of it not rightly used that they do not discerne in these scriptures this Infallible Guide which saith S. Augustin the scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate and which repaired to may demonstrate to them what else is necessary The second Proposition is That there can be no such hazard to any person in belieuing a society of men to be infallible that are not if this society be at least more learned and studied in Diuine matters then himselfe and also ordained by our Lord to be his Instructors in them which Protestants I hope allow true of their own Clergy No such hazard I say as is comparable to that euery one incurrs in mistaking the meaning of scriptures though we suppose he vseth his best other means of vnderstanding them exclusiue to his obeying the Instructions of such a society Witness the vnhappy Socinians and all other grosser sects of late sprung out of Disobedience For whereas in following these Guides such persons may fall into some errours and perhaps some of them great ones in this later way of following their owne fancyes the vnlearned may fall into a thousand and some of these much greater and grosser then any such Christian society or Body of Clergy will euer maintain For God hath made no Promise to preserue in Truth those who desert their Guides nor to reward their diligence who liue in disobedience XIX PRINCIPLE 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture then it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility 1. First obserue that whateuer Diuine assistance is aduanced here against the assurance that can be receiued from Church-Infallibility the same is more against any assurāce that may be had from church-Church-Authority Thus it happens more then once in these Principles that in too forward a Zeale in demolishing the one the other also is dangerously vndermined 2. The Doctor hath all reason here to suppose him that repairs to and is instructed by an Infallible Guide though not knowing him to be such as well as him who seeks for an assurance of his Faith without one sincerely to desire to know Gods will and vpon this to enjoy his promised Assistance so far as God engageth it And then if the Question be which of these two takes the more prudent course he that consults or he that lays aside this Guide for his assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture I should think the former Whilst the one relyes on the judgment of such Guide thought wise and learned though not infallible the other on his own On the judgment of which Guide the one hath much more reason to be confident then the other on his own who neglects the advice of the Wise man Ne innitaris prudentiae tuae Lean not on thy own Prudence At least the Doctor must grant the former of the two to be de facto in a much safer condition For it must be acknowledged a great benefit to haue an Infallible Guide to shew us our way though we doe not know him to be Infallible for so we keep still in the right way though belieuing only and not infallible certain that it is so so we walke in Humility and obedience And if God hath directed us for learning our right way to a Guide surely he will take no prudent course who committing himselfe to Gods immediate Assistance shall neglect it and break his commandement in hope of his fauour XX. PRINCIPLE 20. No mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend vpon the objectiue Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreable to the euidence we haue of it in our minds for Assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us This Proposition is granted viz. That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible vnless he also certainly know or haue an infallible evidence that he is infallible Only let it be here remembred That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we haue an infalliblé euidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Because if we are infallibly certain that he cannot ly in such matter who relates it to us we are also hence infallibly certain that what he says is truth XXI PRINCIPLE 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued so that the ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility vseless This Proposition That therefore it is necessary in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued is not well deduced from the precedent Proposition rightly vnderstood Neither is it true and so the Consequence also faileth viz. so that the Ground on which a necessity of some externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless Because as was now said for the yeilding an Infallible assent to the things proposed it is not necessary that the person haue an infallible euidence of the truth of the things proposed that is from the Internall Principles that proue or demonstrate them But it is enough though the things proposed remain still in themselues obscure to him that he haue an infallible or sufficiently certain Euidence only of the Infallibility of the Externall Proponent The Ground therefore vpon which the necessity of some externall infallible Proponent is asserted for begeting such infallible assent is because the Person hath by no other way any infallible euidence of the things proposed Which if he had then indeed the Proponents Infallibility for such Points is rendred vseless And by this I hope sufficiently appeareth that misarguing that seems to cause a great confusion in the Doctor 's Principles whilst vpon an infallible assent requiring an infallible Euidence layd down in the Twentieth Proposition and Conceded he concludes as necessary to our yielding an infallible assent to all that the Church proposeth an infallible Euidence of the things proposed and then hence inferres the vselessness of such infallible Proponent And here note that though the Churches Infallibility to such a person as is not infallibly assured of it signifies nothing as to his infallible assurance of that
sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be MORALL not in the later This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians haue or may haue a sufficiently certain and infallible Euidence of the Truth of their Christianity But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of seuerall necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that externall Infallible Guide therein And the perpetuall Diuine Assistance and so Infallibility in Necessaries of this Guide being declared in the scriptures a Catholick hauing once learnt this Point of Faith from it Definitions and Expositions becomes secure and setled in the belief of all those controuerted Articles of his Faith Wherein Others another whilst the scriptures in such Points at least to persons vnlearned or of weaker judgments which are which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sence and drawn with much art to seuerall interests XXVIII PRINCIPLE 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firm assent that the scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolued into the scriptures as into the rule and measure of what hee is to belieue as it is into the Veracity of God as the ground of belieuing what is therein contained Both Catholicks and Protestants profess to resolue their Faith into the Word of God and Diuine