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
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
not his meer misbelief of that point for which he is accounted an heretick which excludes him from salvation Because perhaps many good Catholicks before the Church'es determination have mis-believed the same point as for example the point of rebaptization as well as he without any danger to their salvation But that which condemns him is that he hath fidem tho divinam yet not operantem per charitatem that he is obstinate and disobedient to the Church'es orders and decrees or if you will that he dis-believes this great Article of Faith which dis-belief is the fountain of his dis-obedience That the Church hath such an Authority committed to her by Christ as that he ought to conform to all her determinations and preserve in every thing the unity of her faith Of the Donatists hereticks thus S. Aug. Gesbacum Emerito Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam potest Emeritus Evangelium tenere potest in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti fidem habere praedicare sed nusquam nisi in Ecclesia Catholica salutem poterit invenire giving the reason afterward quia charitatem non habet and Ep. 48. ad Vincentium Nobiscum estis in Baptismo in Symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis in spiritu autem unitatis vinculo pacis in ipsa denique Catholica Ecclesia nobiscum non estis To Estius and Lugo add a third Layman a Casuist of great reputation Thus he therefore Theolog. moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. Fieri saepe solet ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae puta quae sunt de Deo Uno Trino explicite credantur ante hunc qui est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate Quinimo haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus Sancti promissione nititur ergo prius oportet credere Spiritum Sanctum adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse Praeterea constat Beatissimam Virginem Apostolos primosque Christianos fide divina credidisse non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae quae vel fundata non erat v. g. cum S. Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Mat. 16. vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat Again Formale assentiendi principium seu motivum non est Ecclesiae authoritas Si enim ex te quaeram Cur credas Deum esse incarnatum respondeasque Quia Ecclesia Catholica quae errare non potest ob S. Spiritus assistentiam ita testatur iterum ex te quaeram Unde id scias vel cur credas Ecclesiam non errare vel S. Spiritum ei assistere Quare recte dicit Canus l. 2. de loc Theol. 8. c. post med Si generaliter quaeratur Unde fideli constet ea quae fide tenet esse a Deo revelata non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere quia unum ex revelatis est quod Ecclesia errare non possit Interim non negamus saith he quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae quatenus Spiritu Sancto regitur fieri possit communiter soleat a sidelibus ipsis qui infallibilem Spiritus Sancti assistentiam ac directionem Ecclesiae promissam certa fide tenent his enim ejus testimonium ac definitio certa regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos Imo talis regula seu norma exurgentibus circa fidem dubiis omnino nobis necessaria est put a ad discernendum Scripturam Canonicam ab Apocrypha traditiones veras a falsis denique credenda a non credendis Sententia Scoti Gabrielis qui in resolutione recurrere videntur ad fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae quatenus ea est illustris congregatio tot hominum excellentium Exempli causa Credo Deum esse incarnatum quia divinitus revelatum est revelatum autem hoc esse divinitus seu revelationem hanc a Deo profectam esse ideo accepto seu credo fide acquisita quia it a scriptum est in Evangelio S. Johannis cui omnis Ecclesia seu congregatio hominum vitae innocentia sapientia illustrium testimonium assensum praebet Haec sententia inquam si recte explicetur a vero aliena non est Non enim mens est Doctorum illorum quod fidei divinae assensus in fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae resolvatur tanquam in principium sed tanquam in extrinsecum adjumentum conditionem sine qua non Etenim authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus Sancti sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi side humana sed non fide divina Quia fides divina est qua Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem veritatem ejus consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humana credit Accedit quod sicuti ipsemet Scotus Gabriel argumentantur assensus cognoscitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur assen us autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet ergo fieri non potest ut assensus fidei divinae tanquam principio nitatur authoritate hominum vel simili motivo humano quippe quod secundum se absolute fallibile est Major autem imo maxima certissima animi adhaesio quam sides divina continet non ex viribus naturae aut humanis persuasionibus provenit sed ab auxilio Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui liberae voluntati nostrae By this it seems that ultima resolutio sidei divinae is in illam certitudinem quam habemus per auxilium Spiritus Sancti c. Hear then his last stating of the point Quod ad formalem de qua nunc agimus fidei resolutionem attinet expeditus ac verus dicendi modus est iste citing Cajetan for it 2. 2. q. 1. a. 1. Quod sides divina ex parte objecti ac motivi formalis resolvatur in auhoritatem Dei revelantis Credo Deum esse incarnatum Credo Ecclesiae item definientis authoritatem infallibilem esse quia prima summa veritas id nobis revelavit But if you ask whence or why he believeth Deum summam veritatem id revelasse he goeth on Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse ulterius resolvi vel per fidem i. e. divinam probari non potest nec debet quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur sed supponuntur I wonder why he adds not here that the believer hath fidem divinam infallibilem Deum veracem talia revelasse ex auxilio Spiritus S. succurrentis intellectui c. for he saith it before But then if asked again How he knows or believes that this his faith Deum revelasse c is ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti here at least he must have stay'd as at the first principle of Resolution of Faith divine But now that fides which he calls humana and fallible can go on further and give a ground or motive why it believes Deum veracem talia
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 §
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
to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole nations into her bosom If lastly in all other opposit Churches there be found inward dissensions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governors much more experienced since this Author's death in the late Presbyterian wars confusion of Orders invading of Episcopacy c. whereas contrariwise in this Ch. the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the very lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony beauty and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continuance increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious Spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it followeth that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further disquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of that Church that was before Luther's times and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from error i. e. dangerous to or destructive of salvation and yet peremptorily command men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard bin of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truths of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed therefore are they who believe and have not seen the merit of whose religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptance before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others This is the main course of their perswading at this day c. FINIS Concerning SALVATION possible to be had in a SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION AND Concerning the danger of living in and the necessity of departing from a KNOWN-SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION CONTENTS Tho it be conceded 1. FIrst That the Catholick Church contains in it not many opposit but only one external Communion § 2. 2ly That there is no salvation out of the communion i. e. internal of the Church Catholick 3. Yet Salvation must be allowed to some that are out of the external communion of the Ch. Catholick 4ly That of those who live out of the Catholick and in a schismatical external Communion there are several sorts 1. Those who make such separation who are not salvable without repentance 2. Those who follow such leaders and continue the division upon the same motives and passions not salvable without repentance 3. Those who follow such leaders in simplicity of heart and out of their condition considered invincible ignorance Such seem to be in a salvable condition tho incurring great disadvantages for their salvation § 7. 4. Those who convinced of Schism in such a Church yet rejoyn not themselves to the external communion of the Ch. Catholick tho consenting in all things with her Hindered 1. Either by some respects meerly temporal Such faulty but how highly is hard to determin 2. Or by some considerations and designs meerly spiritual Such less faulty than the other yet seem not wholly justifiable 1. †Whether they continue still in a communion schismatical § 9. n. 1. Which communion seems forbidden both 1. By the Scriptures 2. And by the Injunctions of the Church Catholick § 10. To which all owe obedience § 11. 