so far charge as a trespass of charity or a sign of rigor upon the Church of Rome or her Councils but that they allow that those who turbulently or pertinaciously speak against the Doctrines of the Church in smaller points may be anathematized for it See Dr. Fern in his Preface to Consider of present Concernment c. We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously turbulently speak and teach against the doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one tho he denies not the faith yet makes a breach of charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus he of pertinacious and turbulent contradiction but then modest contradiction he allows Was Luther's and Calvin's modest Are not Anathema's used by her against Schismatical as well as Heretical spirits May not she excommunicate as well disturbers of her peace as subverters of her faith How come Schismaticks then thrown out of the Church Doth she not use Anathema's or Excommunications in matters of Fact wherein she is confest to be liable to error If in decisions not traditional c we are bound to yeild obedience as I shall shew anon what reason have we why the Church may not anathematize for these points those who contradict and disobey But if she may then Anathema for any thing we know is joyned to some point not traditional nor in which the Church is infallible 2. To put this matter more out of doubt why have Provincial Councils granted fallible used anathematizing than which nothing more frequent toward those under their Jurisdiction If any say they use Anathema's indeed but not to be in force I say not after they be contradicted which we grant but till they be confirmed by a General Council then why may they and have they bin put in practice before they were by any such Council confirmed Nay to what purpose such Council convened since it hath no power of excommunicating the resisters and since when a General Council sits that sufficiently obligeth before it sits the other obligeth not 3. Again many Heresies as the Pelagian c. by Provincial Councils have bin censured and supprest but who may judg heresies i. e. errors against points of faith may pronounce Anathema's Judicium non infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodijudicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale si secus egerint merito excommunicantur saith Bell. de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Judicio in points of Doctrine too for as for matter of fact he will allow the same liability to error may be in particular which in General Councils Thus much touching your first Quaere concerning the Infallibility of the Church Now I come to your second concerning Obedience due to the Church and submission of private judgment Where I think this will be made clear unto you That to what point soever the Church'es infallibility be enlarged yet this the Universal-Infallibility of this Supreme Judge of Controversies is not a necessary ground or the only rule of the duty of obedience thereto neither of the obedience of Non-contradiction nor yet that of Assent but that there may be and is just obligation of obedience I mean that of submission of judgment i. e. to believe what it delivereth to a fallible Authority i. e. one that may command us perhaps to believe sometimes what is an untruth And if this be a truth I conceive it may be of some good consequence For first so those also may be rationally induced to yeild obedience to the Church who now think themselves to be clearly freed from it unles it can first be shewed them that the Church is infallible in all her Propositions neither will they then suppose themselves so easily discharged by shewing the contradictions of General Councils in some few matters perhaps from their obedience in all other points wherein these agree or which some defining none other have reversed and the Church hath received in her general practice or also wherein they find even a later Council contradicting a former For if as St. Austin saith later Synods may amend and correct the former they ought also in what they amend them to be submitted-to non obstante the contradiction of the former Secondly so those who have not opportunity of consulting the highest Tribunal may not think their duty cancell'd excepting where they are certain to other their Superiors and Spiritual Guides because fallible or suborordinate nor will oppose so frequently to them not the Dictates of an higher Court but of their private judgment When-as certainly this submission of our judgment and reason to a Superior tho fallible authority is a duty most acceptable to God and which tho much unpractised by and I am afraid quite unknown to many Sectaries amongst Protestants yet hath bin always most religiously observed elsewhere in the Church of God by those who have bin most eminent in piety nothing conducing more to the preservation of truth unity of minds peace security and serenity of a man's conscience and lastly to true humility mortification and self-denial there being no mortification nor self-denial like this and therefore perhaps so many refuse it because there is nothing so much our self as our judgment And again the contrary thereof as it is the fruit of pride and self-conceit so having bin always the promoter of error and mother of distraction and confusion I cannot here but set down two or three words of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. sect This opinion saith he which T. Cartwright maintain'd against Councils c that an argument of authority of Man is in matters divine nothing worth being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort what it may grow into * God knoweth I may add * we have seen Now to shew this Truth 1. first I must grant to you That God hath obliged no man to believe a known-to-him error or to believe an error quatenus error for this I think is a contradiction in terminis to believe that to be a truth which he knows I do not say which he thinks or doubts is not a truth the same may be said of obligation to the doing or practice of any thing certainly known to one to be
unlawful and therefore I grant the consequence That if any be bound to believe or assent to a fallible Authority in all they determin for truth either they de facto shall never determin an error or at least a private man shall never certainly know that which they determin to be an error 2ly Again this I hold most certain That God cannot propose any error to be believed by us for a truth for this would mainly oppose his veracity as any impiety doth his holines And 3ly I see not that God in obliging to obedience of fallible Councils can be said to have absolutely necessitated any to believe an error tho unknown to him to be so unless we can say also that God hath necessitated that Authority to err for t is possible for one errable not actually to err But granting actual error of our Guides in some things to come now to some stating of this matter which note that it will be the same case in every thing concerning their injunctions of believing truths or falsities and of doing things lawful or unlawful 1. First then I am not obliged by God to obedience to any authority inferior or supreme in any thing I certainly or infallibly know to be an error or unlawful Some case therefore there is which if it happen I cannot be justly obliged to obey an authority fallible Therefore I willingly assent to such sayings as that of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. § quoted by Mr. Chillingworth 5. c. 110. § as if it weakened or qualified that Author's judgment elsewhere for submission to Church-Authority Altho 10000 General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence yet one demonstrative reason alledged demonstrative that is infallible or one manifest truly manifest not seeming so for what Sect hath not their called demonstrations and manifest texts testimony cited from the word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse but overweigh them all c. Will any Catholick writer deny this He may say further If an Angel from Heaven