their sentence therein to be true or just but in doing also of something where the lawfulnes of it is questioned which thing also here by the text I am to do if they command me as well as the former and yet which thing I may not do unless I believe either their sentence therein to be true and the thing in general lawful to be done or at least lawful for me rebus sic stantibus their sentence past to do it i. e. unless I believe that tho it be against God's law that they command me since they may err yet God excuseth or holdeth me guiltles in doing it in that he hath peremptorily obliged me to adhere to their sentence and judgment not my own So that in any thing they once determin lawful whatever my opinion was of it before yet now I am obliged to believe it lawful for me to do it since I am commanded by God to obey them in doing it and may do nothing at any time against my conscience and whilst I hold such thing unlawful to be done by me And again Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe those laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God but your perswasion in this case i. e. where Superiors have determined otherwise you are bound for the time i. e. till the same Authority reverse it to suspend c unless they have an infallible demonstration And there he shews against pretence in every thing of a Demonstration An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such as being proposed unto any man and understood the mind i. e. of him that heareth it cannot choose but inwardly assent Which tryal of a demonstration Archbishop Laud also allows § 32. n. 5. T is no demonstration then as long as those think notwithstanding it they have cause to dissent to whom I propose it But when you have read these things in Hooker look on Mr. Chillingworth's Answer 5. cap. 109 110. sect c. to me seeming very unsatisfactory First there Dr. Potter saying it is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Mr. Chillingworth defends him thus Dr. Potter by judgment means not his reason or Scripture as Mr. Knot imagines the sence of it for these he may oppose to the publick but his bare authority But search Dr. Potter p. 105. and you will see he speaks both of Reason and Scripture Then coming to Mr. Hooker Mr. Chillingworth expounds what he saith on Deut. 17. 8. not of yeilding assent to the judgment of the Judge or any active obedience which presupposeth assent but of obedience of suffering only the sentence of the Judge and paying the mulcts he tho unjustly lays upon them But 1. did no other sentences pass in the Sanedrim about the law but concerning satisfactions and punishments Did none of their judgments command the doing of such a thing the observing of such a fast the offering of such a Sacrifice marrying or forbearing to marry such a woman wherein those saith Mr. Hooker were to do as the Judge decided those who thought and perhaps truly that the law disallowed it that to the like purpose he might urge the Puritans to wear a Surplice c after the Ecclesiastical Magistrate had commanded it tho it seemed to their private opinion unlawful For that he speaketh of opinion and active not passive obediedience which passive obedience the Puritans willingly granted and was out of controversy t is plain in that he saith that such a sentence once passed was ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience to build the duty of obedience upon whatsoever his own opinion were as touching the matter before in question And in the close of the Section he saith God the Author of peace must needs be the Author of those mens peaceable resolutions who concerning these things i. e. where is no infallible demonstration to the contrary have determined with themselves to do and think as the Church they are of decreeth till they see necessary cause enforcing them to the contrary And this is plain also out of the places which he urgeth that place in the 17. Deut. and the injunction of the Council Act. 15. For Acts 15. speaks of active obedience abstaining from blood c. which always supposeth precedent opinion of the lawfulnes thereof And Deut. 17. runs thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. Thou shalt do according as they shall shew thee Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee c. And the same is set down after the same manner 2 Chron. 19. 10. And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood between law and commandement statutes and judgments ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord c. Certainly these places may not be restrain'd only to the patient undergoing of the punishment sentenced by the Judge for the non-observance of his decrees or of that which he saith is Law. Another part of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer is that Mr. Hooker limits the matters wherein they were to yeild obedience to the injunctions of Authority namely to such matters as have plain Scripture or Reason neither for nor against them and wherein men go only upon their own probable collection which I grant But this plain Scripture and Reason as Mr. Hooker expresseth it is a really infallible argument or demonstration and not such pretended For the Puritans also pretended they had most plain reason and Scripture for the things wherein they were unconformable Now if Mr. Hooker here requires submission in all such points where there is no infallible argument to the contrary whether he intended it or no c in very few or no matters can such submission be denied especially to a General Council neither do we find in Mr. Hooker's proof Deut. 17. 8. any restrictions of obedience of submission only to certain points where they had not plain law or reason to the contrary Now in the last place to consider his main answer to those words of Mr. Hooker The will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determin yea tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right Here answereth Mr. Chillingworth he saith men are bound to do whatsoever c. but he says not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just giving an instance of a man cast wrongfully at law and sentenced to pay an 100l I answer in some sentences or judgments this which Mr. Chillingworth saith is true viz. where they enjoyn me a thing to which I think I am not oblig'd which I may cedere meo jure and do tho I do not think their determination right and just and