2. Or †whether they communicate with no Church at all who seem of the two the less unjustifiable § 13. yet not wholly excusable § 14. 5. Those who 1. much doubting the Church they live in to be schismatical yet are not fully convinced thereof Or 2. convinced defer their intended reconcilement till an expected opportunity § 17. That several circumstances considered both these may or may not be culpable A Query What is to be done if the Ch. Catholick require some conformity to doctrines or practices against his conscience or particular judgment who seeks her Communion § 19. Several propositions tending to the solution of this Query § 20. Bishop of Chalcedon in Protest plain Confess 2. c. If Protestants allow not saving Faith Church and Salvation to such as sinfully err in Not-fundamentals sufficiently proposed they shew no more charity to erring Christians than Catholicks do For we allow all to have saving faith to be in the Church in the way of salvation for so much as belongs to faith who hold the fundamental points and invincibly err in not-fundamentals because neither are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed 13. c. If they grant not Salvation to such Papists as they count vincibly ignorant of Roman errors but only to such as are invincibly ignorant of them then they have no more charity than we For we grant Church saving Faith and Salvation to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errors Id. in Survey of L. Derry 8. c. 3. §. in answer to Bishop Bramhal's objecting the Pope's excommunicating of such Churches Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Affrick Asia Greece and Russia but only such as vincibly or sinfully err such as are formal or obstinate hereticks or schismaticks For Excommunication is only against obstinacy Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus In these Churches there are innumerable who are but credentes haereticis schismaticis because the Catholick faith was never sufficiently preached to them and these the Pope doth not excommunicate Nor doth he exclude formal Hereticks or Schismaticks but Juridically declareth them to be excluded For by their Heresies or Schisms they had already excluded themselves or juridically confirmeth their exclusion begun by themselves S. Aug. Confess 8. l. 2. c. Legebat Victorinus Doctor tot Nobilium Senatorum c sanctam Scripturam omnesque Christianas scripturas investigabat studiosissime perscrutabatur dicebat Simpliciano non palam sed secretius familiarius Noveris me jam esse Christianum Et respondebat ille Non credam nec deputabo inter Christianos nisi in Ecclesia Christi te videro Ille autem irridebat eum dicens Ergo parietes faciunt Christianos Et hoc saepe dicebat Jam se esse Christianum Et Simplicianus illud saepe respondebat saepe ab illo parictum irrisio repetebatur Amicos enim suos
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
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. §.
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
9. But only †in those points which she proposeth tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria § 10. Where Concerning the several senses wherein Points are affirmed or denied to be de Fide. § 11. That as only so all divine Revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide i. e. the objects and matter of Faith. 12 13. And That the Church can make nothing to be de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c which was not so always from the Apostolick times § 12. That all divine Revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de fide i. e. creditu necessaria § 15. 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 § 16 17. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express it only †in Points clearly traditional § 18. Whether and by what marks those Points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other Proposals § 27. Anathema no certain Index thereof § 29. PART 2. Concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment whether due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible § 30. 1. That no submission of our judgment is due to the Proposal of the Church where we are infallibly certain of the contrary § 33. 2. That no submission is due to an inferiour Person or Court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superiour to repair to for resolution § 34. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever that is short of infallible certainty § 35. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture § 37. 2. From Reason § 38. Where Several Objections and Scruples are resolved § 39. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 44. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks § 51. Conclusion § 54. OF INFALLIBILITY PART 1. IT remains that I give you an account touching the other two Queries proposed The First concerning the Infallibilty of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Second concerning Obedience and Submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible Two Points as they are stated on the one side or the other either leaving us in much anxiety and doubt or in the moveal of this swelled with much pride and self-conceit or leaving us in much tranquillity and peace accompanied with much humility and self-denial Points as they are stated one way seeming much to advance the tender care of the divine Providence over his Church and to plant obedience and unanimity among Christians or as stated another way seeming to proclaim great danger in discovering truth to call for humane wit prudence sagacity and caution and to bequeath Christianity to perpetual strife wars and dissentions And therefore it concerns you to be the more vigilant that affection carry you not on more than reason to the assenting to any Conclusions made in this Discours To take in hand the former of these Concerning the true measure of the extent of the infallibity of the Church by Church I mean the lawful General Representative thereof of which see Church-Government 2. Part § 4. and 24. in the beginning I must confess that I know nothing expresly determined by Councils except what is said Conc. Trident. 4. Sess. Praeterea ad câ—ercenda petulantia ingenia decernit ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei morum ad aedisicationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia cujus est judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Scripturarum S. aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat Neither is there any mention found of the word Infallibility in the Decrees of Trent or any other received Council or yet in the Fathers as F. Veron in his Rule of Faith 4. c. hath observed and therefore saith he let us leave this term to the Schoolmen who know how to use it soberly and content our selves with the terms of the Councils The best is as the exact limits of this Church-infallibility seem no where by the Church to be punctually fixed so they do not in respect of yeilding obedience to the Church seem necessary at all to be known except to such a one as will not submit his judgment to any authority less than infallible of which more anon 1. First it is granted as by all the Catholicks so by the most learned of the Protestants see them quoted in Church-Government 2. Part. § 29. That the Church or the lawful General Representative thereof is infallible in its directions concerning necessaries to Salvation whether in points of pure faith or of practice and manners tho I yeild Mr. Chillingworth denies this see the discussing of his opinion in Church-Government 2. Part. § 26 -3 Part. § 76. without which doing I think he could not have made a thorow Answer to Mr. Knot nor could he have denied those other points which seem to be consequents of this as namely That we must know from the Church also the distinction of Necessaries from others Or must assent to Her in all she proposeth as Necessary That the Defence of any Doctrine the contrary whereof is proposed as necessary against the determination of the Church or lawful General Council is Heresy as being always after such sufficient proposal obstinate That any separation from the external communion of all the visible Church is Schism as being always in her professing and practising all necessaries causless Which Propositions the defence of his cause seems to me to have forced him to disclaim and so also this ground of them That the Church is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals or Necessaries And this infallibility the Church is said to have either from the constant assistance of God's Spirit according to our Saviour's promise at least for such points or also from the Evidence of Tradition much pleaded by some later Catholick Writers But since here by Necessaries may be understood either Doctrines c absolutely necessary to be known explicitely for salvation and that to every one that shall attain salvation for to some perhaps more are required than to others according to their several capacity and means of revelation see Necessary Faith § 10. 11. 16. which may be perhaps only some part of the Creed or else by Necessaries may be understood all other doctrines and rules that are very profitable and conducing thereto The Church being granted by both sides an infallible Guide and Director in Necessaries 1. First it seems most
diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus sirmaretur Again 2. l. 4. c. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid he speaks of the same point auderemus asserere which argues some inevidence in the matter nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse Cyprianus sine dubio crederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Yet were the after-opposers anathematized as heretical Again cont Ep. Parmeniani 2. l. 13. c. Haec quidem alia quaestio est Utrum Baptismus ab iis qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani potest dari nec aliquid temere inde affirmandum est sine authoritate tanti Concilii quantum tantae rei sufficit De iis vero qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptisma dare possint Hoc enim in ipsa totius orbis unitate i. e. in the Council of Nice discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est So contr Crescon Gram. 1. l. 33. c. Quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli motuit obscuritate hujus quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat Obscuritate quaestionis for tho elsewhere de Baptismo cont Don. 5. l. 23. c. he supposeth it an Apostolical Tradition on one side Apostoli quidem nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sicut sunt multa quae tenet universa Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur and tho this custom was by the Bishop of Rome and his party much pressed against Cyprian and his adherents and Agrippinus St. Cyprian's Predecessor is said to be the first that introduced a contrary practice see Aust. de Bapt. 3. l. 12. c. non novam se rem statuisse Beatus Cyprianus ostendit quia sub Agrippino jam coeperat fieri yet it appears that St. Austin did not think all common customs and traditions tho pretended Apostolical before they were approved and warranted by the judgment of the Church in her Councils to be so simply obligatory as that they may not be disputed if seeming opposite to another surer Apostolical Tradition i. e. the Scriptures as St. Cyprian thought this custom was and so answered Steven see Cypr. Ep. ad Pomp. contra Steph. and in this answer is defended by St. Austin see de Bapt. 2. l. 8. c. quia tunc non extiterant c. Noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas etsi non veras quod eum latebat sed tamen non victas veraci quidem sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere Assertae i. e. by * any Council or cleared not to be * against the Scriptures urged but mistakenly by Cyprian And St. Austin also himself saith the same thing with Cyprian de Bapt. 3. l. 6. c. Quis dubitat veritati manifestatae debere consuetudinem cedere This I have set you down the more fully that you might see the power and authority of General Councils not only in declaring points traditional but in deciding questions some way obscure and doubtful and what submission was due to such points once determined in St. Austin's opinion who yet held former by latter Councils might be amended and consequently their in some things liability to error or doubting And so such points are to be believed in consequence only to another point of necessary faith namely That private men ought in all things at least not demonstrative on the contrary to submit their own to the Church'es judgment as many things written in God's word are necessary to be assented to when known to be there written which are not written there because they are necessarily to be known or believed in consequence to that necessary point of faith that whatever is written in God's word is true And hence also are there two sorts of Hereticks some are such before any Council condemning their Tenent if it happen to be against points de fide clear necessary and universally or eminently traditional so were there presently after the Apostles times many Hereticks before any Council assembling or condemning their opinions others only such after their error condemned by a Council if the points be of less evidence c. These latter rendred Hereticks not from the nature of their Tenent but their obstinacy and opposition to the obligation which the Church'es Authority lays upon them in her determinations Whose publick proposal of such doctrines as divine truths is sufficient for their belief and further embracing the same as such and therefore their further opposition of it is not error but heresy unles they can infallibly demonstrate the contrary In which case if ever any such can happen they are free from wilful opposition or heresie i. e. I mean in their denying their assent to the Church but in public contradicting even those infallibly certain c. may be still faulty else they stand guilty thereof and also of Schism if for such a decision they go on to forsake the Church'es communion So St. Cyprian's followers after a General Council were counted Hereticks tho the matter of this Heresy as also of many others so called from opposition to General Councils seem not to be in themselves of very great importance not so He before it In which opinion namely that the Baptism of Hereticks was ineffectual saith Dr. Potter sect 4. many good Catholick Bishops accorded with him and the Donatists as likewise with the Novatians in another viz. that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners before the Nicene Council So tho since the Decision of the Florentine Council 1439 those who hold animas justorum non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem are by the Church of Rome counted Hereticks from opposition c yet those who before that time maintained it amongst whom was Pope John the 22d they acknowledge were free from it See Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 4. l. 14. c. Respondeo Johannem hunc revera sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem caeterum hoc sensisse quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo haeresis nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesioe definitio In such sence Scotus saith Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council Thus you see tho all divine Revelation and necessary deduction from it is de fide and the object and matter of faith
plenary Tradition or undeniable deduction therefrom it being agreed that all her proposals or decrees are not such A Quaere very necessary to be resolved for those if any such there be who affix obedience of assent only to infallibility and this infallibility again only to such decrees but a Quaere for all others me-thinks not of so much concernment I find the marks of such distinction set down in Bell. de Conc. 2. l. 12. c. thus Quando autem decretum proponatur tanquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii semper enim dicere solent 1. Se explicare fidem Catholicam 2. vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt Anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt What then what if it be only Anathema iis qui contrarium dicunt aut docent Quando autem nihil horum dicunt non est certum rem esse de side Thus Bellarmin But note here that Bellarmin tells us not plainly whether something in Councils is proposed tanquam de side without any Anathema set to it only he doubtingly saith non est certum and those others again who build the Church'es inerrability on Tradition and the evident Consequences thereof tel us not whether some of those Decisions that are enjoyned with Anathema's are not sometimes some of those secondary consequences more doubtful ad quas colligendas studium aliquod scientia requiritur or which are made by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors c. As indeed t is likely some of them are Anathema's being added so frequently even in smaller matters and in the newest controversies And perhaps it can hardly be shewn by these writers that every Proposition in a General Council that hath an Anathema affixed to it is traditional to such a degree of evidence since some Traditions are much more universal and evident than some others that it amounts to infallibility not from the assistance of the holy Spirit but from the clearnes of Tradition In this distinction therefore of points de fide or necessary credends wherein the Church is infallible exactly from others I think these Authors cannot speak out so clearly because tho some points are of much more certainty and also of much higher concernment than others yet Councils seem not so punctual in severing them by a diversity of expression unless in very few perhaps a thing not possible to be done by them see § 3. See Dr. Holden 1. l. 8. c. acknowledging some such thing In tradenda doctrina Christiana nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim cognosci possint hujusmodi sidei divinae dogmata ab omnibus aliis quae vel Ecclesiasticae sint institutionis vel quae centae revelationi divinae haud immediate innitantur atque ideo omnia simul confuse indistincte semper docuisse tradidisse Yet the same Councils may and do require subscription and obedience to all their definitions as they being the supreme and unappealable Judge * authorized by Christ for the peace and unity of the Church to give the law to all men * abundantly assisted by the Spirit of Truth for all Necessaries even the obscurest and most unacquainted doctrines if you can once prove them necessary and besides this if in some other matters of less concernment they be liable to error yet how much less they than private men And therefore their submission of judgment to these remains still most rational as well as obligatory The chief note which I find for the distinction of these points de fide wherein the Church is infallible from other determinations or proposals is the affixing of Anathema's which are the same with Excommunication But 1. first several of these Anathema's if we do rely on their form may require not internal assent as looking meerly at faith but non-contradiction as looking perhaps in some points more at peace many running only si quis dixerit c Anathema sit But if it be said that the Anathema's only that are set upon a Si quis sentiat or credat are the Index of such points de fide for necessary credends then will very few decrees of Councils pass for such for example not above four or five of all those made in the Council of Trent I mean as to this particular Index of Credends viz. Anathema and doubtles many more of the decisions of Councils are contended to be such credends than those that can shew this mark of Anathema fixed expresly to dissentients of which see more in Church-Government 4. Part. § 79. Again this injunction of Non-contradiction or of keeping silence tho it be * such as opposeth the saying that the contrary to the Church'es determination is a truth or that the Church erreth in any such decision much more an open departing for such unnecessary matter for the Church errs in no necessaries from her communion yet perhaps it is not * such as opposeth the making or humbly proposing of any doubt thereof at least in a second convening of the same Authority See I pray you in the denouncing of her Anathema's the great warines of the Council of Trent in 24. sess 7. c. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare cum docuit propter adulterium c Anathema sit noted by Soave in his History of it p. 755. Engl. Ed. to be done because she would not censure * some of the Greek Church who held the contrary opinion as likewise * some of the Fathers as S. Ambrose And surely this Council's affixing Anathema's sometimes to so many Lutheran errors some doubtles of smaller moment as they were gather'd here and there by some persons appointed to that purpose out of Luther's writings because they were opposite to the common doctrines of the Church shews that her Anathema sometimes eyed more the petulancy and contradicting spirit of the Author than the importance of the Tenet and was sent forth more to secure her peace than her faith What should hinder I pray since some questions possibly may arise in the Church undecidable clearly by Tradition and since no doubt of all questions now agitated among the Schoolmen or other Catholicks one side is not traditional for then how could so many Catholicks oppose a thing of such evidence again since it is the Church'es duty to provide for peace and unity among her children as well as faith and truth and lastly since sharp and vehement contests may arise in such new controversies to the great disturbance thereof what should hinder I say that the Church in such cases may not impose silence on both parties or secondly using her best search and going upon such Scriptures and reasons as perhaps some side urgeth declare her judgment and that under some penalty on the opposers and gainsayers
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.
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
carried away with every doctrine c. Eph. 4. 11 13 Her authority I say toward all such men is voided because these two the giving private men power thus to judge and then the punishing them if they do not consent or if they declare their dissent do contradict For t is saying to them I grant and teach you that when you shall judge any thing which I enjoyn you to be contrary to God's word as possibly it may be so often it is your duty not to obey me nevertheles for doing this your duty I may justly punish you by Excommunication Or 2ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points of the truth whereof she is actually certain For thus it is pleaded by some That a Church which confesseth that she may err and mislead others and upon this consideration alloweth that private men may lawfully dissent from her may yet be sure that she doth not in such and such definitions contradict Scripture and therefore may according to the power given her by God Matt. 18. excommunicate her children for preaching contrary to or dissenting from her definitions and for violating her truth and her peace and upon this ground may affirm that what she thus binds on earth is bound in heaven as a man that may sleep run mad c may yet be sure that now at this time he is awake and in his wits See much-what the same said by Dr. Hammond concerning General Councils affixing Anathema's to their Decrees Paraenes § 12. p. 158. But this plea seems to ground the Church'es power of excommunicating and consequently her subjects necessity of obeying at least so far as not to contradict her definitions not upon her authority tho she as those Judges Deut. 17. 8. may be in some things liable to error but only upon her certainty of the truth in those things which she enjoyns as it is willingly granted she or any else of some things may be certain enough But then if others obedience depends not upon her determining or commanding but upon her being certain what is said before returns again they must have some means to know not only what she commands but also when she is certain in what she commands or that she commands nothing wherein she is uncertain in which she may be still uncertain even when she saith nay even when she thinks she is certain But there being no means to know this all men again will be left to their liberty The Church of England see before § 3. hath excommunicated all that shall say any thing is erroneous either in her Liturgy or 39. Articles Was she sure that she could not possibly mistake in any of these things which she hath said there if not such her Excommunication of contradicters will be according to this opinion unlawful Deut. 17. 12. it is said The man that will do presumptuously and not hearken unto the Priest even that man shall dye Matt. 18. 17. it is said If he will not hear the Church let him be as an heathen Are these punishments lawfully inflicted only in case that such Priest and Church be certain and infallible in their judgment or that such Priest and Church do not seem to any to mis-interpret the divine law 3ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points fundamental But here the same doubts arise still For I demand Whether are you to judge or she which these are or how many Surely this is very necessary to be known If you grant that she must judge this too for you which or how many be fundamentals as Mr. Chillingworth saith 3. c. 39. § in all reason she must if in fundamentals she be acknowledged your guide and therefore he denies her to be a guide at all then this thing To how many of her decided points you are to consent lies only in her judgment And then I ask Since some Non-fundamentals are plain in Scripture and since in these Non-fundamentals if a private man may be infallibly certain of somethings as they say he may and upon this infallibility of his seems to be grounded all his dissent from the Church for in things tho not fundamental wherein he is not infallibly certain of the contrary I suppose he is also to consent to the Church'es judgment then surely the Church may be so too why should you not be here also tied to take her sentence when she saith that she is infallibly certain of them too as you do take her sentence when she telleth you how many are fundamental And if you are to consent tho it be against your own judgment in the greatest matters what reason is there you should not do it in lesser You will answer because in these greatest matters she cannot err but she may in others My reply is and may not you in others also err much more Is she to guide your judgment in the main and not in less matters Is Scripture be plain in these smaller points for you to guide your self by it is it not so much more in fundamentals why therefore relinquish you your own and adhere to her judgment in these things most plain in Scripture and then take up your own and leave hers in the rest especially when being asked your reason for this your plea is because such points are plain in Scripture But then if our Saviour as this opinion makes him enjoyns only subscription to the Church in fundamentals who sees not that it is as necessary that our Saviour should have told us which points those were els we may assent too much to her in things wherein she may err or too little in the other wherein she cannot err I mean fundamentals and so be certainly damn'd But then since tho the General Church cannot yet a National Church may err in fundamentals also and may apostatize therefore you are here according to that opinion to assume to your self to judge what points are truth and what not even in pretended fundamentals before you yeild any consent to any thing at all call'd fundamental or other which a National Church proposeth and thus a self-opinioned man may easily throw off the yoke of obedience to all the proposals of all except General Councils a thing very unreasonable And as unreasonable is that which some say on the other side That we may not contradict or oppose our Pastor or Bishop in smaller matters but may in the greater when-as indeed in these greater matters there is more reason for our obedience and far more danger if we err in our contradicting Therefore neither in Non-fundamentals nor yet in Fundamentals may we properly contradict them i. e. in opposing our particular judgment upon Scripture to theirs What then must be done you will say since our Pastors and Bishops may err in fundamentals and particular Churches may apostatize Resp. Why both in fundamentals and non-fundamentals also where any considerable doubting ariseth we may repair from them to a