c. Let there be submission of judgment where such manifest texts and demonstrations are not and all is well And again I must grant that it follows not from the Church'es infallibility in Fundamentals or Necessaries being supposed that therefore all are tied to assent to her in whatsoever she proposeth if they can certainly know that she errs in any point because then they certainly know that such point is not necessary or fundamental since in such necessaries she is granted to be infallible Again I grant that if any can be certain that two General Councils do point-blank contradict one another tho one of them is in the right he may be certain that such point wherein they contradict is not fundamental but yet nevertheles he is in such point to assent to the latter Council unles he can infallibly demonstrate the contrary 2. Secondly I am not obliged by God to obedience of assenting or acting to any inferior Court or Magistrate in a thing whereof I doubt only whether it be truth whether it be lawful if there be any higher court to whom I have opportunity to repair for better information but if otherwise I am notwithstanding my doubting to acquiesce in the judgment of a lower court 3. Thirdly to the supreme Ecclesiastical court tho supposed fallible in some things I am obliged to obedience both of assent and acting at least in such a manner as is described before § 28. in all things which are not certainly known by me to be errors or unlawful What do I gain by this for obedience to them very much For 1. if all who cannot be sure that a General Council is erroneous in any point must submit their assent to all very few they will be most men being ignorant and not pretending at all to demonstrate against General Councils that may withdraw it in any thing at all and none at all in most things But 2ly by what way can any one in any thing be infallibly sure not think only or suppose that he is sure that such a Council errs By divine Revelation But whence can he certainly know that it is Divine especially when these contrary to the proposals of the Church'es supremest Council By the Church But that is She in the way wherein only she is capable of delivering it whose judgment he opposeth By the Scriptures Hath he any other then besides those the Church hath and which she first recommended unto him Or understands he them better He whoever pretends evidence of Scripture against the Church in very deed objects only his own interpretation thereof against that of the Church and for doing this methinks he might blush before so many Reverend Fathers For suppose he find the contradictory to their decision totidem verbis in Scripture words are capable of divers acceptions and the true contradiction lies in the sence not the terms But then hath he well compared Scriptures And is he sure that no other text is again totidem verbis contradictory to that he urgeth If it be then one place must not be understood as the letter soundeth and then why not that which he presseth I ask a Protestant Is a Catholick presently infallibly certain that the Protestant Synods are erroneous in denying of Christ's presence-corporal in the Sacrament so soon as he reads the words Hoc est Corpus meum I could heap up many instances in this kind But I would not have this so understood as if I held that a private man might not be sufficiently certain in many things from the exceeding evidence and clearnes of the Scriptures therein But hardly I say shall he ever be so in any such thing where a General Council is not certain of the same from the same so clear Scriptures but at least thinks its self from these Scriptures or notwithstanding them certain of the contrary Lastly by Reason But what arguments from their Reasons can counterpoise this from the authority of so many of much greater reason Ipsa sola Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas argumentum est majoris ponderis quam alia quaevis ratio quia credendum judicamus quicquid maxime vitam societatem humanam dirigit ac conducit Especially if this be considered That as many matters of our faith are obscure and exceeding the natural light of reason so evidence of private judgment in them against the Church can hardly be so pressing and irresistible as that he may not conform to her judgment Again what certainty can any presume-of in such a pretended demonstration as being communicated and made known to others yet convinceth none but himself The authority even of Councils less than General i. e. fallible to punish dissenters from their decrees unless they have unjustly hitherto usurped it methinks argues their errors to be by private men not easily discoverable But of this see more in Obligation of Judgment § 15. 22. c. Trial of Doct.
so it is in the instance he giveth But in some other sentences it is false viz. when they enjoyn me an action the lawfulnes whereof is questioned For since I may never do a thing believed unlawful for me to do therefore here I must either believe their determination for my doing it just and right or I must not do it Now as I said before this I may believe either by believing the thing in it self lawful which they judg so or at least that it is lawful for me to do it rebus sic stantibus tho the thing in general prohibited or unlawful to be done without such circumstances because God hath peremptorily obliged me to obey their sentence tho in some things errable As may be shewed in many instances which were decidable by such Judges For example a controversy ariseth between a bounden servant and his master whether he is to obey his Masters command in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day The Servant arguing from Exod. 20. 10. In it thou shalt not do any work c that it is by God prohibited Here upon the Judges sentence well weighing this text with other Scriptures I say the Servant is bound by them to water his Master's cattel and therefore bound to think it lawful to do so none being obliged to do what he thinks unlawful to do for Conscientia erronea obligat The same it is if any one upon Levit. 18. 16. refusing to marry the wife of his brother deceased without issue making some false gloss upon Deut. 25. 5. should receive a command from these Judges to marry her My last instance shall be in the very matter whereof Mr. Hooker discourseth tho Mr. Chillingworth avoided it The Church of England passeth a sentence in the supreme Ecclesiastical court That every Minister in celebrating Divine Service shall wear a Surplice Here I say a Puritan may not do what the judicial sentence hath determined c by no means unless he first think or believe the determination of the Council lawful i. e. That his doing this namely wearing the Surplice is not against the law of God. The reason is because here they enjoyn him the doing of that of which the question is whether to do it be lawful But had they enjoyned him to pay a mulct for not wearing a Surplice then the question is not whether he may lawfully pay this mulct for unusquisque potest cedere de suo jure and he who doth this thing is supposed to be satisfied in this point that he may cedere suo jure but only whether that court had a just and legal cause for which they enjoyned this mulct which as to the point of lawful concerns them but not him at all But had the law said or did such a one mulcted doubt whether the law had said no man shall submit to any mulct or punishment which he thinks the Judge unjustly sentenceth him to then must he not pay the mulct till he thought the determination lawful A sentence therefore may be conceived unjust two ways 1. Either in enjoyning men to do a thing which the law as they conceive hath prohibited to be done such a thing may never be done as long as the sentence is thought unjust i. e. Enjoyning them to do what the law prohibits to be done Or 2ly in enjoyning men to do what the law hath prohibited the Judge in such a case to enjoyn but not the others in any case to do tho to do such a thing in such a point ought not to have bin imposed Here the judged doubtles may obey the sentence whilst he thinks it unjust