so it is in the instance he giveth But in some other sentences it is false viz. when they enjoyn me an action the lawfulnes whereof is questioned For since I may never do a thing believed unlawful for me to do therefore here I must either believe their determination for my doing it just and right or I must not do it Now as I said before this I may believe either by believing the thing in it self lawful which they judg so or at least that it is lawful for me to do it rebus sic stantibus tho the thing in general prohibited or unlawful to be done without such circumstances because God hath peremptorily obliged me to obey their sentence tho in some things errable As may be shewed in many instances which were decidable by such Judges For example a controversy ariseth between a bounden servant and his master whether he is to obey his Masters command in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day The Servant arguing from Exod. 20. 10. In it thou shalt not do any work c that it is by God prohibited Here upon the Judges sentence well weighing this text with other Scriptures I say the Servant is bound by them to water his Master's cattel and therefore bound to think it lawful to do so none being obliged to do what he thinks unlawful to do for Conscientia erronea obligat The same it is if any one upon Levit. 18. 16. refusing to marry the wife of his brother deceased without issue making some false gloss upon Deut. 25. 5. should receive a command from these Judges to marry her My last instance shall be in the very matter whereof Mr. Hooker discourseth tho Mr. Chillingworth avoided it The Church of England passeth a sentence in the supreme Ecclesiastical court That every Minister in celebrating Divine Service shall wear a Surplice Here I say a Puritan may not do what the judicial sentence hath determined c by no means unless he first think or believe the determination of the Council lawful i. e. That his doing this namely wearing the Surplice is not against the law of God. The reason is because here they enjoyn him the doing of that of which the question is whether to do it be lawful But had they enjoyned him to pay a mulct for not wearing a Surplice then the question is not whether he may lawfully pay this mulct for unusquisque potest cedere de suo jure and he who doth this thing is supposed to be satisfied in this point that he may cedere suo jure but only whether that court had a just and legal cause for which they enjoyned this mulct which as to the point of lawful concerns them but not him at all But had the law said or did such a one mulcted doubt whether the law had said no man shall submit to any mulct or punishment which he thinks the Judge unjustly sentenceth him to then must he not pay the mulct till he thought the determination lawful A sentence therefore may be conceived unjust two ways 1. Either in enjoyning men to do a thing which the law as they conceive hath prohibited to be done such a thing may never be done as long as the sentence is thought unjust i. e. Enjoyning them to do what the law prohibits to be done Or 2ly in enjoyning men to do what the law hath prohibited the Judge in such a case to enjoyn but not the others in any case to do tho to do such a thing in such a point ought not to have bin imposed Here the judged doubtles may obey the sentence whilst he thinks it unjust To make things plain I fear I am too tedious See more of this matter in Success Clergy Mr. Chillingworth goes on to shew an impossibility that such a yeilding to judgment against our private opinion can be His words are If you will draw Mr. Hooker's words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of a judicial and final decision just and right tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right it is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus tho at the same time they think the contrary Thus far he To this I have spoken more fully in the following Discours § 2. To make Contradictories the terms in both Propositions must be taken exactly in the same sence els they will be only verbally so As I will shew you this to be after I have first premised this That taking thinking in the latter Proposition for infallibile certainty but t is clear Mr. Hooker means no such thing the words imply a true contradiction for he who saith he believes for any authority whatsoever humane or per impossibile divine contrary to what he is infallibly certain of saith he believes what he believes not or what he cannot believe So that where there is infallible certainty it voids all argument from Authority neither can any one say I do or will submit my judgment to such or such in a point whereof he is sure But let thinking therefore or private opinion be taken in any degeee below absolute certainty and then I think that expression had it bin Mr. Hooker's as it is tho not totidem terminis is far from contradiction To shew which give me leave to change this word think in the latter proposition into some other words which yet are plainly what Mr. Hooker means by thinking and you shall see they will be very well consistent I think or believe from the argument of the authority prudence c of such persons their determination of such a point to be right tho all the arguments I have from seeming reason of the thing or from that sence which I conceive of Scripture incline me to think that such a determination is not right Now I suppose as the terms are here explained none will deny That one may think or believe a thing to be truth not against his belief or thinking but against all arguments which are drawn from his seeming natural reason or otherwise except that ab authoritate if these do not amount to infallible certainty or that a man may yeild an assent of belief in respect of authority contrary to his assent of evidence in respect of the thing so that evidence be in any degree below infallible certainty Els we must deny that we can believe any mystery of faith which seems to us contrary to natural reason see Rom. 4. 17 18. 2 Cor. 10. 5. and these two propositions will contradict also I believe or think such a thing a divine truth from divine authority delivering it tho my natural reason inclines me to think or believe the contrary Doth a man speak a contradiction if he say to a Scholar or a child Do not believe or give credit to your own reason meaning by it the reasons or arguments his brain suggests to him about