Reuelation or into the scriptures so as is said on Principle 14. and 29. and make Gods Veracity the Ground of their belief of the things therein contained But the former resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sense of it where disputed is deliuered by the Church whose Faith the Apostle commands vs to follow and to whom Christ himself giues testimony as S. Augustin saith As for Protestants they resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sence of it is ultimatly apprehended and vnderstood by their own judgments None here to vse the Doctors words elsewhere vsurping that Royall Prerogrtiue of Heauen in prescribing infallibly in matters question'd suppose in those Points the Doctor named before the Doctrine of the Deity of Iesus Christ or of the Trinity But leauing all to judge and so the Socinians according to the Pandects of the Diuine Lawes because each member of this society is bound to take care of his soul and all things that tend thereto But here the Doctor will permit vs to aske whether euery one is bound to take care of his soul so as vnder the pretence hereof to disobey their Resolutions and Instructions in Faith or Manners whom God hath appointed to take care of and to watch ouer their soules and will require an account of them for it Here therefore let euery one take the safest course and where there is no euident Certainty always make sure to side with the Church XXIX PRINCIPLE 29 No Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what was reuealed by God himselfe in that Book wherein he belieues his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offered to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no fundation in scripture or is contrary thereto Which rejection is no making NEGATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH but only applying the generall grounds of Faith to particular instances as I belieue nothing necessary to saluation but what is contained in scripeure Therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 1. Here first obserue That what no Christian is obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church Authority And that the Doctors freeing the Churches subjects here from the former doth so from the later It concerns therefore his superiors to look to it whether their Churches and their owne Authority suffers no detriment particularly from this Principle I mean so as it can be applied to priuate mens practice 2. Next obserue That the Expression What is reuealed by God c. as it is applicable to persons must either mean What such person only thinks belieues or is perswaded to be reuealed c. or what such person certainly knows to be reuealed And the same may be sayd of the later expressions what hath no foundation What is contrary Now as either of these two Additions are made a great alteration is made in the Principle and what in the one Addition is true in the other may be false As for example when a culpable Ignorance belieues something that is enjoyned by this Authority not to be reuealed in Gods Word which indeed is so and so rejects it here such act is not justifiable Very necessary therefore it seems here to make an exact distinction that if the Doctor means it here of the one viz. certain Knowledge it may not be misapplyed by any to the other namely a belief or full perswasion For so men set once vpon examining well in such high mysteries their owne Certainty will I conceiue neuer find just cause to reject what this Church-Authority to which they owe obedience recommends to them vpon Her Certainty But to take Expressions as they lye For the first Part of this Principle thus much is granted That no Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what is reuealed by God himselfe in his Word Written or Vnwritten both which the Doctor else where allowes to be of the same Value so it be euident they are his Word Where I adde vnwritten because though it is granted before on Principle 14. that the Word written or Book of scriptures contains all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary to be of all persons belieued for attaining saluation Yet some Articles of a Christians Faith there may be that are not there contained which may be also securely preserued in the Church by Ecclesiasticall Tradition both Written and Vnwritten deriued at first from the Apostolicall as for example this by Protestants confessed That these Bookes of scripture are the Word of God I say thus much is granted For no Church-Infallibility is now pretended but only in declaring what this Word of God deliuers requireth authorizeth and a Catholicks whole Faith is grounded on Diuine Reuelation And where such pretended Infallible church-Church-Authority enjoyns any thing to be belieued meerly as lawfull it grounds it selfe on this Word of God for the lawfulness of it The Consequence also is granted viz. That a Christian is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offred to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no foundation in scripture or Gods Word as before explained or is contrary thereto that is which is certainly known to such Christian to be so there being no matter of Faith enjoyned by such Authority but what is pretended to be so founded But then such Christian where not infallibly certain
liue in this Communion or knowing this Obligation persist in a wilfull neglect to re-vnite themselus to it Because all such persons liue in a mortall sin viz. Disobedience to and a willfull Separation from their lawfull and Canonicall Ecclesiasticall Superiors whom our Lord hath sett ouer them And this sin vnrepented of destroys Saluation being the same so heauily condemned by our Sauiour Si non audierit Ecclesiam Now that vnrepented of it is we haue reason to fear so long as they hauing opportunity either neglect to inform their judgment or this being conuinc'd to reform and rectify their practise And this seems a judged Case in the Donatist who pretended some such thing for their security if we will admitt S. Augustins sentiment of it for thus he directs his speech to them Nobiscum estis in Baptismo c. that is You are with vs in Baptism you are with vs in the Symbol or Creed you are with vs in the rest of our Lords Sacraments and I may safely add with regard to some of them at least You are with vs in a good life with the former exception But in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace and lastly In the Catholick Church you are not with vs And so he leaues them to the punishment due to those who are out of it and separated from Christ its head To conclude I ask this Counter-Question concerning a Christian liuing for example In the Fift Age of the Church Why the belieuing of the Apostles Creed as those of the first Age did and leading a good life may not be sufficient for Salvation to such a one vnless he continue in the Communion of his lawfull Ecclesiasticall Superiors of his owne Age requiring of him vnder Anathema or penalty of damnation the belief not only of the Symbol of the Apostles but of all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed as in the beginning and Conclusion of that Creed it is clear they did Here what Answer the Doctor shall make to this Question supposing he will not justify such Separatist I cannot imagin but