To make things plain I fear I am too tedious See more of this matter in Success Clergy Mr. Chillingworth goes on to shew an impossibility that such a yeilding to judgment against our private opinion can be His words are If you will draw Mr. Hooker's words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of a judicial and final decision just and right tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right it is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus tho at the same time they think the contrary Thus far he To this I have spoken more fully in the following Discours § 2. To make Contradictories the terms in both Propositions must be taken exactly in the same sence els they will be only verbally so As I will shew you this to be after I have first premised this That taking thinking in the latter Proposition for infallibile certainty but t is clear Mr. Hooker means no such thing the words imply a true contradiction for he who saith he believes for any authority whatsoever humane or per impossibile divine contrary to what he is infallibly certain of saith he believes what he believes not or what he cannot believe So that where there is infallible certainty it voids all argument from Authority neither can any one say I do or will submit my judgment to such or such in a point whereof he is sure But let thinking therefore or private opinion be taken in any degeee below absolute certainty and then I think that expression had it bin Mr. Hooker's as it is tho not totidem terminis is far from contradiction To shew which give me leave to change this word think in the latter proposition into some other words which yet are plainly what Mr. Hooker means by thinking and you shall see they will be very well consistent I think or believe from the argument of the authority prudence c of such persons their determination of such a point to be right tho all the arguments I have from seeming reason of the thing or from that sence which I conceive of Scripture incline me to think that such a determination is not right Now I suppose as the terms are here explained none will deny That one may think or believe a thing to be truth not against his belief or thinking but against all arguments which are drawn from his seeming natural reason or otherwise except that ab authoritate if these do not amount to infallible certainty or that a man may yeild an assent of belief in respect of authority contrary to his assent of evidence in respect of the thing so that evidence be in any degree below infallible certainty Els we must deny that we can believe any mystery of faith which seems to us contrary to natural reason see Rom. 4. 17 18. 2 Cor. 10. 5. and these two propositions will contradict also I believe or think such a thing a divine truth from divine authority delivering it tho my natural reason inclines me to think or believe the contrary Doth a man speak a contradiction if he say to a Scholar or a child Do not believe or give credit to your own reason meaning by it the reasons or arguments his brain suggests to him about
I answer That from this judgment of such a Church so often as it is suspected by me I will not retreat to my private judgment but I will appeal to a more general judgment of the present Church which judgment I can either have conjunctim or divisim as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time and by the reformed opinion I shall be secure if I part not from the present Church for in fundamentals she shall in no age err but hold forth to me visibly the truth and if this error be in Non-fundamentals it amounts not as the reformed say to a heresy therefore will I still cleave to her i. e. the present Church and the supremest Authority I can find therein neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures or Fathers against her because she cannot be at least in points of great consequence opposit to them And if that religion as it might have bin had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2 and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures nor writings of Fathers then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church neither needed she for this to have bin made more infallible than now she is and doubtles my faith should have bin nevertheles sufficiently grounded i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her neither could any have made an argument that my faith was not salvifical for this reason because fidei non potest subesse falsum for she must then in defect of all writings have bin confess'd the pillar and ground of truth and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. the same then must she be still and Nations now as at the first before writings are still converted by her by her preaching before they come to peruse those Scriptures And so are we all also taught our faith first by her neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers But yet besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority any help that is from these writings enjoyed by any other is also by her that no body may boast over her in these advantages 2. It is objected That our faith to be salvifical must be grounded on something that is infallible and therefore only on God's word See this answered at large in the Treatise of Necessary faith § 43. c. Surely the Church groundeth her faith which she recommendeth to us on the Scriptures as well as private men think they do theirs when they leave hers to follow their own judgment And if the Church'es judgment is not neither is their own infallible for which they desert the Church'es But tho it is most true that true faith is always grounded on the word of God which word of God is infallible yet is it not necessary that every one who hath true faith do know that it is infallible or be infallibly certain of it For many have saving faith doubtles that learn this word of God only from a fallible man suppose from their Father or from their Pastor Neither is it necessary that this faith should be received from another person infallible besides God nor that it should be received from a writing at all There may be a strong adherence beyond evidence neither can it be unsufficient if it be so strong as to produce obedience to God's commands 3. T is said That one is for his salvation secure enough where ever these two are Unity of faith with the Church in fundamentals and then Charity toward the Church in the points not-fundamental wherein I disagree from her Charity i. e. not condemning her for them to be no Church c. I answer 1. First such a one must know well what are Fundamentals that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations Heb. 6. 2. if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth I know not how many other points may be brought in And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism Bishops Ordination c. 2ly Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith than only in fundamentals unles all points of faith be fundamental and if so then Churches that differ in any point of faith differ in fundamentals 3ly If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides doubtles are set over us to build us up in the unity also of this faith and not only of fundamentals See Heb. 5. 11. c. 6. 1. And therefore why Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13. should be restrained only to fundamentals as it is by some it seems to me strange I cannot think that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals see 1 Cor. 1. 4. c and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions and exhorts them to be all of one judgment which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment each one of their private reason but of the Apostle and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 18. Rom. 15. 5 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where speaking the same thing and being joyned in the same judgment contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind glorifying God with one mind and one mouth c. argue an unity required not only of charity but of opinion and judgment and that not only in fundamentals in which as I said all the factious Corinthians or most of them accorded but other beneficial truths which union how could so many judgments undependent of one another attain but by all of them retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor or Pastors 4ly If these points wherein the reformed recede from the authority of superior Councils be not very necessary tho not fundamental how can a separation for them be justified but if necessary why should we say that God requires not an unity of faith in them 5ly Again as faith and charity secure not our salvation if we be guilty of some other vice adultery c so they do not secure it if there be any denial of obedience where t is due especially to the Church disobedience towards whom is in a more special manner disobedience to Christ and to God himself and why may not this then endanger us if God hath provided teachers to keep us in the same judgment and we to the great hurt both of the Church and of our selves too by these divisions will every one follow his own judgment especially since
