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-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
arguments drawn from them as well as Protestants But if the Doctor put this Text so much controuerted among Obscure Scriptures which therefore not containing any Point necessary to saluation saluation is not endangered by it if a Christian should err or be mistaken in their sense then how comes this great Body of Christians meerly by the mistake of its sence in thinking that our Lord meaneth as the words sound that the Eucharist is his very proper Body and so in adoring as they ought should it be so how come they I say to committ such grosse Idolatry as the Doctor in his Book chargeth them with and so all without repentence miscarry in their Saluation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestants side neither will this relieue the Doctor because since this also on what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controuersy for deciding of it we are to presume here likewise that a sincere endeauour being allowd to all Parties to vnderstand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprehends it Now the present Catholick Church being a Major part professes to follow the sence of the Ancient in interpreting Scripture XIV PRINCIPLE 14. To suppose the bookes so written to be imperfect that is that any things necessary to be heleeued or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not deliuering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it downe and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in belieuing the fullnesse and perfection of the scriptures in order to saluation The two inferences made here by the Doctor are faulty For 1. Neither can the first Author of scripture be charged with fraud if he haue deliuered part of his mind only by writing and part some other way as the Doctour Prop. 7. 8. 9. acknowledges he might vnless it be manifest that he hath obliged himselfe by a Promise of delivering his whole mind by writing which is not shewed 2. Neither can the Writers of scripture be charged with insincerity if so much as they were inspired with to set downe and register there they haue done it Meanwhile as touching the Perfection of Holy scriptures Catholiks now as the Holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all Points of Faith which are simply necessary to be of all Persons belieued for attaining saluation And of this Doctor Field may be a Witness who saith For matters of Faith we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselues that there is nothing to be belieued which is not either expresly contained in scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things euident in the Light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded XV. PRINCIPLE 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober enquirer can misse of what is necessary for saluation there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible society of men either to attest and explain these Writings among Christians any more then there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iewes to attest and explain to them the Writings of Moses or the Prophets The Consequence here is good viz. That supposing the Will of God is so clearly reuealed in these Writings that no sober Enquirer can misse of knowing what is necessary to saluation there can be then no necessity of any Infallible society But the supposition of such a clearenesse fayles as the 13. Prosiosition on which it is grounded doth It failes I say in the sense the Doctor deliuers it who referrs his sober enquirer only to the Writings themselues for information in all Necessaries Without consulting his spirituall Pastours for the right explication of them Nor doth the Doctors Language any where run thus That the will of God is so plainly revealed in these Writings for then he should say so obscurely rather that no sober man not who repairs to the Writings but who enquires of and learns from his spirituall Pastours the right sence of them shall miss c. But if the supposition in the Doctors sence be allowed for true there seems to follow something more then the Doctor deduceth and which perhaps he would not admit viz. the non-necessity of any society at all fallible or infallible to explain these Writings as to Necessaries all Christians being herein clearly taught from God in these scriptures or this their Rule vnless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord for others to supersede their endeauours or for instructing them in non-necessaries As touching that which the Doctor in the clause of this Princ. speaks of Moses and the Prophets certain it is that Moses his Writings and the Law were not penned with such Clarity But that Doubts and Controuersies might arise concerning the sence of it so we find mention made of doubts between Law and Commandement statutes and Iudgments And 2. such Doubts arising their address was to be made to the supreme Iudges appointed for deciding them 3. Whateuer their sentence was according to the sentence of the Law that these should teach them and according to the judgment that they should tell and inform them they were to do and that vpon pain of death To do I say according to such sentence not only when they were to vndergo some mulct or punishment imposed by these Judges for a fault but when they were enjoyned the obseruance of some Law formerly misunderstood by them and so broken and disobeyed This seems clear enough from the words of the Text for who can reasonably interpret them thus Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left vers 11. that is Thou shalt not decline in not paying the mulct in which they shall fine thee or not vndergoing the corporall punishment they shall inflict on thee Thou shalt obserue to do according to all that they shall informe thee and according to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee vers 10. that is thou shalt suffer what they impose but not obey what they enjoyn Again they were to do according to such sentence vpon pain of death not then only when the Litigants do aknowledge their sentence to be juxta Legem Dei conformable to Gods Law for then what sentence of the Iudge would stand good but so often as the Judge should declare it to be conformable to Gods Law And when will a Judge declare his sentence to bee otherwise Lastly not to debate here the Infallibility of these supreme Judges as to all necessaries in the Law