it must fitt his own Here therefore such a Christians business for knowing whether he stands safe as to his Faith and Life in order to Saluation seems to be That he seriously examin Whether those whose Communion he rejects are the true Legall Ecclesiasticall Superiors who are sett ouer him by our Lord and to whom he is enjoyned Obedience and with whom he ought to liue to vse S. Augustins words in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace XXX PRINCIPLE 30. There can be no better way to preuent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being fallible are subject to then the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their Saluation is concerned And there can be no sufficient reason giuen why that may not serue in matters of Faith which God himself hath made vse of as the means to keep men from sin in their liues vnless any jmagin that errors in Opinion are farr more dangerous to mens souls then a vicious life is and therefore God is bound to take more care to preuent the one then the other Whereas the Doctor says That the best way to preuent mens mistakes in the sence of Scripture is the considering the consequence of erring in a matter wherein their Saluation is concerned Our dayly sad Experience shews that though our seeing or considering the dangerous consequence of a mistake affords vs how good soeuer yet no certain way to preuent it but our being directed by an Infallible Externall Guide certainly doth And the consideration of such Consequence should hasten euery one to prouide this only certain Remedy I mean in committing himself in such matters of Faith as are much disputed to the Guidance of men more studied and experienced in the Diuine Laws and that are also sett ouer him by our Lord for this very thing to instruct him in them Where in case these Guides shall disagree yet euery Christian may easily know whose judgments among them he ought to follow namely always of that church-Church-Authority that is the Superior which in most cases is indisputable This Ecclesiasticall Body being placed by the Diuine Prouidence in an exact Subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our Obedience rather to a Nationall Synod then to a Diocesan to the Arch-Bishop or Primat then to an Ordinary Bishop or Presbiter And then He who hath some experience in Church affairs if willing to take such a course cannot but discern what way the Major part of Christendom and its Higher and more comprehensiue Councills that haue hitherto been do guide him And the more simple and ignorant who so can come to know nothing better ought to follow their example As touching the following Clause in this Principle That the same means may serue to keep men from Error in matters of Faith as is vsed by God to keep men from Sin in their liues Hereto I add That here God hath taken care by the same Church-Authority to preserue his Church in Truth and to restrain it from Sin giuing them an equall Commission to teach the ignorant and to correct the Vicious And since their Doctrine directs our manners as well as Faith their infallibility is as necessary for things of practise as of speculation Error in Opinion also may be such as may be much more dangerous to vs then for the present a vicious life supposing our persistance in a right Faith because we haue our Conscience still left vncorrupted to reclame vs in the later but not so in the former And there is more hopes of his recouery who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgment Some erroneous Opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of euill practises and the Doctor cannot but acknowledg this who hath spent a considerable part of the Book to which he hath annexed these Principles vpon pretending to shew how Roman Errors do induce an euill life and destroy Deuotion III. The Doctors Consequences examined I. CONSEQUENCE 1. There is no necessity at all or vse of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without and cannot haue any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them 1. This Consequence here is voyded because the Supposition if applied to Diuine Reuelations and matters of Faith in the former Principles is not prooued 2. But if the whole were granted This concludes the vselesness as well of any Ecclesiasticall Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by vsing only their owne sincere endeauour according to the Doctors pretence Principle 13. they may know without them II. CONSEQUENCE 2. The Infallibility of that Society of men who call themseleus the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in man the same
He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to haue this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired he that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the Iudgment of a Councill though not infallible yet so far Directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for Publick Peace sake Now by this way our late English Diuines seem to haue brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and wayning condition and to haue excused yea justified all Sects which haue or shall separate from her For indeed what fault can it be to forsake the Doctrine of a Church whose Teaching none is bound to belieue or obey out of conscience and which quietly suffers yea liberally rewards her sons while they thus disparage her These Principles therefore layd by the Doctor which by aduancing the Clearness of the Rule so as to inferr the vselesness of a Guide do seem to supplant what soeuer Authority of any Church are here weighed in the following Considerations The great importance of which Subject requiring Expressions serious modest and euery way vnlike those made vse of by the Doctor in his Book such haue been studiously endeauoured here without the least resentment of seuerall vnciuill and vnmerited Aspersions which in the sayd Book the Doctor hath cast vpon seuerall among vs and the more moderate any haue bene the more immoderately haue they bene traduced God Almighty inspire into all our hearts a sincere loue of Peace and Truth Amen D r. STILLINGFLEETS PRINCIPLES Giving an Account of the Faith of Protestants CONSIDERED 1. THe Principles c. which Doctor Stilling fleet has thought expedient to expose at the end of his Book to render an Account of the Protestants Faith are sett down in three ranks The first consists of Six Principles agreed on both sides The second contains Thirty Propositions for enquiring into the particular ways which God hath made choyce of for revealing his will to mankind of which Propositions some are also Principles partly agreed on and partly not and some are Deductions from them But we following the generall Title will call them all Principles In the third rank six Corollaries or Inferences are deduced from the fore-going Propositions to the advantage of the cause of Protestants against Catholicks To all which we here offer the following Considerations I. PRINCIPLES Agreed on all sides 1. That there is a God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their beginning 2. That the Notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Iustice Goodness Wisdom and Truth must be in him in the highest perfection 3. That Man receaving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his