in obliging them to that of the Church 3ly It is granted that as our judgment is taken in this 2d sence namely for the private reasons and evidences we have of a subject in it self secluding from authority in some things we are allowed to use and follow it or to follow such reasons But we cannot collect from hence that we are permitted by God or have equal reason to follow it I mean our private opinion or reason in every thing unless it be proved 1. That all things are equally easie to be discovered by it and 2ly That there is no divine command for our yeilding obedience in some things to anothers judgment If any one should advise one to find out some reputed wise and experienced person in such affairs to consult with about something wherein himself knoweth little and such a one found wholly to rely on his directions and judgment therein answered he well that should say If I may rely on my own judgment in seeking out such a person why may I not as well rely on it for the matter about which I seek to him which only is well answered if these two be equally easie or difficult So the Reformed granting that we are to use our own private reason for discovering what books are the true word of God yet will not allow us having found such books to be his word to use our own private reason to examin by it whether what we find delivered to us therein be truth or no or when ever any thing therein seems I say not is against our reason as a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of Essence then to follow our reason in expounding it otherwise then it appears but now we are to lay aside the arguing of our reason and to believe all these Scriptures proposed after that by our reason we have found them to have divine authority So supposing that some Church were infallible it will not follow that if one may use his judgment in finding her he may afterward also use his judgment against her or any her decrees 4ly If you ask therefore in what things we may use and follow our private reason and opinion I answer in all things wherein God or right reason hath not submitted us to the judgment of another We may use it therefore in the discovery and search whether there be any such Judge at all appointed by God over us in Spiritual matters and what person or court it is to whose judgment he hath subjected us And in order to this we may use it in the finding out which of the several religions that are in the world is the true and which in the several divisions and sects that are in the true i. e. where some truth is by all retained is the Catholick and whether that particular Church wherein we were bred hath any way departed from it So in the finding out which Councils in some doubt concerning them are legitimate and truly General to whose acts we are to render up the submission of our judgment and which is the right and genuine sence where any ambiguity of their decrees in finding them out I say by the judgment and testimony which we find the present Church of our own days or that part thereof which seems to our private reason the Catholick to give thereof In this search that Proposition of Dr. La is very true Intellectus cujusque practicus judicare debet utrum is qui pro Judice haberi velit sit utique verus legitimus an media quae adducuntur ad hoc probandum fidei faciende sufficiant But such a Judge by our private reason being found to be and found who it is we may not for the things once judged and decided by him use or follow our own private reason any further but are now to quit it and our judgment having once discovered that such is appointed our Judge in such matters in this excludes it self and this Resignation we make of our judgment is also an act of our judgment In this manner the Apostle exhorts elsewhere not to trust every teacher but to try their doctrines whether agreeing with those of the Apostles i. e. with those of the appointed Governors of the Church and elsewhere that doctrine which they find the Church-governors to have delivered to them to stand constant and stedfast in it See Col. 2. 7 8. 2 Thes. 2 15. compared with 1. 1. Tit. 1. 9. Eph. 4. 11. compared with 14. Jude 3. 4. But you will say What if upon using my private reason I find not that there is any Judge or Law-giver in Spiritual matters cannot I then in all such matters use my private reason and follow the dictates thereof without sinning No if your reason in such search was faulty for as I said vitiously contracted ignorance never excuseth omission of duty 5ly As it is our duty where any cause of doubt diligently with our best reason to seek out the true Spiritual Guides and then having found to submit our judgment and reason as readily unto them so it seems much more easie to find out the Church which is to be our guide and to decide things to us than to find out the truth of all those things she decides more easie to find out who are those Spiritual Magistrates and Substitutes of our Saviour left to govern and guide his Church until his second coming lights not put under a bushel but set on high upon a candlestick to give light to all and a corporation and city set on an hill to be seen of all or amongst several sects and divisions to find out which is the Catholick communion from which all the rest in their several times have gone forth at the first very few in number v. Trial of Doctrines § 32. than by our own guidance and steering entring every one as a rasa tabula upon search of truth amongst the many subtleties of contrary pretences of contrary traditions in Antiquity to find out what is orthodox in all those points which points wean-while after so many hot contentions and wavering of opinion and mis-quoted Authors the Guide we neglect in her several Councils hath prudently fixed that we might no more like children be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive What wise work have the Socinians made and what strange truths have they discovered by waving the authority of Councils and laying hold of private reason to conduct them and be their judge assisted with plain Scripture after that they had made quest after some other Judge and could find none sufficiently infallible for their turn Who have bin so much so dangerously deceived as these wise and wary men who would trust none but the infallible 6ly Against that which is usually said that the words of Scripture are as plain and intelligible as the decrees of a Council and therefore our private
