Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	council_n	faith_n	trent_n	4,913	5	10.4664	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67257	Of faith necessary to salvation and of the necessary ground of faith salvifical whether this, alway, in every man, must be infallibility.	Walker, Obadiah, 1616-1699.	1688 (1688)	Wing W404B; ESTC R17217	209,667	252

refuseth it only to consent to another judgment much more fallible i. e. his own Now that God hath granted such a power to the Church of excommunicating dissenters to some of her decisions at least is acknowledged by the Reformed * who allow the Church'es practice of it in her first 4. General Councils concerning the additions in the Nicene and other Creeds * who allow the Church'es practice in commanding something to be done or forborn by her subjects under the penalty of Excommunication but wherever the Church enjoyns any thing to be done she inclusively enjoyns assent or belief that such a thing is lawful to be done Lastly * who practise such excommunication themselves not only toward men for contradicting or for declaring their dissent but for dissenting from their decrees 1. † As appears in the closes of the 3. 4. and 5. Canons c of the English reformed Synod held under K. James 1603. where Can. 5. Whosoever doth affirm any of the 39. Articles to be in any part erroneous stands excommunicated not till he recants his publick contradicting the Church'es doctrines but till he repents of and publickly revokes such his wicked errors and † as appears in all those Canons wherein that Synod enjoyns any Agends upon pain of Excommunication which injunctions of Practicals as I said before involve also an injunction of Assent first that such practicals are lawful See Can. 9. 12. 59. of that Synod 2ly As appears in the English Synod under K. Charles 1640. * where in the 3. 4. and 5. Canons any accused of Popery Socinianism Anabaptism are to be excommunicated till they abjure such errors and that is till they assent to the contradictory of those errors and that is till they assent to the doctrine of the Church of England where it is contradictory to those errors and * where Can. 6. There is required an approbation and sincere acknowledgment which is no less than assent to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as containing all things necessary to salvation and this confession required upon oath See this matter discoursed more at large in Church-government 3. part § 29. And hence a sober man may discern how that without submission of judgment in some things none that are learned and much studied in Theological controversies can enjoy the external communion of any Church For since for example the English Church excommunicates all that shall say that any of her Articles or Canons is erroneous or repugnant to Scripture see for this her 4. and 5. Can. set down before 2d part of Church-government untill they shall publickly revoke not such their saying but such their error and since the Rom. Church is said to require belief of so many Decrees of the Tridentine and other former Councils if any one Canon or Article tho of never so little moment of the Church of England or Canon of those other Councils allowed by the Church of Rome whereto assent is required doth appear mistaken to such a one's private reason hence he can be of neither of these external communions and sic de caeteris yet one of which certainly is the communion of the true Catholick Church of which we say Credo unam sanctam c. I may add Neither could he heretofore be of the external communion of the former Church Catholick for many ages wherein by reason of new rising heresies the Church'es determinations and those requiring assent have bin multiplied from some one or other of which a learned man is likely to vary in his private judgment being perhaps not every way so well informed as that of the Church was who made them So suppose one holding all the rest with the Council of Trent should differ from it in this one tenet That the Baptism of S. John Baptist and of Christ were not of the same efficacy or one holding all the rest with the Church of England should only differ from it in this point of her 28 and 29th Article That the Real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist only by those who have a lively faith for which see Mr. Thorndike Epilogue to the Church of England 3. l. 2. c. or before the Reformation and Council of Trent one should in some thing hold differently from the Decrees of the 2d Nicean or Lateran Council he is thereby excluded from the external communion both of the Church of Rome and the Church of England and of all the former Church following the 2d Council of Nice unles he be in something content to mortify his rationale and make a submission of his judgment-Therefore the Schoolmen so subtil in their disputes and so various in their resolves yet laid aside their private reasons and bended their judgments to the yoke thereof where any controversible point was formerly stated by the Church taking liberty to expatiate and exercise their science only in those disputables wherein she had no way bounded them Now to come to your other Query Whether if in non-fundamentals the Church require our assent to something contrary to our private judgment we ought to yeild to it To this I answer We ought Because the Church'es power of punishing by Excommunication all that do not consent to all her decisions and determinations wherein she requires consent seems to be absolute and unlimited For to some of her decisions the reformed grant that he who assents not is justly excommunicated by her I ask therefore to which 1. Is it only to those decisions which she maketh according to the Scriptures that if any assent not to them he may be justly excommunicated by her See the 20. and 21 Article of the Church of England But then before she may justly exercise such Excommunication some body must judge when her decisions are made according to the Scriptures when not This Judge must either be her self or private men If she must judg this then