Will and consequently is liable to punishment in case of disobedience 4. That in order to Mans obeying the will of God it is necessary that he know what it is for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that Man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. What ever God reveals to Man is infallibly true and being intended for the Rule of Mans obedience may be certainly known to be his Will 6. God cannot act contrary to those essentiall Attributes of Iustice Wisdom Goodnesse and Truth in any way which he makes choyce of to make known his Will unto Man by It were impiety to question any of these Principles which are or ought to be presupposed not only to the Christian but all manner of Religions We will therefore proceed to the second Rank consisting of 30. Propositions which we will sett down singly and separatly annexing to each a respective Examination or Consideration II. An Enquiry into the particular ways which God hath made choyce of for the revealing his Will to Mankind I. PRINCIPLE 1. An entire obedience to the will of God being agreed to be the condition of mans happinesse no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to that end then such whereby Man may know what the will of God is This is granted II. PRINCIPLE 2. Man being fram'd a rationall creature capable of reflecting vpon himself may antecedently to any externall Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependence vpon him and those things which are naturally pleasing to him else there could be no such thing as a law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion This may be granted III. PRINCIPLE 3. All Supernaturall and externall Revelation must suppose the truth of Naturall Religion for vnlesse we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his will to vs by any supernaturall means Let this be granted IV. PRINCIPLE 4. Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which ouerthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation For that were to ouerthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation Let this also be granted V. PRINCIPLE 5. There can be no other means imagined whereby we are to judg of the truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in vs of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of Divine Reuelation we must be imposed vpon by euery thing which pretends to be soe Here if the Doctor means That every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations what soeuer proposed to him can discern the True and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false all this exclusively to and independently on the Instruction of church-Church-authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repayre to any other Teacher to instruct him when a dubious Revelation or when the sense of any Divine Revelation is controuersed which is the true revelation or which the sense of it It is abundantly sufficient that eyther Wee our selues or some others appointed by our Lord to guide vs and more easily discouerable by vs have a Faculty ayded by the Divine assistance to discern Truth and Falshood in those Revelations proposed wherein wee our selues cannot that so particular Christians in their following these Guides may not be imposed vpon by every thing which pretends to be Divine Revelation VI. PRINCIPLE 6. The pretence of Infallibility in any person of Society of men must be judged in the same way that the truth of a Divine Revelation is for that infallibility being challenged by vertue of a
either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it viz. 1. either the Infallible Authority of the scriptures from that of the Church the Church testifying so much of the scriptures Or 2. that of the Church from the scriptures Or 3. Also the Infallibility of either of these may be rightly proued from its own testimony For whoeuer is proued or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without any Circle or Petitio Principii or identicall arguing that whateuer he doth witness of himselfe is true I say all these Consequences are naturall and necessary 1. The Testimony being granted euident that the one bears to the other or either to its selfe and 2. the infallibility of one of these either of the scripture or of the Church being first learnt not from its own or the others testimony but from Tradition 2. When a Catholick then first receiues an assurance of the Truth or Canon of scripture from the Infallibility of the Church or its Gouernors he may learne first this supernaturall Diuine assistance and Infallibility of these Gouernors which is made known by Diuine Reuelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner as the Protestant saith he learneth his Canon of scripture from Tradition To which tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whateuer is to scripture 3. Neither may we think that this Diuine Assistance or infallibility of these Guides of the Church in necessaries should either not haue been or not haue been a thing well known to or belieued in the Church by this to use the Doctors terms Deriuatiue and perpetuated sensation of Tradition if there had been no Diuine Writings for soe the Christian religion Without such writings would haue been no rationall and well grounded no stable and certain Religion which surely the Doctor will not affirme And this that is said here of the Churches Infallible Authority may be also of other necessary Articles of the Christian faith For as the Doctor saith It is euident from the Nature of the thing that the Writing of a Diuine Reuolation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Reuelation Because men may belieue a Diuine Reuelation without it as is euident in the Patriarchs and Christian Beleiuers before the Doctrine written 4. Such Infallibility in necessaries then being so settled in the Gouernors and Pastors of the Church the Apostles and those others ordained by them by whom the World was conuerted as that had there been no scriptures it should not haue failed for so the Church would haue failed too The successors cannot be imagined to become disenabled or depriued of it because the Apostles afterwards wrote what they taught but rather by such Writings more secured in it Because the Belief of this Infallibility of these successors receiues a second euidence from the Testimony thereof also found in these Writings Thus both written and vnwritten Tradition-Apostolicall attesting it 5. Now that these Gouernors of the Church who hauing an apparent succession their Testimony must haue been vnquestionably belieued by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no scripture alwayes reputed and held themselues Diuinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the Traditiue Faith of the Church grounded on our Lords Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fitt their Decisions in the Creeds and by their Anathematizing Dissenters the Churches stiling them Hereticks For no Authority if we belieue the Doctor but that wich proues it selfe Infallible and therefore which is Infallible can justly require our internall Assent or submission of Iudgment And Protestants allowing only an externall obedience or silence due to Councills Fallible inferrs that Councills Fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councills are Infallible as do justly require more as did the fowr first Councills with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an Authority assumed by them We find indeed subordinate Councills also stating sometimes matters of Faith censuring Heretiks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with Relation to the same Infallibility residing in the Generall Body of Church Gouernors and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Iudgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick see and a generall acceptation rendring their Decisions authentick and valid 2. For the latter part of this Principle Nothing is more absurd then to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility If the Doctor means here as in his Rationall Account that the sentence of a Body of men Infallible is he saith not in some things lyable to some Doubts but as lyable to Doubts and Disputes as the Infallible scriptures for there he maintains That the Decrees of Councills are as lyable to many Interpretations as any other Writings And again If the scriptures cannot put an End to Controuersies on that account how can Generall Councills do it when their Decrees are as lyable to a priuate sense and wrong Interpretation as the scriptures are Nay more c. I say if this be his sense then not to compare Absurdities here Is not this all one as if he said That a Preacher or Commentator can or doth speak or write nothing plainer then the Text Nor the Judge giue a sentence any more intelligible then the Law That Councills can or haue decided nothing clearer then the thing that is in Controuersy And so no Party is cast by them since it appears not for whom they declare And that the Decree of the Councill of Trent as to Transubstantiation remains still as disputable as the Text Hoc est Corpus meum But then how comes it to pass that Protestants when the Definitions of later Councills are urged against them do not contest them as dubious but reject them as erroneous From the same misarguing the Doctor elsewhere concludes That the argument of the Vnity in Opinion of the Roman Party because they are ready to submit their Iudgment to the Determination of the Church will hold as well or better for the Vnity of Protestants as theirs because all men are willing to submit their Iudgments to scriptures which is on all sides agreed to be Infallible Thus He. Now to consider it Moses his Law prescribed by God for an Infallible Rule yet had Iudges appointed when Doubts and Contentions hapned about the meaning of it to explain the sense Our sauiour accordingly in the Ghospell when any one had a Controuersy against another which Controuersy perhaps might be Heresy or his Brothers teaching something contrary to the Rule of Faith ordered vpon such Person his not being
Rules of tryall the same Motiues by which the Infallibility of any Diuine reuelation is This Consequence couched only in generall terms is granted in the same manner as the 6. Principle is changing must here into may But then of many things examined and discouered by the same way or means some are much more easily by euery one examined and discouered then some others as the Euidence for them in this means are greater So Holy Scriptures belieued such from Vniuersall Tradition may be much clearer in some Articles of our Faith then in others And some Diuine Reuelations may be so obscurely expressed there or inuolued only in their Principles as that some weak capacities cannot discern them which yet in the same Scriptures may discouer the Authority of the Church and its promised Diuine Assistance and Infallibility in necessaries and so from thence learn those other Of which Church and its Infallibility clear in Scriptures for all necessaries and for deciding other Points more obscure therein thus writes S. Augustin in his Dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization Quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest c. Since the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs let whosoeuer is in fear of being deceiued by the obscurity of this Question consult the same Church about it which Church the Holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate And before Earumdem Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum c. That is The truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by vs in this matter or Point of Rebaptization when we do that which has pleased the Vniuersall Church that is which had been stated concerning that Point by the Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselues does commend that since c. Thus writes S. Augustin All which is false and sayd to no purpose if the Scripture be not clear in this That this Church can determine nothing in such important Contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and that we ought to giue credit to what he decides for then it would not be true what he says The truth of the same Scriptures in this matter is held by vs and He who is in fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of this Question is no way relieued in following the sentence of the Church Now if it be further asked Amongst those seuerall Modern opposit Communions which do equally inuite men into their Society by the Name of the Church Which of them is so Diuinely attested there are beside the Description made of it in Scripture not applicable to other pretended Churches and frequently vrged by the same Father against the Donatists There are I say sufficiently certain rationall Euidences and Marks thereof left to Christians whereby the sober Enquirer after it cannot be mistaken I mean not here those Marks of the true Church though true Marks also the quest of which men are sett vpon by Protestants viz. True Doctrine and a right administration of the Sacraments A Quest or Tryall that can neuer be made an end of being a task to know all the Truths in Christianity first before we can know the Church When as the Enquirer seeks after the Church which as S. Augustin sayth the Scripture demonstrates that by it he may come to know the Truths But I mean those other Marks mention'd by S. Augustin in the Book he wrote of the Benefit of belieuing the Church viz. Sequentium multitudo c. The multitude of her followers the Consent of Nations her Antiquity c. Which Church hath descended visibly from Christ himself by his Apostles vnto vs and from vs will descend to posterity c. And which by the Confession of Mankind from the Apostolick See by succession of Bishops hath obtained the supreme top of Authority whilst Hereticks on all sides barked against her in vain and were still condemned partly by the judgment euen of the common people partly by the venerable grauity of Councills and partly also by the Majesty of Miracles that is by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of seuerall of which S. Augustin himself was an eye-witness and of some an instrument The same Father repeats much-what the same in another Book of his De Vnitate Ecclesiae against the Donatists a Sect in Africk Non est obscura Quaestio c. It is no obscure Question says he viz. which is the true Church in which those may deceiue you who according to our Lords prediction shall come and say Behold here is Christ behold