and Timothy might also commit these things again to other faithful men for them again to teach others and not perhaps write them or not all See 2. Tim. 2. 2. So when he was sent to Corinth 1 Cor. 4. 17. he might acquaint them with more of S. Paul's doctrines and ways in Christ than St. Paul writ to them See 1 Cor. 11. 34. where the Apostle possibly might order somewhat more concerning the receiving of the Sacrament which is not mentioned in the Scripture As S. August thinks he ordered receiving of it fasting See Epist. 118. ad Januarium near the end See 2 Thess. 2. 15. 2ly As we may not argue things unlawful in themselves or untrue so neither useles or superstitious and will-worship because we do not find them in the Scriptures For there are many things which may be enjoyned by Ecclesiastical authority which are not only not unlawful or which are required only for the preservation of order and unity in the Church for God's publick Service but which are very useful and much helping us for our Salvation for the advancing of holines suppressing of lusts c and granted to be so even by those who think them not all commanded in Scripture As Confession of sins to the Priest observing certain times of Fast frequent hours of Prayer several Penances See Common-prayer-book Preface to Commination c. And there are also many other customs received from a constant tradition which those who think them not to be set down in Scripture yet do not therefore deny them to be true and Apostolical or affirm them unlawful to be observed as Episcopacy Baptizing of Infants the Eucharist administred only by the Priest the observation of the Lord's day c. Nay some precepts in Scripture there are quietly acknowledged to be temporary and antiquated as that of observing that day of the week on which God rested and that Act. 15. 29. and some other things not in precept willingly admitted to oblige for no reason but only because the first were anciently laid aside and the second practised by our Mother the Church And by the same reason as some admit these tho not contained in Scripture they must admit many more 3ly But were some of these things enjoyned needless yet as long as they are not by God's word forbidden and are by the Church commanded if S. Paul would abstain from flesh whilst he lived not to offend his brother how much more should we obey in these not to offend our governors or rather to perform the divine command of yeilding obedience to our Governors which submission to them is due I suppose in all things not contrary to the Scriptures In which our Superiors may offend many times in their injunctions when we do not in our obedience the preservation of so reverend an authority which cannot in all things be menaged for the best and of the unity of the Church being more benefit to any member thereof than the observance of a command which is fruitles yet no way contrary to the Scriptures can be inconvenience Our Superiors may offend I say in enjoyning when not others in obeying Because injunctions and laws become unjust and unlawful not one but many ways as in respect of the matter when contrary to God's word so where the matter is not a thing evil in respect of the end author or other circumstances As when such injunctions are no way conducing to the publick good when enjoyned as God's command or as to be preferred before something that is so or as something necessary to Salvation when not enjoyned by a lawful authority c. Now the matter of the command being not faulty the thing may be done provided that no unlawful end be expressed in the injunctions for thus it becomes part of the matter and substance of the command because the end by them that obey may be changed and as concerning the Legislator t is no fault to obey another who ever he be in that which we may impose upon our selves Lastly for the matter tho it is everlastingly granted that I may do nothing that is contrary to God's commands yet I have no reason to refuse obedience to my Superiors unles it be a thing which not I think but I am sure is so as the Apostles were sure in their refusing Act. 4. 19. for where there is reason to doubt concerning the matter whether it be contrary to God's command or no and so I think there is always where the Church's judgment is opposed to mine there t is a duty to obey my Superiors But here what if that which is not commanded in the Scripture be enjoyned by the Church to be obeyed as a thing commanded there or as commanded by God Which thing our Saviour blamed in the Pharisees and justified his Disciples in not observing their commands In which if we may conform to authority it seems that there will scarce be any superstition or will-worship at all but only in the imposers of laws Answ. 1. T is to be noted that the Pharisees traditions in which the instance is made were many of them other than those here supposed some being contrary to the Scripture as that tradition mentioned Matt. 15. 5. some recommended before the commands in Scripture and whilst those done these omitted in which respect such service became most odious see Mark 7. 8. Matt. 23. 23. 15. 9. others required to be done as necessary which were not only needles but upon a false ground recommended as that of washing hands because they held that unwashen hands defiled But 2ly this shall be granted that that which is commanded tho it be not contrary to Scripture yet when it is pretended by the imposers to be in it self necessary as when it is pretended either to be Scripture or to be reverenced and equalled to the Scriptures and God to be as much worshipped in it when as men only and not God require it as in what himself hath commanded and that rather to be omitted than it and when it is by others obeyed and reverenced as such is superstition and will-worship both in him that commands and in him who obeys whenever he hath sufficient evidence for conviction And this I suppose was the fault of those who sat in Moses's chair not that they required obedience to their decrees such as were not contrary to God's word but an equal reverence and belief of them in this obedience as of the written law nay placed the substance of holines and of God's honor in these wherein it did not consist more than in the other and so required the omitting of the other rather than of these as should one now impute the power of prayer to the posture or place he makes it in or to the number of times he doth it and not to the devotion and purity of the Suppliant the mercy and promises of God c this would be Superstition and will-worship i. e. a worship
Teachers of the Church present and past by whom we may learn what is the constant tradition of the Church which Church hath always preserved and perused the Scriptures and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail 2. To conform our minds the better to the expositions of which Doctors of the Church we are advised not to rely much on our own reason and judgment See Rom. 12. 16. Prov. 3. 5. 28. 26. Is. 5. 21. Prov. 12. 15. 11. 14. And to be the more perfectly convinced by experience also how easily our reason is misguided by Reason I mean reasoning upon not its own but Scripture-principles after having recollected how many times our selves have changed our opinion in Theological matters the same holy writings guiding us at all times being as confident in our former then as now in our present tenet 1. Consider that whilst in every Nation doubtles there are many of excellent judgments turning the same Gospel reading the same books of controversie which they both mutually answer yet in a manner all those of one Kingdom or Government do so espouse one opinion and all of another a contrary that they will both lay down their lives in defence thereof and so their posterity after them And this happens partly because there is no tenet but that there is some verisimility in it and some reason for it that seems to many hard to be answered which reason according to our party we lay for a foundation and then fit all other contrary arguments by distinctions how absurd soever unto it being certain that no truths contradict one another and hence do both sides especially in answoring objections accuse the other of going against their conscience But this happens more from not equality of arguments for every side but opposite interests of the controvertists which interests commonly prevent the access to or just force of those arguments upon the understanding where the truth if it should prove contrary to those interests will undo them Therefore they make either none or a very negligent search into their adversaries tenets and reasons as delivered in their own writings or into the doctrines of Antiquity when quoted against them Notwithstanding which interest being rather hereditary than by themselves contracted they mistake themselves to be indifferent and any way unbiassed 2. Consider how those who have the Scriptures most common yet when free from the yoke of Ecclesiastical authority do run into most diversity of opinions and those not slight or void of danger to their salvation In particular the Socinian abstracting from all Church-authority and committing himself only to Scripture and his reason yet who more than he opposeth things which seem most clear in Scripture For what more plain there than that this world was created by the Word the Son of God Jo. 1. 