t is all one as if there were no such limitation for we may be assured she will never make any such decision as her self will judge not to be according to or to be contrary to the Scriptures If private men must judge this then this her authority is null toward so many private men as shall judge her decisions to be contrary to Scriptures and to the rest that judge them according with Scripture she hath no use of this authority because they already consent T is null I say to the former because as the power of excommunicating those who do not consent to her decisions when made according to the Scriptures is committed to her so the power of judging when they are so made when not is here supposed to be left by God to private men Therefore these being judged by them not to be so her authority which was thus limited is now toward all such men voided And how will this consist with God's giving Pastors c for the unity of the faith and that men may not be

professed and that it is not such that the same degree of belief or assent must necessarily be given to all For no Romanist will say that nothing is stated or defined in General Councils or in that of Trent but only points de fide extra quam see Notes of Infallibility § 9. nor yet will say this of those 12. heads mentioned in the Bull of which this is a part Baptismum sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse but if this be an articulus fidei extra quam nemo salvus then is Cyprian whom they acknowledge a Saint damned And some Anathema's may be shewed in latter Councils against such other points as were affirmed by some of the Fathers See Conc. Trid. 24. Sess. 7. c. the contrary whereof was held by S. Ambrose and 21. Sess. 4. c. compared with S. Austin's known opinion But if it be said that after the determination of a Council t is fides extra quam c not before then is the matter sufficiently explained that the damnation lies not in the great moment of our erring in such a point or in the matter of the tenet but in our opposition of and division from the Church's judgment to whom we are commanded obedience and submission after we know that she hath determined it See Dr. Hammond Of Fundamentals 9 and 10. c. of our obligation to the additionals to the Apostles Creed made in the Nicene and Athanasian Creed very appliable as I conceive to the additions of other General Councils And again 2ly from hence it will follow that the clause Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus esse potest must not be distributively applied to all that is mentioned before it for no Romanist will affirm this of all the decrees of Councils whatever nor yet of these twelve and the several branches of them which are before expressed nor perhaps of all the Articles whatever of the Apostles Creed But * must 1. either be understood collectively not that every thing that is contained in such decrees is absolutely sides Catholica extra quam nemo salvus but that all the fides extra quam c is involved and contained in or amongst those decrees whilst mean-while this phrase extra quam chiefly referreth to the ancient Creed placed in the beginning of this Bull. To which see a like phrase applied in the 3d. Session of the Council Tridentine Principium illud in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur necessario conveniunt ac fundamentum firmum unicum contra quod portae inferi c. Where observe that this word unicum seems contrary to the extra quam here if taken distributively So if it were said of the Scriptures or of the will of God declared in them These are the Holy Scriptures or This is the will of God without the knowledge of which Scriptures or Will there is no salvation Yet would it not follow that without the knowledge of every part and particle of such Will or Scripture no salvation could be attained but that without the knowledg of some part at least thereof For if only some part thereof be necessary to salvation it verifies sufficiently the expression extra quam there is no salvation Or else * by extra quam must be meant only this That in opposing of such faith and sacred decrees of General Councils or of the Church when made known to them to be such none can be saved because such men must needs be guilty of Schism and Heresie and do remain out of the Church's communion But whatever the meaning thereof be this it cannot be even in the sence of the Roman Doctors That all the decrees of General Councils or of that of Trent or that perhaps any at all of that beyond the Apostles Creed much less all the branches of those twelve points named in the Bull to all which the Bishop subscribes or perhaps that all the Apostles Creed is necessary explicitly to be known or professed or else that such person cannot attain salvation See more of this Church-gov 4. part § ● Thus much concerning what Subscription is required in the Roman Church of those who have curam animarum by which perhaps it will appear not to bear such a rigid sence as many construe it in And as for all others the Council hath only these words 25. Sess. Sup●rest nunc ut Principes omnes in Domino moncat ad operam suam it a praestandam ut quae ab ea i. e. Ecclesia decreta sunt ab haereticis depravari aut violari non permittant sed ab his omnibus devote recipiantur fideliter observentur To these I will set you down what F. a S. Clara saith in his system Fidei 24. c. 6. § Addo quod in modo reducendi errores expedit aliquando nonexigere ejurationem haereseos ad hoc ut in Ecclesiasticam communionem admittantur Sectarii ut olim Johannes Antiochenus fecit cum Nestorii fautoribus eo scil animo ut melius Ecclesiarum paci consuleret ut notarunt aliqui posteriores scriptores Et certe non solemus ad erroris ejurationem noviter conversos cogere sed displicentiam ejus reliquorum peccatorum concomitantium cum proposito de futuro persistendi in fide communione Ecclesiae ut juris sacramentalis est exigimus Alia quae potius forum fori quam poli spectant de industria utplurimum omittemus ne ut facile fit absterreantur And perhaps an orthodox Church may use such gentlenes towards novices