he is there behold he is in the Desart as in a place where the multitude is not great The time was when the Reformation were constrained to vse the like phrases and also to apply to themselues that Text Fear not little Flock But you haue a Church described in in the Scripture to be spredd through all Regions and to grow still in Conuersion of Nations till the haruest You haue a City concerning which he that was the Founder of it sayd A City built on a Hill cannot be hid This is the Church therefore not in some corner of the earth but euery where most known Now I hope none will think fitt to apply these Scriptures more to S. Augustins time then to any other or to the present For by the same reason the Donatists might here haue counter-applied them to some other and not to S. Augustins times Much what the same is iterated again by this Father and three Testimonies I hope will establish this matter where he tells the Manicheans what retained him in the bosome of that Church from which they stood separated Vt omittam Sapientiam c. that is That I may omitt that Wisdome viz. the Mark of true Doctrine which you do not belieue to be in the Catholick Church there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosome The consent of peoples and Nations keeps me there Authority begun by Miracles confirmed by Antiquity keeps me there The Succession of Pastors from the Seat it self of S. Peter to whom our Lord after his Resurrection recommended his Sheep to be fedd by him vnto the present Bishop keeps me there And lastly the very Name of Catholick heeps me there c. Here are S. Augustins Marks to find our the Church from which men were to learn the Truth whilst proposed to seuerall persons and Sects always the same And these are the Euidences in Tradition and in those other commonly call'd Motiues of Credibility which in themselues seeme not justly questionable that will afford a sufficient Certainty to euery Sober Enquirer whereby he may try and discern that present Church to which now also if in S. Augustins time Christ affords a testimony and which lyeth not in Corners nor starts vp after some Ages and vanishes again but is fixed ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum a City sett on
D R STILLINGFLEETS PRINCIPLES Giving an Account of the FAITH OF PROTESTANTS CONSIDERED BY N. O. MATTH XVIII 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus PRINTED AT PARIS By the Widow of Antonie Christian and Charles Guillery M. DC LXXI PERMISSV SVPERIORVM A PREFACE TO the Reader DOctor Stilling fleet hauing lately published a Book entitled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome c. being a Rejoynder to a reply of an vnknown Catholick Gentleman engaged in some former Controuersy with him at the end of the Same Book hath annexed certain Principles drawn up as he saith to giue an Account of the Protestant-Faith Now as touching the main Book it would be inciuility and injustice in any other to inuade the Right of his worthy Aduersary by vntertaking an Answer thereto To his Aduersaries Answer therefore as the times permitt and to Gods mercy I leaue him if perhaps he may repent and endeavour some satisfaction 1. For his accusing the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same Practise as to Seuerall of his Idolatries are in both for so many Ages before Luthers time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens Which surely must Vn-church this Great Body and quite divorce this Adulteress from Christ for we cannot but think but the Doctor will maintain the Teaching so manifold an Idolatry in this Church to be Fundamentall Errour 2. For his representing the Highest Deuotions practised from all Antiquity in the same Church Mysticall Theology Contemplation heauenly Inspirations all those Supernaturall Favours and familiar Communications of the Diuine Majesty to purer soules receiued in Prayer and continued still in his Church as also Miracles are and so attested in her Histories but vnknown indeed to strangers and foolishness to Greeks his representing all these I say as ridiculous Fanaticisms and impostures though he knowes that Catholicks account themselues obliged to submitt all these things to the judgment of Superiours a Duty vnknown to Fanaticks And what may we expect next from such who are to many as make ill use of such Books as his but that the frequent Allocutions of Gods Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture the Visions Reuelations Extasies and Spirituall Vnions of the Saints there our Lords Ego in eis tu in me ut sint consummati in unum and S. Pauls Viuo non ego sed in me Christus will shortly become matter of Drollery and Bouffonry 3. For his making so many of Gods glorious Saints in Heauen quorum causam discernat Deus the subject of his scorn and derision By all which he has fitted his Book for the sport and recreation of the Atheist and Debauched from whose applause with the regret and horrour mean while of all piously disposed he may receive his reward The Reuisall of these not very gratefull Subjects of his Book therefore I leaue to the worthy Gentleman pre-engaged in these Disputes But for the now mentioned Principles separately adjoyned at the end as euery Catholick has an equall Right to apply himself to the examining of them so seeing that from these it is that such bad fruits of forsaking first and then censuring and condemning their Mother the Church doe grow it may with Gods blessing proue a seruice not altogether vnbeneficiall to discouer their weakness especially since by such a discouery his whole preceding Book will be demonstrated vnconcluding against Gods Church And this is here the rather and with greater confidence vndertaken because since it is Impiety to deny in generall that true Christian Faith hath a certain vnmoueable Foundation in case therefore it shall appear that the Foundation here layd by the Doctor is but a meer trembling Quiksand on which a Christian cannot without a dreadfull danger to his soule build his Faith namely An Errability in the Guides of Gods Church and Inerrability in all necessary Doctrins contained in Scripture by Him attributed indefinitely to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting or depending on such Teachers as haue been instituted by God shall vse their sincere endeauours to find out such Truths this Foundation I say not Scripture but each priuate mans sense of Scripture being ruined it will vnauoydably follow That the only certain way not to be misled will be the submitting our Internall Assent and Belief to Church-authority which those who haue dissented from and refused to stand to before Luthers time haue been always marked with the name of Hereticks Where by Church-authority I mean in generall that Superior and more comprehensiue Body of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councills in all Ages from the Beginning required such Submission vnder penalty of Anathema and justly assumed to her self the Title of the onely authenticall Interpreter of Scripture and authoritatiue Teacher of Diuine Verities A Submission this is which no particular Church diuided from this more Vniuersall can with the least pretence of reason challenge from her Subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self And this being