1. Heb. 1. And therefore also the Reformed more than the Romanist tho in both there are many differences is censured for diversity of opinions Nisi adsit spiritus prudentiae nihil proderit verbum Dei saith Calvin witness those of Munster And worthy here of serious consideration is the reason why Timothy and Titus are advised to avoid i. e. not to interest much or practise themselves in or meddle with vain curiosities and questions of science falsly so called because they will increase still unto more ungodliness and eat further as doth a Canker or gangrene and strife gender strife and questions minister more questions See 2 Tim. 2. 16 17 23. 1 Tim. 1. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 7. Tit. 3. 9. compared with 10. which argues he was forbid much disputing with such perverse men And t is likely Hymeneus c at their first differing from doctrines delivered attempted not the denial of the Resurrection Which continually greater intanglings of Reason left to it self do extremely prove the weaknes of it and the unreasonablenes of trusting to it 3. Consider that as the Pharisee that was so blind Matt. 23. 16. thought he only saw Jo. 9. 41. and that others were blind Jo. 7. 49. so whilst we think others misled with passion we are no less misled therewith than they and so they also think of us only we do less discern it And in thus standing upon and preferring our own judgment before others that search the Scriptures as well as we we presume either that we have better naturals than they or else more integrity and honesty than they and what root can this proceed from but pride and uncharitablenes no good pre-dispositions for the discovery of truth see 1 Tim. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 2. 4. Consider that for ordinary readers over the New Testament is spread a veil as was over the Law for the Jews 2 Cor. 3. 14. and the knowledge thereof is attained not thro the strength of Reason but illumination of the Spirit and the like entertainment as the word preached then found with several persons the same now doth the word written Now self-conceitednes of their own wisdom was then the greatest impediment that could be to the understanding of the mystery of the Gospel for that which was truth was some way or other to them foolishnes And no where were there so few converted as at self-conceited Athens See 1 Cor. 1. 17. c. 1 Cor. 2. 6. c. 3. 18. c. Rom. 1. 22. Lu. 10. 21. Why so because knowledge or a great stock of falsly so called reason maketh proud 1 Cor. 8. 1. and pride hinders the Spirit by which Spirit only is had true knowledge the way to which is humility mortification and abnegation of that which of all things is most our self the rational part of man and extremely addicting our selves unto holines that so we may discern truth see Psal. 25. 12 14. Ps. 111. 10. Jo. 7. 17. 14. 21. 8. 12. see below § 39. And he that is so disposed is more inclined to obedience of others than reliance on himself and then Qui didicit obedire nescit judicare And if we prove this way also betrayed to error yet is this error more excusable before God accompanied with these qualities than truth can be acceptable to him possessed with pride There is great reason then that we should not depend only on our own judgment or on the Scriptures as we interpret them but diligently search also the former practice and tenets of the Churches of God and consult the present judgment of those * who have the promise of not erring at least in knowledge necessary to salvation nor in other things so far as that any may therefore lawfully reject their external communion for which see Church-gov 2. part § 31. 3d. part § 62. * who are the Successors of the Apostles 2 Tim. 2. 2. the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ 2 Cor. 8. 23 * who are appointed by Christ for the building up of the Church and perfecting of the Saints and especially that
c see Jo. 5. 36. Matt. 16. 3. that Jesus was the Messias and the Prophet whom he had promised to raise unto them like unto Moses to whom they were now to obey in all things and to hearken to none contradicting his doctrines The many expressions therefore in the Old Testament that seem to speak of a total falling away of the Priest and a failing of the Church many of which were urged by the Donatists and answered to by St. Austin and other Fathers which see more fully discoursed in Success of Clerg § either speak not of the Priests ignorance at all but vitiousnes and neglect of duty or not of their teaching false doctrines as Priests but of their making false predictions as pretended Prophets or are texts Prophetical of their falling away after the coming of the Messias or speak not of their falling into Heresy but of their open Apostatizing unto Idolatry For Heresies and Sects retaining a distinct communion in the worship of the same God and acknowledgment of the divine law in those times of the Jewish Church we find none but both the Priests and people divided between true worshippers of God and flat idolaters Here therefore the Trier had always those to whom he might safely adhere and might always clearly discern who they were 2ly Nor those that try and after it make choice of falshood are thereby excused because since there is evidence enough one way or other given of the truth they who in searching find it not are some way or other defective in their trial Perhaps because they will not try * by all those ways which God hath left to witness his truth as both by Scriptures and also by the authorized Expositors thereof but only by one way which themselves most fancy Whenas doubtles the Jew or the Berean after their search of Scriptures had not bin excused in dissenting from the Apostles or from our Saviour's doctrine so long as this doctrine was also confirmed to them by other sufficiently evident and convincing arguments besides the testimony of former Scriptures viz * by the mighty signs and wonders which our Saviour and the Apostles did thro the power of the H. Spirit given them from God * by the Resurrection of Jesus and their mission by his authority c. After which confirmation the Apostle's advice to believers is to hold to Tradition to the doctrine formerly delivered Rom. 16. 17. Heb. 13. 7 9. and to prove and try the new spirits 1 Thess. 5. 20. 1 Jo. 4. 1. that perhaps might speak under pretence of that frequent gift of prophecying which the Devil also then imitated something dissenting from doctrines formerly received as appears by 1 Thess. 5. 20. and the clause of 1 Jo. 4. 1. the one bidding that they should not altogether despise these Spirits the other that they should not altogether credit them But of the Apostles doctrines coming with such a testimony of the Spirit Gal. 3. 5. they would not have them at all to doubt pronouncing Anathema to any that should contradict these Gal. 1. 7 9. Col. 2. 6 7 8. 1 Jo. 4. 6. Which 6th verse sheweth that the first verse is meant of the Church's or others trying the spirits of private men 1 Cor. 14. 