with very good effect for those considerations of S. Austin's mentioned before this discours because Cum docilis factus fuerit tum demum disces quant a ratione c. and nos falsis rumoribus c. therefore it seems they entred before they knew certainly all such rumors to be false But here perhaps this scruple may be urged That tho a new convert be admitted into such a Church and communion without any universal subscription to all the doctrines thereof yet is he by such communicating with her reasonably supposed to acknowledge these and so the untruths if any be thereof especially those the belief of which is strictly enjoyned under Anathema and so gives the same scandal as if he had subscribed them which scandal ought to be avoided by the simplicity and sincerity of a Christian. To which I answer That from this commun cating with a Church wherein are some errors one cannot therefore rationally be supposed to hold all the errors thereof tho the holding of them be enjoyned under Anathema's Neither is any just scandal given by him as that he should rationally seem to do so for communion neither makes me accessary to the sins nor errors nor unjust censures of all those I communicate with especially where I have no power to redress them Neither can I from my submittance in things wherein I think I ought to those whom I account by Christ appointed my Spiritual Fathers

in which we may easily be deceived Ergo That it is true This for the Spirit In the next place to come to consider Whether all to have true and saving faith must be rationally assured thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition And here we will grant as t is said before 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary and that it is a medium for necessary points of faith free from error 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance and that any or most by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points from the traditionary doctrine and practice which they may see and hear dispersed thro the Church for doubtles our careful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full perswasion of faith in all sorts of men there where his Gospel is preached and this means all men for the ascertaining of their faith as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life according to their condition c. 3. That the Church-decrees may be certainly known and are easily understood and more easily in many things than the Scriptures namely where these happen to be doubtful to us and doubtful they are or should be where ever Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we and hence that this point being supposed that the Church is infallible those who believing her to be so do rely upon her judgment have for the most part a stronger perswasion and those knowing her to be so have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures because the former persons faith rests on a double ground the saying of Scripture and the sense of the Church interpreting it And thus one adhering to the tradition and doctrines of the Church hath more warrant for his Faith than a single Scripturist 4. That those who hold Church-tradition fallible can have no other way an infallible evidence whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith But all these granted yet such a degree and measure of certainty or assurance as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it and render it no true divine and acceptable faith but an humane opinion and perswasion as some contend But saving faith may be begotten where the proponent of the word of God or of divine revelation mediate or immediate is not or at least is not known to be which is all one with the former to the believer's certainty infallible and it sufficeth to it that what one believes is the word of God and that he believe it in some degree or other predominant to unbelief to be so And this I think may be shewn in many instances and by many reasons 1. For first some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles questionles endued with true faith yet believed before any certainty of the infallibity of their teachers or before or without seeing their miracles tho these also seen afforded to some no certainty who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1. meerly by the powerful operation of God's Spirit So the Eunuch to be a true believer needed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip So Cornelius and his friends some words of St. Peter The Jaylor and Lydia of S. Paul strangers and formerly altogether unknown to them the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts and finishing the work For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day supposing he at that time wraught miracles yet t is not probable that all these were spectators of them or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth but believed only the relations of others persons fallible who stood near him The Bereans why examined they the Apostles doctrines if they knew or esteemed him infallible The Believers at Antioch zealous of the law why contested they with St. Paul and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible Or the weaker brethren tho of the number of true Believers why doubted they long time of some meats unclean contrary to the Apostle's instruction T is true that whoever believes that which another relates must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived but yet he who in any other one thing doth not believe him doth not believe him to be infallible And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibility of the Hierosolymitan Council yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council but private Doctors whom I have shewed that some of them accounted not infallible nor yet was their faith nullified thereby 2. Believers no way heretical or schismatical but submitting unto the Church in all things and believing her and her traditions to be infallible c and consequently whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure yet if things be well