which it proposeth Yet it signifies much for his hauing a right and sauing Faith in all those matters proposed by this Church which cannot misguide him see the Consideration on the nineteenth Principle which right and sauing Faith children and other illiterate country people in the Catholick Church haue without any such infallible assurance concerning the Proponent as is abundantly declared by Catholick writers In like manner the Protestants also affirme That the Holy scriptures may signify much to the begetting a true and sauing Faith euen in those who cannot from Vniuersall Tradition certainly proue them to be the word of God XXII PRINCIPLE 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our infallible assurance without an equall infallibility in our selues in the belief of it If no particular person be infallible in the Assent he giues to matters propos'd c. Here Matters is left indefinite If the Doctor means to any matters at all proposed the Proposition and Consequence thereto annexed are true and granted But on the contrary a particular person may be infallible in the assent he giues to some matter proposed viz. to this That the Church is infallible If he means to all matters proposed then it is faulty and denyed For though no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to all matters proposed by others to him yet may he be so in this the Churches Infallibility And so the Consequence also is voyd and the Churches Infallibility will signify as much as is expected to mens infallible assurance in those matters it proposeth Here then Catholicks affirm That though euery person is not so any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or what euer Certainty that may be called which Vniuersall Tradition can afford assured of this Diuine Reuelation the Churches Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motiues of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally-infallible and certain means of belieuing the scriptures to be the word of God On which word of God or Diuine Reuelation the seuerall Articles deliuered by it in the sense their own priuate judgment apprehends the Protestant grounds his Faith Again on which word of God or Diuine Reuelation in the sense this Infallible Church interprets the same Articles the Catholick grounds his Faith But as the Protestants except here from being primarily grounded on or proued by the same scriptures this Fundamentall Point of Faith That the scriptures are the true Word of God so they must giue Catholiks also leaue to except here this their Point of Faith the infallibility of the Church from being primarily or as to the first means of Knowing it grounded on or learnt from the testimony of this Infallible Church For this Point may first come to the Belieuers Knowledge either from Tradition or from the Holy scriptures as is explained before in the Considerations on 17. Principle § 28. From the scriptures I say as the sense of them is now learnt not from this Infallible Church but either from their owne sufficient Clearness in this Point or from Tradition Nor are Catholicks necessited in arguing against Protestants who grant the scriptures to be Gods Word to vse any other Testimony then that of these scriptures for a sufficiently clear Proof of Church-Infallibility For I think I may call that a clear Proof euen according to the Doctors common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Yet whilst they deny a sufficient Euidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in scripture if they would allow a sufficient Euidence of Church-Authority established to decide Ecclesiasticall Controuersies with Obligation to Externall Obedience by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much Major Part may be admitted as it ought to giue Law to the Whole In the Belief and Profession of Which Church-Infallibility and submission of priuate mens judgments to her sentence passed in her synods the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controuersies and establishing Peace For he tells them That those Points which haue been determined or commanded synodically after a Legitimate way of Councills they are receiued by all Faithfull Christians as consonant to the Diuinely-Inspired scriptures And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith It is not lawfull for vs confiding in our own priuate Explication to vnderstand to obserue or interpret any saying of Diuine scripture any otherwayes then as hath seemed good to those Theologues who haue been approued and receiued by Holy synods directed by Gods spirit least that declining from the right Euangelicall Doctrin the Conceptions of our minds should be carried about hither and thither like a Proteus But some wilt aske How shall those things be reformed How Euen thus by Gods Assistance if we take not into our hands nor giue credit to any things besides those which haue been instituted and ordained by the Holy Apostles and Holy synods He who obserues this limit is our Companion in celebrating Diuine Mysteries he is of the same Communion and Faith with us Again in his Preface to the same answer he saith We will giue our Answer not alledging any thing of our own but from the seauen Oecumenicall synods the last of these is that so much persecuted and befoold by Doctor Stillingfleet in his last Book And from the sentence of Holy Doctors interpreters of Diuinely inspired scriptures whom the Catholick Church hath by an Vnanimous consent receiued since the Holy Ghost hath breathed forth by them and spoken in them such things as shall foreuer remain unmooued as being founded on the Word of God For the Church of Christ is the Pillar and ground of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail as God has promised Here we see in the East the same Zeale for Councills and for Fathers taken collectiuely as an Infallible Guide as is in the West and the like endeauour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgment and humble submission of Judgment XXIII PRINCIPLE 23. The Infallibility of euery particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other vseless for if euery person be infallible what needs any Representatiue Church be so too and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if euery Person be not infallible in the belief of it we are further to enquire what certainty men may haue in matters of Faith supposing no