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
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
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
of his deductions and seldom examining the soundnes of some ground which he irrationally takes for granted becomes infallibly certain as he thinks of what is indeed an error and many times a gross one But it may be said again that where we can shew none of these differences in principles yet there have bin hereticks that have gone against tenets even in fundamentals of which tenets we must needs grant that any man may be infallibly certain as the Arrians Socinians Nestorians Eutychians c. To you I may speak my opinion In all these and many more which being chief foundations we usually also call most manifest truths yet the most of Christians E will not say all are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church from time to time by which they are kept fixed and not shaken in them And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason where the authority of the Church is laid aside Certainly to name some of them the omnipresence of God not in his power but substance his certain foreknowledge of not only what may but also what shall be yet so as not to destroy mans free election Christ's non-inferiority as touching the God-head to the Father and all those particulars about the Trinity Person Natures and Wills of Christ can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture to every one that grants it to be Scripture that all men without the Church'es guidance and education in such a faith c would have bin infallibly certain of them 2. But to let these pass and suppose in private men what infallible certainty you please of them or also of many other divine truths yet in the 3d. place I do not see how from the former instances we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible certainty against the judgment of the Church of many former ages for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on their side I suppose is Communion in one kind only which hath this prejudice also accompanying it that it was practised by the Church Catholick in the publick ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation Yet I think that none will offer to affirm that he is I say not much perswaded but infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church and some precepts there only temporary not perpetual as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it * That the Church hath altered many other things not only without our complaining thereof but with our imitating her Nay further * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture but amongst Apostolical Traditions only See Montag Origin Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scripturis Infantes baptizari aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare And Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us Such as are these which follow The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scripture The Baptism of Infants Perpetual Virginity of the B. Virgin Observation of the Lord's Day The Service of the Church in a known tongue The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times even in the Eastern Churches also of giving it in one kind to sick men to Seamen to Travellers to the absents upon necessary occasions from church to those also who came to church to carry home with them that they might there reserve it in readines and communicate themselves therewith when they thought fit on those days when there was no publick communion or they hindred from it by distance danger as in times of persecution or necessary secular busines that which they carried home with them being only of one species viz. that of the bread And * these things tho so done to avoid some inconvenience I suppose the spilling and the not-keeping of the wine as also it is now yet so done without any absolute necessity for the sick can take wine sooner than bread and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling and those vessels also be first consecrated and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to Infants newly born and baptized to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary only in one kind namely that of the wine When one considers * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent in the Greek Church for all days save Saterdays and Sundays because saith Balsamon Deo sacrificium offerre they accounted to be festum diem agere in the Latin Church for Good-Friday to communicate expraesanctisicatis i. e. on what was consecrated on another day and reserved till then which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread * The great cautiousnes of the former times against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood which could not be gathered up again as the bread might in their receiving it in some places sucked up through a pipe in others by intinction and dipping only or sopping the bread in the wine a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches Again whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect communion and robbing the people as it were of the chief part of their redemption yet when he hath considered * their never questioning the compleatnes of such Communions who thus received it in one kind which it most concerned people going out of the world and some of them perhaps then first communicated for their last viaticum to have most perfect Where note also †1. First * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so constantly believed that the use of the Cup also in publick communions was upon many abuses committed about it by little and litle in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess was only to warrant and justify the Church'es former custom against those Petrus Dresdensis the Hussites and others who then began to inveigh against it saying hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum illicitum as likewise against that custom to communicate men fasting and hence began to change it and to communicate after Supper and in both kinds And 2ly †* That some of the Reformed also
acknowledge totum Christum to be contained in and exhibited to us by any one species and by the least particle thereof See Confessio Wirtenberg Chamier de Eucharist 9. t. 8. c. our Saviour's boby and blood and soul and Deity suffering now no separation See a further proof of the things said above in the discours on this subject And lastly if he hath considered a case not much unlike i. e. the communicating of Infants wherein if the Protestants had retained a contrary custom to the rest of the present Church perhaps they might have accused the Church for changing it not with less evidence than they do in this For first the Scripture saith plainly as of Baptism he that is not born again of water so of the Eucharist he that eateth not my flesh c shall not inherit eternal life 2ly And then the Primitive times according to these precepts practised it 3ly No more knowledge and preparation is required to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism for examining ones self and repenting is required to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist therefore if such things are not required of children for the one so neither are they for the other And I could press the like in Extream Unction which suppose that we had retained and the Roman Church left off as it is contrary how easily could we have charged them for abrogating a plain Apostolical precept Jam. 5. 14 And the same may be urged concerning the great act of humility washing one anothers feet before the Communion for which after that our Saviour himself had first begun the practice thereof there seems to be a plain precept Jo. 13. 14. And so the Church'es changing the celebration of the Lord's Supper into a morning exercise and that it should be received fasting was not done without some mens scrupling it See Januarius his consulting S. Austin about this Epist. 118. c. But if we can alledge in this matter the desuetude of former Church to be a sufficient rule and warrant to us for omitting of it then why may not the same plea of the Church'es desuetude be as well by some others enlarged to some other points wherein Scripture is urged against them I say therefore if such cases as these be well considered together with the understanding and the holines of these men who after our reasons given them are not convinced by such an evidence as we pretend methinks for one to say notwithstanding all this not that he is much perswaded but that he is absolutely infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice would not consist with that Christian humility which we ought to have and to which only God gives true knowledge nor with that charge of the Apostle not to be wise in our own conceits Whereas it is noted that the more eminent in sanctity any one hath bin the more eminent obeyer and defender not opposer hath he bin of the Church'es authority A like instance might be made in that mainly opposed doctrine of Transubstantiation where as long as a possibility thereof is granted as it is by many of the Reformed and such a declaration is found in Scripture as this Hoc est Corpus meum the most literal and proper sence whereof that can be tho the most heightning this mystery is Transubstantiation of the Elements See Treat of Euchar. § 28. n. 2. and as long as this Scripture is not found contradicted by any other Scriptures but that with less force the literal expression of them may be brought to comply with