certitude thereof as long as they are not certain that he is not deceived Neither doth any ones believing the Church to be infallible ascertain him of the truth of his faith if he believe this her infallibility only upon the relation of his Pastor for so he hath no more certainty of the Church'es infallibility than he hath of the truth of such a relation which we have shewed is liable to error And then again it is much to be noted that one believing only and not being certain of the Church'es infallibility tho he immediately received all his doctrines from her self yet this could produce no certainty of the truth of what he receives it being no good consequence I believe such a one is infallible therefore I am certain what he saith is true But lastly let one be certain of this one point That the Church or her tradition is infallible which how many are there that cannot clearly prove and then from this known let him have infallible certainty at once of all other points whatsoever that are delivered by her or it yet supposing any to learn what are these her doctrines not from her self but from his private Curate which doubtles many true believers within the Church'es communion do his faith cannot plead any certainty this way For there is some distance between my knowing the Churche's tradition to be infallible and knowing in every point what is her tradition That which is said by Mr. Knot against Chill p. 64 and 358. in this point That a fallible motive applying divine revelation by God's supernatural concours may produce an infallible act of faith is granted But then this act of faith is infallible not from the proponent but God's Spirit in respect of which as is shewed before all saving is also infallible faith but not therefore known always to the believer to be infallible See before § 38. Again that which is said by Dr. Holden Resol fidei 1. l. 2. ◠That their faith who depend on their Pastors instructions is tutissima ipsique in rebus fidei securi modo sint membra illius Ecclesiae quae veritatem omnem revelatam amplectitur docet cujusque pastores rectores medii istius quo sibi divina haec doctrina applicatur veram rationalem habuerint certitudinem is also granted but it seems to affirm only sufficient safety in their faith without their certainty of the truth thereof Now as those of one side cannot plead their faith certain and infallible from their hearing and believing their private Pastor so neither may those of another side from their reading and believing and resolving their faith into the Holy Scriptures For since not so much the Letter of Scripture as the Sense is the infallible word and revelation of God and the letter many times is capable not only when in expression ambiguous of divers senses but also when most seemingly-plain of another sense than they import because of the consonancy they are to have with some other Scriptures lest God's word be made to contradict Hence is one man's Bible where thus ambiguous as fallible a proponent to him in respect of the possibility of his mis-intepreting it as another man's Pastor in respect of his possibility of erring And indeed the former interpreting Scripture to himself seems to be less infallible in his faith than the other learning of his Pastor expounding it because he is more likely to mistake the sense thereof than the other els why is he appointed for his teacher whose faith he is to follow Heb. 13. 7 tho I affirm a sufficient and saving faith may be and is attained by either means hearing ones Pastor or reading the Scripture 3. Since all saving faith in us is the effect of the Spirit why may not our faith be so without any precedent rational certainty thereof According as it seems before granted That God's supernatural concours may advance an act of faith relying on a fallible motive into a belief infallible why may not this Spirit shew its strength then in the weaknes of external proposal But if we suppose it a partial cause and add to it for the production of faith not only some external proponent which that there is ordinarily is granted but this infallible and known also to be so Then to say nothing of the instances given before of the contrary nor to urge here why such an infallible proponent sometimes at least namely where the matter of our belief is as in many things it is most conformable to reason should not be a sufficient cause to beget saving faith without the supernatural concours of God's Spirit and what needs that to be also spiritually which is rationally discerned I ask what do we mean by a stronger and a weaker faith so often mentioned in Scripture Do we mean several degrees thereof the least of which is certain No. For we find doubt nay some degree of unbelief and that of the same thing sometime mixed with true faith See Mar. 9. 24. Mat. 14. 31. Which unbelief or doubt that it never happens in respect of the truth of the relation but always only in the supernaturalnes of the object I think none can rationally affirm See Luk. 24. 11. Only if there be not so much of assent as to turn the scale of our judgment then will it not be faith but either pure doubt or further unbelief Faith therefore as it comes both from the outward hearing of God's word and the several proofs thereof and also by the inward operation of the Spirit so is it capable of many degrees both from the several evidence of those proofs and also from the several influence of the Spirit God giving more external evidence to one than to another as to those who see miracles or who read and compare Scriptures and Councils than to those who only hearken to their Pastor and upon the same evidence made to many God giving a stronger adherence to such a truth to one than to another either * from the energy of the Spirit thro which many can die for Christ that cannot well dispute for him or also * from a natural more passionate temper or * from hiding from them contrary verisimilities and * from ignorance of the weapons of error c. So the unlearned many times believe and adhere to a truth more strongly thro ignorance of any arguments to the contrary than the learned do to the same thro reason assaulted with many doubts and a small argument to a weak understanding begets a more firm credence than a stronger to the learned So a true believer may be less confident thro a rational perswasion in his faith than another thro the violence of a misguiding lust in his falshood nay he may have less reason or proofs tho there be more for the one than this man hath for the other and yet his faith vivifical and acceptable and oftimes there is the greatest glory and merit in it when