obserued by M r. Chillingworth a schollar herein of the Socinians and by many other Diuines of late vpon whom hls Book hath had too must influence they accordingly are forced to disclaime that Submission which the Church of England formerly had challenged in her Canons and seuerely euen with Ecclesiasticall death punished the refusers vntill they should repent not their Externall Disobedience or Contradiction but their wicked Errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5 Canon to haue been by this Church agreed vpon for the auoyding diuersities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion Now that these later Divines do decline such Submission I need goe no further then to Doctor Stillingfleets Rationall Account for proof where the Lord Primat of Ireland is cited thus The Church of England doth not not define any of these Questions speaking of the 39. Articles as necessary to be belieued but only binds her sonnes for Peace sake not to oppose them And again We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we oblige any man to belieue them but only not to contradict them Thus they speake of late and thus M r. Chilling worth hath cleared the way before them in abridging thus the just Authority of the Primitiue Councills The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times might haue just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receiue her Declarations under pain of damnation or Anathema what warrant they had I know not
Externall Proponent to be infallible The Obseruations made vpon the three immediatly foregoing Propositions the matter of which is repeated in this do shew that they no way serue him for the vse he would here make of them The sense of which Propositions as far as they haue any truth in them may be returned vpon him thus since the Infallibility af any particular person as to the assent he either doth or may giue to this Point of the Churches Infallibility is asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church And since such infallibility of a particular person as to this point doth not therefore render at all the Infallibility of a Church vseless to him viz. as to his learning still from her all those other Points of Faith of which he hath no infallible knowledge or certainty otherwayes in which therefore he not being infallible that he may not erre in them it is necessary that the representatiue Church be so And so since the Infallibility of the Church is still of most important effect both to those who haue and to those who as yet haue not any infallible certainty of this her Infallibility toguide both these in a true right and sauing Faith as to those Points where of they haue no certainty Therefore there needs no Enquiry after a further Certainty for that our Faith in which we haue one already from this Infallible Proponent the Church XXIV PRINCIPLE 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the different degrees of Euidence and measure of Diuine Assistance but euery Christian by the use of his reason and common helpes of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the conuincing arguments of the Christian Religion and authority of the scriptures that on the same grounds on which men doubt of the truth of them they may as well doubt of the truth of those things which they judge to be most euident to sense or reason Here if the Doctor means That euery Christian by the use of his Reason and common helps of Grace that is as he hath expressed it already Principle 13. and 18. by his perusing the scriptures and sincerely endeauouring to know their meaning exclusuely to his necessary repair to any externall infallible Guide or Proponent as he pretends in Principle 13. 15. 23. may attain to so great a degree of certainty as to all necessary Points of Faith ONELY from the conuincing arguments of the Verity of the Christian Religion and Authority of scriptures as that such a person may as litle doubt of them as of the things most euident to sense or Reason This Principle is denyed And for the reason of this denyall I referr to what is said before to Principle 13. and 18. And I appeal also to what Doctor Stillingfleet himselfe elsewhere tells us in his Rationall Account It seems reasonable saith he that because Art and subtilty may be vsed by such who seek to peruert the Catholick Doctrin and to wrest the plain places of scripture which deliuer it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselues of such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding times may be a very usefull way for vs to embrace the true sense of scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith as for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity c. Now should not the Doctor instead of saying the sence of the Catholich Church in succceding Ages may be a very vsefull way for vs haue said is very necessary for vs if his cause would permit him And will not the Socinian thank him for this his mitigation But if according to this Principle euery Christian without this externall Guide can not in some perhaps but in all these Points of Faith attain such certainty as he hath in things most euident to sense or Reason how doth he stand in need of consulting or conforming to the sense of the Primitiue Catholick Church XXV PRINCIPLE 25. No man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspition of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and vncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that those who are certain of what they belieue may at the same time not know but that it may be false which is an apparent contradiction and ouerthrowes any faculty in vs of judging of truth or falshood 1. This Principle is euident and granted But such certainty is not applicable to the belief of euery Christian as to all Points of Faith if he be supposed not assisted by any Externall Infallible Guide 2. It is true also that a full and firme Assent free from doubting as where no Reasons offer themselues to perswade vs to the contrary may be yielded to a thing as true which is really false and at the same time no suspicion be entertained of the falshood of it XXVI PRINCIPLE 26. Whateuer necessarily proues a thing to be true doth at the same time proue it impossible to be false because it is impossible the same thing should be true and false at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrine of the Ghospell as true do therby declare their Belief of the Impossibility of the falshood of it This Proposition is granted But one who assents firmly in generall to the whole Doctrine of the Ghospell what euer it be as true and so to the impossibility of the falshood of it or any part of it doth not therefore being vnasisted by any Externall Guide know what this Doctrine is in euery such Point of Faith where the sense of the Letter of this Ghospell is controuerted and to vse the Apostles Phrase hard to be vnderstood and that in matters too hazarding damnation if mistaken Therefore me thinks the Doctor should here allow thus much at least That all those who after their perusing the scriptures think themselues not certain of its sense are obliged notwithstanding the silence of these Protestant Principles herein to repair to the Direction of these Externall Guides and these too not taken at aduenture and to follow their Faith Now such non-pretenders to Certainty according to the Doctors tryall of it sett down below in Consid. on Princ. 29. I suppose are the greatest part of Protestants XXVII PRINCIPLE 27. The nature of Certainty doth receiue seuerall names either according to the nature of the Proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus MORALL certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to MATHEMATICALL Euidence but implying a firme assent vpon the highest Euidence that Morall things can receiue Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of certainty in the same kind so MORALL Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side then the other In the former