examined all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means or motive or proponent of their faith I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures nor the Tradition of former times nor universal present Tradition nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church neither for other points nor yet for this That the Church or the Tradition they rely upon is infallible But being young as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians when children or illiterate necessitated to handy-labour quiescent in one place or perhaps inhabiting deserts and solitudes c do receive the doctrine of their faith believing and yeilding obedience thereto only from their Parents or the Curate of the place or from their bare reading or hearing read some portion of Scripture recommended to them for but not proved at all to them to be the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth and obeying it but having no more external argument or assurance thereof than another suppose educated in an erroneous Church and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical hath of his error Now private teachers even within the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant or rationally uncertain of what they teach and a Catholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion than the Protestant both inheriting their tenents from their next Ancestors For Error once begun is propagated afterward by Tradition as well as Truth Or 2ly being rationally certain of the truth yet may he wilfully for filthy lucre for fear for lasciviousnes c see 1 Thes. 2. 3 5 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14. misguide his disciples Or 3. lastly teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows yet is this his certainty tho something to the truth of the others faith nothing to their

9. But only † in those points which she proposeth tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria § 10. Where Concerning the several senses wherein Points are affirmed or denied to be de Fide. § 11. That as only so all divine Revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide i. e. the objects and matter of Faith. 12 13. And That the Church can make nothing to be de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c which was not so always from the Apostolick times § 12. That all divine Revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de fide i. e. creditu necessaria § 15. That the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such Points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so § 16 17. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express it only † in Points clearly traditional § 18. Whether and by what marks those Points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other Proposals § 27. Anathema no certain Index thereof § 29. PART 2. Concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment whether due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible § 30. 1. That no submission of our judgment is due to the Proposal of the Church where we are infallibly certain of the contrary § 33. 2. That no submission is due to an inferiour Person or Court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superiour to repair to for resolution § 34. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever that is short of infallible certainty § 35. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture § 37. 2. From Reason § 38. Where Several Objections and Scruples are resolved § 39. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 44. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks § 51. Conclusion § 54. OF INFALLIBILITY PART 1. IT remains that I give you an account touching the other two Queries proposed The First concerning the Infallibilty of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Second concerning Obedience and Submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible Two Points as they are stated on the one side or the other either leaving us in much anxiety and doubt or in the moveal of this swelled with much pride and self-conceit or leaving us in much tranquillity and peace accompanied with much humility and self-denial Points as they are stated one way seeming much to advance the tender care of the divine Providence over his Church and to plant obedience and unanimity among Christians or as stated another way seeming to proclaim great danger in discovering truth to call for humane wit prudence sagacity and caution and to bequeath Christianity to perpetual strife wars and dissentions And therefore it concerns you to be the more vigilant that affection carry you not on more than reason to the assenting to any Conclusions made in this Discours To take in hand the former of these Concerning the true measure of the extent of the infallibity of the Church by Church I mean the lawful General Representative thereof of which see Church-Government 2. Part § 4. and 24. in the beginning I must confess that I know nothing expresly determined by Councils except what is said Conc. Trident. 4. Sess. Praeterea ad c●ercenda petulantia ingenia decernit ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei morum ad aedisicationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia cujus est judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Scripturarum S. aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat Neither is there any mention found of the word Infallibility in the Decrees of Trent or any other received Council or yet in the Fathers as F. Veron in his Rule of Faith 4. c. hath observed and therefore saith he let us leave this term to the Schoolmen who know how to use it soberly and content our selves with the terms of the Councils The best is as the exact limits of this Church-infallibility seem no where by the Church to be punctually fixed so they do not in respect of yeilding obedience to the Church seem necessary at all to be known except to such a one as will not submit his judgment to any authority less than infallible of which more anon 1. First