29 32. not of particular men trying the Spirit of the Apostles or of the Church And should any now not out of affection to learn and to strengthen his faith nor to know what was the reason of them but whether there be any reasons for them try the doctrines of the ancient Councils as some have lately and by the just judgment of God upon curiosity have dissented from them such trial would argue much infidelity against our Saviour's promise and his vigilancy over his Church would much offend against the obedience we owe to the decrees of the Church and against the humble conceit we ought to have of our selves Whereas on the contrary the more indisputing obedience is which is the daughter of true humility the more christian the spirit especially where one is not in a communion of a Church of a later original nor that hath professedly departed out of another Church elder than it self And if any think that such an humble submission and assent to Church-decrees forfeits the use of reason and patronizeth ignorance 1. First the same thing may be said of our assent being tied to the larger Nicene and Athanasian Creeds 2ly Again the Church's decrees are but very few if we take only the decrees of Councils and not all the Theological controversies and determinations of private Divines of any side for such in comparison of the large field of divine knowledge wherein great intellects may still freely expatiate as appears in that great liberty which we find in the Roman writers I mean the Schoolmen freely dissenting from one another in many points Which differings when-as we also urge against them they defend themselves that such are points undefined in Councils But 3ly in things defined also we must acknowledge that learning and searching all arguments for truth well consists with obedience to Church-definitions as it did with our Saviours and the Apostles inasmuch as we find those who most profess this submittance as skilful and copious in giving reasons of their faith as any others and no way laying aside the use of reason or pursuit of knowledge Even as they who from the testimony of Scripture believe there is a God yet seek arguments from the Creation and Nature to strengthen or if I may so say multiply their faith Faith both to what the Scripture and to what the Church saith being alway capeable of a further growth And as oportet discentem credere so credentem discere See more concerning this in Infallibility § and Ch. gov 3. part § 39. But next since one may be born and bred in a Church Schismatical and here also by his condition and profession not capable of making this trial by comparing his present teachers with other modern and ancient Doctors yet upon the reasons above § 20. he is in far less danger in obeying his Spiritual Guides than in steering himself and in obeying them so long as heknows none better tho they be Schismatical he is free from Schism whereas following himself he becomes guilty of a 2d Schism and being free from Schism he may attain in such Church life everlasting nor can there any doubt be made but that a pious man living in the state of Schism and free from the crime is in a far better condition than an orthodox christian living in the habit and state of sin For tho Heresy Gal. 5. 20. i. e. either an error opposit to some truth necessary to be explicitly known to enter into heaven such as that Mar. 16. 16. Act. 4. 12. or an obstinate professing in other things against the known definitions of the Church and tho Schism i. e. a factious breaking the unity and peace of the Church
God hath visited the people that sat in darkness in China in the East and West Indies we cannot be ignorant One Religion granted muchwhat the same as at the present for the last 1000 years in its Liturgies and Publick Service in its Altars and quotidian Sacrifice in its high veneration of the celestial Favorites and daily communication by a commemoration of the Saints in glory with the Church triumphant as likewise in its unbounded charity even to the Souls of its supposed-necessitous brethren of the next world in its variety of Religious Orders Fraternities and Votaries in its holy love to chastity silence solitudes and poverty in its unarguing and miscalled blind obedience to the laws of its Superiors in its glorying thro all the past ages of miracles and prophecy One religion I say appearing in all these for so many ages much-what the same and very reverend for its antiquity yet still going on resistless flourishing and spreading its armes abroad further and further toward the East and toward the West with continued and unwearied missions And another religion every day varying from its self and subdividing into smaller Sects after the 70th or 80th year of its age beginning to decline and wither and loose ground in many places where it was formerly well rooted and whilst it promiseth its self still to destroy Antichrist growing each day feebler and He that it names so stronger To summe up all the surest trial of the doctrines of any Church after that by Scripture which is pretended for all sides is First by their conformity with Antiquity i. e. by the doctrines of the former Church 2. By the holines which these doctrines produce in the members of such a Church For the first we are to search the Fathers or some of them or if it be but one of those who are more voluminous concerning such points as are now controverted not as such Fathers are quoted by others but in their own writings For the 2d to read the books of Devotion and the Lives of Holy men of either party Which two who carefully examines notwithstanding the commonly used objections of disagreement ambiguity or impertinency in the first the Fathers of forgery in the second the Lives of Saints he shall be abundantly satisfied concerning truth and error And the grand causes of the continued distractions of opinions I conceive are either the not perusing of the Fathers writings themselves but quotations of them in others where many times a sentence taken by it self may be without any forcing capable of a sence contradictory to the context or the not casting of the search upon the Fathers but Scriptures only or the searching of the Scriptures also not only in an affirmative but negative way taking all that for false or unlawful or unuseful not only what is against them but what is not in them Again in the searching of the Fathers Councils c the reasons why we assent not to them when found contrary to our former opinions are 1. The being bred-up in doctrines repugnant unto their decrees and in places persecuting such tenets which makes us averse from truth that will destroy us averse not by denying it when we know it but by preventing to our power the apprehension of arguments perswasive to it and by a willing entertaining reasons which are never wanting against it Now that this conformity to opinions happens by education and interest rather than argument is plain in that all other things remaining the like i. e. as much judgment and diligence and books c and our education or interest being only changed contrary opinions are as readily the one as the other entertained See before § 14. 2. A general inclination in our nature to opinions that give more liberty and that more throw off yokes 3. A conceit false that Antichrist is to be a Christian in profession and a ruler in the Church Which with the texts of S. John 1 Ep. 2. 18. 4. 