before they can look on themselues as obliged to giue it And therefore He and the Archbishop so farr as any such Councills are fallible allow only an Externall Obedience or silence to them Now for Obedience to these first four Generall Councills in a submission of judgment to them vpon such an Vniuersall Acceptation of them the Doctor in another place thus writes The Church of England looks vpon the keeping the Decrees of the fower first Generall Councills as her Duty and professeth to be guided by the sence of scripture as interpreted by the vnanimous consent of the Fathers and the fowr fist Generall Councills that is shee professeth to take that which such Counciils deliuer for the sence of scripture Not then to admit their Definitions if first they accord with the scripture taken in our own sence So also else where he saith The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be deliuered as the sense of scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick sense of the fowr first Ages that is in their Oecumenicall Councills as he expresseth it in the preceding page And here also he giues the Ground of such submission viz. a strong presumption that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should be held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends vpon the belief of those things that are necessary to saluation And when saith he those correspondencies were maintained between the seuerall parts of it that what was refused by one was so by all In another place also speaking in generall of Councills vniuersally accepted he saith That both the Truth of Gods Promises the Goodness of God to his People and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Councill should not be guilty of any notorious errour Here you see he saith that the Truth of Gods Promises is concerned that these Councills should not fall into any notorious Errour Therefore such Promises are made absolute to some Church-Gouernors after the Apostles And then where the Errour is not intollerable saith the Archbishop at least Obedience of Non-contradiction will be due to all such Councills Now a notorious Errour it must needs be if an Errour in Fundamentalls And such notorious Errour in particular would this be If they should hold themselues when they are not infallible in their Decrees and so should require a Generall Assent such as that in the Athanasian Creed from Christians to them as to Diuine Reuelations and make them DE FIDE thereby in case any Decree be not true obliging all the Members of the Church to an Vnity in errour Thus farr then as to Fundamentall Errours it seems Gods Prouidence secures both such Councills and their subjects And then also for their erring in Non-fundamentalls both He and the Archbishop put this among the RARO CONTINGENTIA The Archbishop also is much in justifying the Catholick Church infallible not only in its Being but Teaching and that must be by its Councills Doctor White saith he had reason to say That the Visible Church had in all Ages taught that vnchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Fundamentall And again It is not possible the Catholick Church that is of any one Age should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to saluation Where the word teach shews that he intends the Gouernors of the Church in euery Age. Likewise in another place If we speak saith he of plain and easy scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it And If A. C. meane no more then that the whole Vniuersall Church of Christ cannot vniuersally erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to mens saluation be fights against no Aduersary that I know but his own fiction Where it follows But if he mean that the whole Church cannot erre in any one point of Diuine Truth in generall if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide the scripture then perhaps it may be said that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point Here then the first of the whole Church not erring in Fundamentalls as well as the second are spoken of the Church determining And so is that saying of his viz. That though the Mother-Church Prouinciall or National may erre Yet if the Grand mother the whole Vniuersall Church that is in her Generall Councills vniuersally accepted controlling the other Prouincial or National cannot erre in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience that is to the Grand-mothers commands taken from the possibility of the Churches erring namely as to all necessaries are quite taken away Thus he But safe c. it could not be if the Catholick Church the Grand mother as she held so could not also witness all the necessary Truths against such inferiour Councills But how these things will te reconciled with what the Doctor saith else where I know not Let him take care of it as name ly where he writes thus You much mistake when you think we resolue our faith of fundamentalls into the Church as the infallible witness of them For though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fundamentall for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not belieue them it doth not follow thence necessarily that the Church must infallibly witness what is fundamentall and what not And again That all infallible assistance makes not an infallible Testimony or makes not the Testimony of those that haue it infallible surely Teaching declaring its consent condemning Doctrins contrary to Fundamentalls is Witnessing or giuing Testimony XVII PRINCIPLE 17. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the Truth of these Writings and to interpret them and at the same time to proue that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an assistance not being supposed or to pretend that infallibility in a Body of men is not lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility I. For the former part of this Principle viz. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of c. If the Doctor in the words at the same time to proue that Commission from these Writings means here to proue such Commission or Assistance only or in the first place from these Writings the truth of Which Writings are first or onely proued from such Commission c. the Absurdity vrged by him I grant 1. As all Articles of Faith are not by all Persons learnt at once so neither by all exactly in the same order as is frequently obserued by Catholick Writers A Christians Faith therefore may begin either at the Infallible Authoriry of scriptures or of the Church and this Infallible Authority of