but only on the word of God you say something if that word could never be mistaken in the sence nor alledged amiss See Mr. Hooker's Answer to Cartwright on this point Eccles. Pol. 2. l. 7. sect The force of Arguments drawn from Scripture c. So that now and then they ground themselves on humane authority even when they most pretend divine Even such as are readiest to cite for one thing 500 sentences of H. Scripture what warrant have they that any one of them doth mean the thing for which alledged c. But 4ly here you will reply That surely God's wisdom in matters concerning Salvation hath provided some way or other whereby we may certainly know the truth R. What truth mean we If necessary so he hath in this General Councils err not If all truths whatsoever there are many truths not only Natural but Theological for which all grant that there is no infallible Judge to be had If the truth of all those things which shall be proposed by a General Council Why so Why may not God order them in their fallibility in such things to use the same prudence for ending troublesom and violent contests that any other temporal Courts do And since in these from God as in the other from the King the people have an injunction unlimited in all things to hear them why may not they punish the rebellious 5. But yet lastly if such be fallible in any thing you may say there will be some error of which there can be no remedy because they are unappealable R. Not so For in such things as former Councils may err in none denies but that latter Councils may correct them Only such will be errors indeed that private men cannot remedy and what matters all this I pray if these errors be not committed in things necessary as t is shewed before they never can be Again why are such Councils willingly granted by all to be unappealable in other things wherein they may err i. e. in maters of fact Nay why if some make them infallible in judging all truths so may not some others think it fit they should be so in all causes that come before them all which are afterward remediles But also in those doctrinals where because no Anathema's are affixed Bellarmin saith Non est certum si sint de fide and so neither is it certain whether the Church in them may not err yet is not in these submission of judgment required For if we withdraw this how if it should happen that they are de fide The same may be said in general That if the Church being infallible only in things de fide hath made no clear distinction of these points from the rest t is plain she obligeth us to the same submission in points where she may be fallible 3. This having bin said from § 39. to remove such scruples and demurs as we ordinarily use to make for the not yeilding up and resigning in any thing of our own private judgment 3ly to shew you That the duty of submission of judgment to an Authority fallible in all things wherein we are not certain that it errs is no Paradox I will produce you therein the consentient doctrine both of Catholick and Protestant writers of no mean note 1. For Protestants see the quotations out of Bishop White Archbishop Laud Dr. Jackson in Church-Government 2. Part. § 36. Oblig of Judgment § 29. 30. t is too tedious to repete them here To which I will here add that eminent testimony of Mr. Hooker in his Preface the 6th Sect. throughout who writing against Puritans there speaks much of submission of private opinion to the determinations of Ecclesiastical Authority The place is well worth your reading as likewise the 2. l. 7. sect which Mr. Chillingworth produceth as a qualification of this passage in Hooker pressed by F. Knot But I can see no such matter in that Section which proves against Cartwright the validity of Humane Authority where is no infallible demonstration against it see especially the latter end of that Section To return to the former Mr. Hooker there quotes Deut. 17. 8. c. where he hath these words God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordain'd should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment Howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same Authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And there he answers the Objection That men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality that is as I conceive where they have no infallible certainty but only probability see the end of 2. l. 7. sect the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and final Decision shall determin Now they are to do nothing but what they are perswaded in their hearts that they may do when the Judge in some cases determines the lawfulnes of a thing tho they may do many things which they may think still that they are unjustly obliged by the Judge to do as when the Judge determines something to be their duty which is not yea tho it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn ex parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c. Where note that whatever Mr. Hooker means by that limitation controverted causes of such quality yet the Commission Deut. 17. extends to the Priests interpreting to the people and giving the sence of the law in whatever matters should be controverted as also it is more clearly expounded afterward in 2 Chron. 19. 5 8 10 11. where it runs What causes soever shall come to you of your Brethren between blood and blood between law and commandement statutes and judgments ye shall c. And Thou shalt do or practise according to whatever they shew thee requires not only a passive willingly paying the mulcts or undergoing the punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing of something to which I think I am not in duty obliged as paying 100l to one upon their sentence to whom I never owed any thing which I may do without believing