it than the literal expression of it to comply with them we also adding to these the final determination of the Church long before Protestancy thought on after so long and subtle disputes for about 300 years from the 2d Nicene Council till the days of Berengarius and after so curious an examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius Bertram and others 800 years ago I do not see where a man can ground an absolute infallible certainty against it T is a dangerous case to disobey where we see others of great judgment and integrity yeilding obedience with alacrity saith Dr. Jackson And indeed I cannot but approve of that constitution of Ignatius and think him a too much self-conceited man who when he hath I say not to the Church but suppose only to three or four whom he knew wise and learned and uninterested men shewed his reasons and they have weighed them and concluded against his former opinion would not quietly acquiesce in their contrary judgments supposing no superior judgment to have prejudiced them and this especially in a point not fundamental Tho I know not how it is that when we plead our security in our dissent from the Church'es judgment we presently say that the point we differ from her in is not fundamental and that unity of faith in those fundamentals is sufficient but again when we plead the necessity of using our own judgment and not trusting or relying on any other mans we presently represent the same Not-fundamental truths as of great consequence and say the blind meaning the Church which may perhaps err in such things leading the blind both may fall into the ditch and that that ditch also is damnation I cannot conceive therefore how any man can assure himself in any thing that is not of fact or sence but that is only a deduction from Scripture and Tradition contrary to the judgment I say not of his private Pastor but of the supremest Court of the present Church that he is infallibly certain of any thing small or great Small I say as well as great for from the Church'es being liable in some things to error doth not follow any likelihood of his being infallibly certain in those things of the contrary truth but rather otherwise because t is a sign that such things are not clearly revealed and that they being dark to her will be so much more to him To confirm which add these two 1. That in Fundamentals this thing is granted That none can be certain of the contrary to what the Church defines and then that how many points are fundamental is to him uncertain 2. That amongst many tenets of the Church this is one That private men are bound in all things to yeild their consent to the Church'es decisions where they are required so to do This tenet is plain in the practice of General Councils which Councils as well for Non-fundamentals as Fundamentals and for things of practice as well as of belief have anathematized the not only contradicters but Dissenters and Non-conformists Now then unles any one be infallibly certain of the contrary to what the Church determins and that this is no fundamental point also his judgment against hers cannot be infallible in any point whatsoever where she requires submission of his judgment In prosecution of which submission of our judgment in Non-fundamentals also it is to be noted that if our submission
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
of which another is not tho he also might be certain conformable to the Church's definitions how near would this come to a perfect union Thus Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. Superiors are to be obeyed in all such points as their inferiors are not at leisure to examin or not of capacity to discern whether they be lawful or no. And in another place Some may sin in obeying authority whilst some others do not sin And again ib. Unles a man can justly plead some peculiar reason or priviledge it is a very dangerous case to disobey lawful authority in such matters whereunto he sees many men by his own confession of great judgment and integrity of life yeilding obedience with alacrity c. For indeed I suppose all inferiors not bound to examin the doctrines they receive from the Church But how is it then that those that are not certain are taught to believe those that upon this certainty depart from the definitions of the Church rather than to adhere to the Church Surely they ought to be taught otherwise even by these that are departed For suppose Luther upon some private certainty might not yeild his consent to former Church-definitions yet all the rest not having the same certainty even by the Protestants stating of this question ought to adhere still not to Luther but to the former Church And again Luther in this certainty being bound at least to Non-contradiction of the Church neither might he then go about to teach others that infallible certainty which he had of those points which oppose the Church You know the ordinary objection against what is above-said out of Rom. 14. c. 23. Where the Apostle saith He that doubteth of the lawfulnes of a thing and yet doth it sinneth and therefore it is urged that he that practiseth a thing upon the Churches command whereof he doubts whether it be lawful or subscribeth to the Church's judgment in a thing whereof he doubteth whether it be true sinneth To this I answered before § 2. and § 20. that he that believeth or is perswaded that he ought to yeild obedience to the Church in things contrary to his private judgment sinneth not in this sort because such a one doubteth not but is satisfied in what he ought to hold or to do But if the question be asked of those who have some doubt whether they ought to obey the Church or to follow their own judgment whether such at least ought not to follow their own judgment to avoid sinning I answer neither do such sin in obeying the Church rather than themselves Indeed where one side is undoubtedly lawful and the other only is doubted of whether lawful he who doth that which he doubteth of sinneth But where one hath or hath reason to have a double doubt and a doubt of the lawfulnes of both sides you see that here he must go what way he will do something when he doubteth or hath reason to doubt of the lawfulnes thereof And thus it is where ever the Church commandeth me to do a thing on one side and my particular judgment in the thing disswades me from doing it on the other for here in not doing it I may or ought to doubt that I sin against the obedience I owe the Church as well as in doing it against the obedience I owe to my own judgment or conscience Here therefore I am not to say my judgment being against it I must not do it or I sin if I do it and so oppose the Church'es authority out of conscience as I think but when a command of the Church is now come in upon me to do it and so it is not left free to me in respect of external authority as before and as it is in the Apostle's instances not to do it here I am first to examin whether this my judgment is not to be submitted to the Church'es judgment for if I am perswaded or so much as doubt whether it ought to be submitted I may now sin in not doing according to her judgment against my own i. e. I may sin in not doing it tho it is against my judgment to do it As in two instances it will be plain For suppose a Church-injunction come forth for Christians not to observe Jewish Sabbaths and some Christian Judaic in his own particular judgment thinks such Sabbaths are to be observed yet such a one sinneth if he doth according to this iudgment after and against the Church'es injunction see Gal. 4. 10. tho before this he had sinned if he had not done according to his own judgment See Rom. 14. 5. 14. Again suppose a decree of the Nicene Council that all men should subsubscribe their Creed and that some particular Christian thinks thinks I say is not certain in his own particular judgment something in it to be false if such a one doth not subscribe it tho against his own particular judgment he sins because he either knows or ought to know that in fundamentals at least his particular judgment is to yeild to the judgment of the Church But 3ly if the question be asked again Whether he that doubts not but is fully perswaded that he ows no such obedience to the Church and that he is to follow his private judgment rather than to follow that of the Church when they cross whether such I say may or ought to obey the Church against his private judgment I answer No by no means because an erroneous conscience obligeth i e. our words or actions may never go contrary to our heart And if any one tho in doing well thinketh he doth evil he in his intention doth evil But yet if his judgment oweth obedience to the Church'es tho he doth not think so in this following of his conscience he sinneth because he doth against his duty of which he ought to have informed his conscience better and this no small sin after such a known declaration He that heareth you heareth me and If he will not hear the Church let him be accounted as a heathen c. Concerning the Use of Private Judgment 1. FIrst it is true that we are in all things to follow our own judgment as our judgment reflecting on the former acts of the intellect and considering all reasons as well those taken from authority as those taken from the appearance of things in themselves to us finally determines what we ought to do But note that such judgment when ever culpably mistaken excuseth not from sin our acting according to it But 2ly it is false that we are always to follow or act after our own judgment as our judgment is taken for our own private argumentations reasonings and evidences concerning the subject we examin and judge of against the authority of whomever judging otherwise See Oblig of Judgment p. 1. and the Canons quoted before Ch. Governm 2d part how far the Reformed Synods have thought fit to restrain mens private judgments