3. at one blow cuts off the head of all church-Church-authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever farther than we find them to agree with Scripture and that is with our fancies upon Scripture or sometimes upon one uncompared text thereof According to what hath bin considered in this Treatise methinks some of those passages urged long since by Sr. Edwin Sandys in his Relation of the Western relig p. 30. c. as the ordinary plea of the Ch. of Rome and her adherent Churches have something in them not easily to be answered if we joyn with them the notion of Catholick Ch. as explained by Mr. Thorndyke in his printed letter to his brother and the experiences of our times since Sr. Ed. Sandys's decease Mr. Thorndyke's words are these Christians when they profess to believe i. e. in the Creed the Catholick Ch. do not believe that there is in the world a number of men that profess to be Christians c but that there is a Corporation of true Christians founded by our Lord and his Apostles which hereticks and schismaticks cannot have communion with and this is that which the stile Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the body of true Christians to wit so far as profession goeth from the conventicles of hereticks and schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if hereticks and schismaticks were not barred the communion of the Ch. Thus far he Where his interpreting the believing of the Catholick Ch. to be the believing of a distinction of the profession of Catholicks from the conventicles of Hereticks must needs infer that the Church Catholick which soever it is is a Church or Churches distinguished not only in its internal communion with Christ its head but in its external profession and communion of its members amongst themselves from the external communion and profession of hereticks Sr. Edw. Sandys's discourse by way of objection is this If all other Churches besides the Roman and those united with her have had either their end and decay long since 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 assisting to it till the consummation of the world hath continued on now till the end of 1600 years with an honourable and certain line of near 240 Popes Successors of Peter both tyrants and traitors pagans and hereticks 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 holines of Martyrs with their blood of Virgins with their purity should sanctify 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 armes
which himself deviseth put in the place of that which God requireth So not only mens traditions but divine commands from a mistaken end and use of them become will-worship too as * Sacrifice See Psal. 50. 8. Isa. 1. 12 13. compared with 16. and see Jer. 7. 21 22. compared with 23. the chief service not consisting in the offering but in the devotion of the offerer And * Fasting Is. 58. 3 4 5. compared with the 6th Zech. 7. 5. compared with the 9th See the like Matt. 23. 23. Therefore God calleth those lower duties himself hath commanded when done with an omission of the higher duty and service of him to which they were ordained will-worship See Isa. 1. 12. compared with 11 13. who hath required c because tho he commanded the thing done yet the doing of it was not according to his command 3ly Were therefore any one certain that something not commanded in the Scriptures or by God were enjoyned by the Church to be obeyed as commanded by God or also were preferred to something commanded by God he ought to refuse to obey what the Church commands in such a manner or with such an intention as she is here supposed to command it But 4ly there may be an obedience performed to such ordinances so long as we think them not also contrary to the Scriptures but if we think them contrary then see the course we are to take § 13. without being guilty of the Superstition for we may do them tho not in that way as they are commanded when we certainly know the contrary concerning them yet as things in themselves indifferent and commanded by the Church As doubtles the Disciples upon an injunction from the consistory might have washed their hands before meat in obedience to such order so that they had no opinion that they were defiled in not washing them So the Feast of Dedication kept by our Saviour of Lots Esther 9. 20. their Fasts mentioned in the Prophets Zech. 7. 5. Joel 2. 15. c. Zech. 8. 19. and ceremonies in burial of the dead in which the Priests were dispensed with Lev. 21. 1. c and many other practices mentioned in the Old Testament were no where commanded in the Law but acts passed by the Consistory which yet were not neglected to be observed Which doing of them avoids offence and sufficiently preserves the peace of the Church and doing them not as God's commands satisfies our own conscience All this is said supposing that we certainly know these things not to be God's commands which the Church enjoyns as such But 5ly we being secure upon our Saviour's promise that the Supreme Guides of the Church cannot mis-guide us in necessaries to Salvation and again not being infallibly certain that that is not commanded by the Scriptures or by God which they say is so so long we ought to yeild obedience to such injunctions in the same manner as it is required and if we err herein we are excusable tho the Church-Guides should therein be faulty For it is not so easie a matter with the same infallibility to discover the Superstition of the traditions of the Church as our Saviour did of the Pharisees especially since all sides in some things besides Scripture must and do allow of useful Traditions And therefore let it be well considered by every private man when the Church pretends Scripture or Tradition for their Articles whether he or they are more likely to be mistaken and then whether he should not yeild obedience to this command of theirs of which it is doubted whether it be God's also as well as he doth to their commands in matters which are of themselves indifferent Thus much of the trial of Commands the contrary of which is not contained in Scripture 2. Next of the trial of our Superiors doctrines or commands whether the contrary of such commands be contained in the Scripture Where 1. first if it be contained there as fact only and not precept here also seems no opposition ought to be made to the Church's authority For we find * both the Apostles themselves according to change of times and circumstances to have changed something also of their former institutions and practices See 1 Tim. 5. 9. compared with Act. 6. 1. Widows being formerly admitted without limitation of age 1 Cor. 8. 7. c. and 1 Cor. 10. 25 29. compared with Act. 15. 29 -16 3. and-18 18. and-21 24. and 1 Cor. 9. 20. comp with Act. 15. 1 -and Gal. 4. 9 10 -5 2. and Gal. 2. 3 4 14. circumstances altering the practice And the Church to have changed others since with general approbation as abrogating Love-feasts receiving the Lord's Supper in the morning and by the same reasons that these have bin altered others may be 2. In the Second place then to come to the trial and search by Scripture Whether the contrary to what the Church commands be not contained therein by way of precept And here this is certain that we are to obey no commands whatsoever that we are certain to be contrary to the precepts of Holy Scriptures But it happens that in many controversies the Scriptures are not clear for we may not call that a clear truth in Scripture that some one that reads it is confident of whilst others as intelligent think contrary for so that is many times clear to the ignorant not comparing places diligently together for qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat which remains doubtful to the more learned and there we must either look after some other trial of such controversies or leave them undecided Now to say here with some that Scriptures are clear to all in all necessary credends and for all things not necessary that we need not be inquisitive of truth satisfies not for tho Scripture be so perspicuous in things absolutely necessary to salvation which are very few yet that it is not so in many truths very useful and of great importance to be known the differences between the Reformed and the Roman Churches plainly shew the Scriptures being so ambiguous that whole Nations both using them are of contrary opinions and the points of difference so considerable that both doubt of or deny one anothers salvation in a mis-credence of them In this case therefore 1. First where our spiritual Guides determin a thing on one side wherein the Scripture seems to us doubtful and this doubt is in aequilibrio and as I may so say on both sides equal and indifferent as much Scripture seeming for as against it here the authority of such Guides pro or con ought to sway us as it doth in things in their own nature indifferent 2. But if the Scripture seem clear to us on one side and the determination of authority be on the other that is the contrary seems clear from Scripture to others then we are to use the 2d trial by the rest of the Doctors and