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
supernaturall assistance and for that end to assure men what the will of God is the same means must be vsed for the tryall of that as for any other supernaturall way of Gods making known his will to men Here if the Doctor means That by the same way or means as we come to know the truth of other Divine Revelations we may come to know the truth also of this viz the Infallibility in Necessaries of a Society or Church I consent to it But not to this That by all or only the same ways or means by which we may come to know one Divine Revelation we may or must come to know any other or this of Church-Infallibility For some Divine Revelation may come first to our knowledg by Tradition another first by Scripture another by the Church see below Consid. on the 17. Principle VII PRINCIPLE 7. It being in the power of God to make choyce of severall ways of revealing his Will to vs we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinit Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth This is granted VIII PRINCIPLE 8. Whatever way is capable of certainly conveying the Will of God to vs may be made choyce of by him for the means of making known his will in order to the happiness of mankind so that no Argument can be sufficient a priori to prove that God cannot choose any particular way to reveal his mind by but such which evidently prooues the insufficiency of that means for conueying the Will of God to vs. This likewise is granted IX PRINCIPLE 9. There are severall ways conceaveable by vs how God may make known his Will to vs eyther by immediate voyce from Heaven or inward Inspiration to every particular person or inspiring some to speak personnally to others or assisting them with an infallible spirit in writing such Books which shall contain the Will of God for the benefit of distant persons and future Ages To these seuerall ways by which God reveals his Will the Doctor might have added this one more as a Truth And in case such Writings in some things be not clear to all capacities as the Writings of Moses his law were not nor any Writings though possibly yet hardly can be when written at seuerall times by seueral persons on seuerall and those particular occasions in different styles c. By our Lords giuing a Commission to and leauing a standing Authority in the Successors of these holy Pen-men to expound these their Writings to the people and by affording them for euer such a Divine Assistance as in nothing necessary to misinterpret them X. PRINCIPLE 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by Writing it must eyther be because no Writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can neuer be known to be written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for Words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later ouerthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God This is granted XI PRINCIPLE 11. It is agreed among all Christians that although God in the first Ages of the World did reveal his mind to men immediatly by a Voice of secret inspirations yet afterwards hee did communicate his mind to some immediatly inspired to write his Will in Books to be preserued for the benefit of future Ages and particularly that these Books of the New Testament which we now receaue were so written by the Apostles and Disciples of Iesus-Christ The Doctor declaring how God after the first Ages was pleas'd to communicate his mind by the Writings of Moses c. might and ought to haue added as a Truth That he also left a Iudge in case of any Controuersy arising about the sense of those Writings to whose sentence the people were to stand and do according to it vnder paine of death as the same Writings inform vs. XII PRINCIPLE 12. Such Writings hauing been receiued by the Christian Church of the first Ages as Divine and Infallible and being deliuered down as such to vs by an vniuersall consent of all Ages since they ought to be owned by vs as the certain Rule of Faith whereby we are to judge what the Will of God is in order to our Saluation vnlesse it appear with an euidence equall to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God that they were neuer intended for that end because of their obscurity or imperfection Here these words whereby we are to judge being vnderstood not vniuersally of all Christians but of those to whom amongst Christians this Office of judging in dubious cases is delegated by our Lord Or vnderstood vniuersally that is so farr as the sense of these Scriptures is to all men clear and vndisputable This Proposition is granted XIII PRINCIPLE 13. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Reuelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as Writing being made choyce of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God to giue infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be vnderstood by all persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their saluation This Principle is vnsound Because if God who according to the Doctors 7. Principle may reueal his Will in or without Writing after what manner he pleaseth may reveal it in these Writings so as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them and more assisted from aboue according to their employment which Persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest and these to learne it of them in those places or Points wherein to these persons Gods Will is obscure then I say though these Writings be not such as that euery one may attaine the understanding of them by his owne endeavours yet if he may by others namely his Instructors this also consists very well with the Diuine designe with his Wisdome and Goodnesse as also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliuer his Will perpetually to his Church Concerning these Vvritings pretended by the Doctor to be intelligible by all Persons c. I find as it seems to me a contrary Principle aduanced by Doctor Field a person of no small authority in the Church of England in his Preface to the large Volume he thought it necessary to write on the Church Seeing sayth he the Controuersies of Religion that is in
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
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-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