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
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
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
of the 6th or 5th or at least of the 4th age so as to involve S. Austin c. these being the times wherein she flourished under the protection of Christian Governors more ample in her power publick in her doctrines and discipline frequent and copious in her writings active against all sorts of hereticks as also more exercised with them which the present times as enjoying still the same happines must needs and ought more to resemble than the other and to which taken in this extent ordinarily differing Churches appeal 3. That he would not think that those practices which he observes to be used in the latter of these times and omitted in the former therefore are justly to be rejected unles they be also in that sence as they are afterwards used disallowed and opposed by the former and that by the more general vote thereof For what is said of Scripture § 6. may here be said of the Church that it follows not negatively that such practices are either unlawful or unexpedient because a former age did not recommend or did not use them Therefore that he would compare the practices and tenets of the present Church not with those of every but of any age of those primitive times so not contradicted by the rest In which age if any doctrine held we may lawfully say such is no new but an ancient doctrine or a doctrine of the Fathers 4. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should find in writers of so many ages and of so many several countries no differences at all for there he will find several both †of the former of those times or at least of a many in them from the latter * As the more common opinion and practice of the more ancient times of the Church are by some quoted somewhat to differ from the succeeding in the Millenary doctrine communicating of Infants vision of God before the day of Judgment in the rarer use of Images less observance of the Reliques in Invocation of Saints in the punctuality of Auricular Confession for some sorts of sins c. Quoted I say not that the difference in these is granted so great altogether as it is by some made concerning which as to some of these particulars see what is said in Church-government § 55. but that in the more and less practice of some of them and in the commoness of the belief of other of them there may be some difference in several times So the Millenary doctrine and non-vision of God in some places and times perhaps was the opinion more common So a common practice in some times was used of communicating Infants Images in some times also were less used tho then not the use of them I mean as practised by latter ages opposed and so of the rest that follow Concerning such things see what the 3d. caution saith But observe touching such things wherein difference is named That it is either difference of practice secundum magis minus not opposition of doctrine or opposition of doctrine only in some matters of small moment or the opposition of such times not universal but only of some places or Churches others practising or teaching the contrary And †in the same times he will find many differences of those of one Church from another As of the Eastern and Western Church about Easter the Roman and African Church about Rebaptization and afterward about Superiority of the See of Rome for Appeals and so many things practised in the Eastern Churches not at all or latter used in the Western And †in the same Church he will find one party against another as Epiphanius and Chrysostom c And the same party when of a more mature judgment differing from himself as S. Austin in the busines of Free-will and Grace c. But it is sufficient if in some other differences he finds them all or by much the most agreeing in most or in many points of those which are now controverted especially points of practice which are of greater moment to render up his judgment to them in those uncontrolable and plain things wherein they consent and more is not desired of him amongst which are the contradictories to most of those hurtful opinions related below § 41. c. and not to make that fallacious induction with which many satisfie themselves * They are not sufficient Guides in this or that point wherein they differ ergo they are in none at all or not in the many other wherein they accord and in this main point especially that universal obedience is due to Church-decrees and that it is lawful in no case to desert her external communion which settles all the rest * Or they clash in this and this point which truly for the most part are things of less moment see Church-gov 2 part § 55. c. tho by the then contenders much aggravated ergo they clash in all or in almost all when-as such arguments have force only against their infallibility or absolute unanimity in all things not against their accord in those things which are more necessary and for which we have occasion to search them So whereas we find the Millenary tenet and the place of faithful souls out of heaven till the day of Judgment and Infant-Communion anciently common tenets by latter times as is thought justly rejected to be urged as a proof of no safe adherence to all common opinions and practices of former Church because in some things errable we are to consider that these besides that they never were Church-decrees in any Council nor granted to be universal are not points of such consequence as to prejudice the ancient Church her authority judgment or guidance in all other necessary matters Hear what Dr. Ferne Preface to Consider touching Reform very judiciously saith of two of them after he had made much use of those instances Having spoken saith he the intent of this Treatise I must before I leave him intreat the Reader to remember one thing in the former the error of the Millenary belief and Infant-communion often instanced-in there and to take notice that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church universally and in all the members of it may err and be infected with error in points of concernment or prejudicial to the faith For that of the Millenary as it was not universal so not of such moment and that of the In-fant-communion tho more universal and of longer continuance was but a tolerable mistake So that all errors of the whole Church by his concession are ever either not universal or not of concernment 5. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should always find in them an unanswerable reason or justification of such and such practices or tenets for this we promise not
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
23. before Nero for the same witness to the name of Jesus he bare at Jerusalem the same did he bear at Rome Act. 23. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 17. that all the Gentiles might hear and that with great success even upon some of the Courtiers themselves Phil. 1. 13. compared with 4. 22. For which boldnes in professing his religion at Rome we find him desiring mens prayers Eph. 6. 19 20. and in which we find his example encouraging many others Phil. 1. 14 20. Therefore also that speech of his Act. 23. 6. mentioning the resurrection was no mincing or dissembling his Christian profession which he had made so publickly and particularly before them all but the very day before but the shewing only how in a main point thereof the most considerable persons amongst themselves concurred with him Which thing appears both by the answer of his Auditors and Judges ver 9. which answer referreth to the story of what he told them hapned to him in the way to Damascus of which they say If a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken to him let us not fight against God and from our Saviour's testimony of his worthy behaviour ver 11. and from the like expressions made by him Act. 24. 15. yet joyned with the free confession of his dissent in other things ver 14. His legal observances therefore upon some occasions were only joining some things besides with his Christian profession not a covering it over with them or hiding it under them and in this compliance not any observance of those Jews that were out of the true Church who notwithstanding his conformity were still his persecuters for Christianity Act. 21. 27. but only of those weaker brethren within it Act. 21. 20. of whom we read not that they any way molested him the tumult proceeding from the unbelieving Jews of Asia v. 27. What I have said of the manner of his becoming a Jew to the Jew I may also of his becoming as a Gentile to the Gentile which was only in the laying aside some of the Jewish ceremonies not in the least conformity to any of their heathen Sacraments concerning which see his judgment 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Thus much from § 8. upon the supposition that one orthodoxly perswaded continues still in the communion of a Schismatical Church But in the next place suppose he presently withdraws himself from that but only for the same good ends forbears communion with the orthodox yet neither so can I find a way to excuse him Indeed the living in no external communion at all seems the less faulty of the two and this condition as coming a step nearer to the Church of Christ to be preferred before the former This seems to appear in those who either by the oppression of the civil power hindered or by the Church's authority whether with or without just cause expelled cannot enjoy her external communion who yet are not therefore licensed either to set up a new external communion of their own or to repair to one that stands severed from the Catholick tho there they may enjoy the Sacraments no way differing from those celebrated by the orthodox but are advised rather patiently to want them till they are restored to the participation of them in the bosom of the Church Such was the practice of the orthodox where their Clergy was expelled in the prevalent Arrian times Certe ista indignitas in causa est saith Athanasius quod populi sacerdotesque seorsim sine synaxibus vivant c. And Praeoptant potius ita aegrotare ac periclitari quam ut Arrianorum manus capititibus suis imponi sustineant See Athan. Ep. Synod in Alexand. Conc. and Ep. ad ubique orthodoxos Yet did the Arrians according to S. Austin's testimony de vera relig 5. c. paria sacramenta celebrare with the Catholicks And S. Austin of good men happening to suffer sometimes an unjust Excommunication de vera relig 6. e. saith thus Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel schismatis vel haeresis moliti fuerint c sine ulla Conventiculorum segregatione usque ad mortem defendentes testimonio juvantes eam fidem quam in Ecclesia Catholica praedicari sciunt hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns And de Baptism 1. l. 17 e. Ibi magis probantur quam si intus permaneant cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur From which I gather that for whatever cause or reason a man happens to want the Catholick communion t is better than to enter into any other to have none at all In which sequestration he may justly more hope for God's blessing upon that means of his salvation which in such a condition he is yet capable to make use of and upon that service which alone he may still offer unto God according to the customs and rites of the Church than upon that he shall offer tho it be for the matter of it faultless in conjunction with a society divided from the members of Christ and if the orthodox in the time of the Arrians thought their condition safer in the want of the Sacraments than in the enjoying and partaking them with any Sectaries so may he For these reasons I conceive to live out of all communion a less fault than to join with a Schismatical one but yet a fault also it will be and that for many of the former Scriptures and other reasons See § 9. where the Scriptures enjoining separation from Sectaries seem also to imply uniting with the orthodox Neither indeed can we have any reason to desert one Church but we must have the same to join with some other since we must from the article in the Creed ever acknowledge one true as well as others false and that whatsoever outward dislike and abhorrence we are bound to express toward these assemblies of adulteresses to Christ as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose calls them the same outward affection and love and duty in all things we are obliged to give to the true Spouse and Body of Christ. See § 8. where those texts requiring the glorifying of God and the confessing of Christ before men confession of him with the mouth as well as believing on him with the heart Rom. 10. 9 10. of all with one mouth as well as with one mind Rom. 15. 6. seem in a special manner to imply that confession which is made in the publick assemblies of the Church which therefore were never intermitted in those greatest persecutions when the Civil magistrate was a professed enemy to the Church Again see those many precepts of unity and charity enjoyned amongst all the fellow-members of Christ Eph. 4. 3 11 12. 1 Cor. 10. Phil. 1. 27 28. Jo. 10. 4 5. which seem to extend and oblige to all the external as well as internal acts
union of charity as this opinion limits it excludes not all separation from a superior authority but only requires non-condemning of such authority or those that adhere to it in our separation But here methinks the words of Cassander Consult Art. 7. are of some weight where granting that the reformers did not condemn the Church from which they separated yet Non video saith he quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem in observatione tam universalium quam particularium rituum violes condemnes institutis majorum pertinaciter repugnes quod certe est contra officium charitatis qua maxime internam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est Contra officium charitatis I say if we take charity not negatively for not hating cursing damning but positively for love and amity which sure the Apostle requires in all the members of Christ especially toward their Mother the Church which charity he describes 1 Cor. 13. 4. c to think no evil and well to interpret all things and we may judge this in private amity where our love ordinarily happens to be very cold toward the person whose ways customs conditions we once hate and condemn Certainly in the many sects now in this Church of England and in the division of the Protestant from the former Church tho it be supposed all these agree in fundamentals and have all such an union of charity to one another as is mentioned before yet there is a great fault somewhere for diversity of opinions that must be answered for by some side at the day of judgment nor doth the Church seem sufficiently in charity toward those superior Church-governors whose decisions and Canons she not only refuseth but also proceedeth so far as to reject their external communion and not to admit them or the Churches adhering to them to her communion because of the faultines wherewith she chargeth such their canons and decisions 6. Lastly let this be considered which you may find more prosecuted in Tryal of Doctr. § 42. c. that tho one follow the Church in fundamentals yet by departing from her judgment in other points he may lose many wholsom advices in things practical extremely profitable and advantageous to attaining salvation Our own judgment sways us to liberty and God knows how many souls have perisht in the reformed religion by throwing away the Church'es counsels and commands tho in to-them-seeming small matters as Fasting Confession c. And that text 2 Pet. 3. 16. methinks might a little affright us wherein the Apostle saith that there are things in Scripture that are hard to be understood sure these are not Fundamentals then which we contend are plain which are wrested by the unlearned and the unstable sure he means here men not adhering to the fixed doctrines of the Church to their own not harm but destruction 4ly It is urged that the H. Scriptures have commanded that all men lest they should perhaps be misguided should try and that by the same Scriptures their teachers doctrines that so if they find these doctrines not to agree with the H. Scriptures they may withdraw their belief from them See Jo. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Cor. 10. 15. Matt. 16. 6 12. 15. 14. Gal. 1. 8 9. Esay 8. 20. In answer to this for a stricter examination of some of the texts here urged I must refer you to Succession of Clergy § c. and to Trial of Doctrines § 3. 11. c Only here this I say to them in general Trial of Doctrines by Scripture is 1. either of the doctrines of private teachers by the Church-governors of which no question is made or 2. of the doctrines of private teachers by private men and these they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves left their trial be mistaken in the sence of these Scriptures according to the exposition thereof by the Church i. e. * in her General Councils or * in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures and if thus searching we find the doctrines of the teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to withdraw our belief from them Or 3ly this trial by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i. e. of those doctrines which are delivered not by a private teacher but * by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest which we can discover or * by General or other Superior Councils or * by the Apostles or by our Saviour Himself Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two sences 1. Either in this sence Search and try my or our doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my doctrine agreeing thereto if you search aright and as you ought And in this sence the tryal by the Scriptures of the doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles St. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of Him is both allowed and recommended For since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my doctrines by the Scriptures and if you in your search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or S. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private men's searching or gave any such priviledge to it unles you put in this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostle's or the Church'es doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend searching in such a sence or upon such conditions 1. Because such a searcher or tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest ormis-education or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogation of Circumcision under the Gospel Neither can any be easily secure of his dis-ingagement from all such Letts of using a right judgment in searching 2ly Because however the search or searcher prove there are other means and mediums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witnes to a falsity one may discover