it is granted as by all the Catholicks so by the most learned of the Protestants see them quoted in Church-Government 2. Part. § 29. That the Church or the lawful General Representative thereof is infallible in its directions concerning necessaries to Salvation whether in points of pure faith or of practice and manners tho I yeild Mr. Chillingworth denies this see the discussing of his opinion in Church-Government 2. Part. § 26 -3 Part. § 76. without which doing I think he could not have made a thorow Answer to Mr. Knot nor could he have denied those other points which seem to be consequents of this as namely That we must know from the Church also the distinction of Necessaries from others Or must assent to Her in all she proposeth as Necessary That the Defence of any Doctrine the contrary whereof is proposed as necessary against the determination of the Church or lawful General Council is Heresy as being always after such sufficient proposal obstinate That any separation from the external communion of all the visible Church is Schism as being always in her professing and practising all necessaries causless Which Propositions the defence of his cause seems to me to have forced him to disclaim and so also this ground of them That the Church is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals or Necessaries And this infallibility the Church is said to have either from the constant assistance of God's Spirit according to our Saviour's promise at least for such points or also from the Evidence of Tradition much pleaded by some later Catholick Writers But since here by Necessaries may be understood either Doctrines c absolutely necessary to be known explicitely for salvation and that to every one that shall attain salvation for to some perhaps more are required than to others according to their several capacity and means of revelation see Necessary Faith § 10. 11. 16. which may be perhaps only some part of the Creed or else by Necessaries may be understood all other doctrines and rules that are very profitable and conducing thereto The Church being granted by both sides an infallible Guide and Director in Necessaries 1. First it seems most

controversies not discussed or heard-of in precedent ages which the Church decides by the judgment and learning of her Bishops considering * texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and * other doctrines of former and present times to which they seem to have some relation All which points I believe few Catholicks will agree * that they should be excluded from necessaries if not found to be of evident Tradition or * that in new controversies nothing ever is determined by the Church and that under Anathema but only what was formerly evident Tradition which new determinations if there were not sometimes then what need is there of the superassistance of the holy Spirit that the Church err not This * concerning the first Concession by both parties That the Church is infallible in her directions touching Necessaries and * concerning some consequents thereof 2. Secondly it must be and I think is granted by all that own Christianity That the Church is sufficiently infallible in all points that are of Universal Tradition or at least of Tradition so general as that is which we have of the Scriptures tho such points were not necessary at all els they must deny that we have certainty enough from Tradition that the Scriptures are God's word And this undeceivableness of general Tradition is the only or chief ground that some Catholick writers of late build the Church'es infallibility upon not that they deny her infallible in all necessaries too but that they make all Necessaries to be eminently and beyond all mistake traditional 3. Thirdly it is granted I think generally by those of the Catholick Church That the Church is not absolutely infallible in all things whatsoever that she shall say or propose but only in such things as she proposeth to her children tanquam de side or necessario credenda whether they concern speculatives or practicals and manners Concerning this matter I will give you the several limitations as I find them set down in some of their latest writers To begin with Bellarmin one who is thought sufficiently rigid in vindicating the Church'es infallibility Thus he de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Concilia Generalia non possunt errare nec in fide explicanda nec in tradendis praeceptis morum toti Ecclesiae communibus I may add out of another place de verbo Dei 4. l. 9. c. nec in ritu cultu divino for the present times of such Councils For saith he as Ecclesia universalis non potest errare in credendo so neither in operando recteque August Ep. 118. docet insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare non recte sieri quod ab universa Ecclesia sit tale est Baptisma parvulorm licet actu non credant c. But then he saith again in conciliis maxima pars actorum ad sidem non pertinent i. e. non proponitur ut necessario credatur non enim sunt de fide disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum illustrandum adferuntur nothing incidently spoken and without purpose to define it sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantum quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile Vide Concil Viennense parvulis in Baptismo conferri gratiam He grants ibid. That Concilia in Judiciis particularibus i. e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti Ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. quoad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora sed non quoad dogmata fidei i. e. such as are once proposed by an Universal Council tanquam creditu necessaria Emendari saith he therefore they may err He goes on quod confirmatur ex verbis Augustini qui dicit tunc emendari Concilia quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat clausum i. e. in the time of the former Council experimento enim aperiuntur saith the Cardinal quaestiones de facto vel de moribus non quaestiones Juris universalis And I suppose Bellarmin also will not deny the same of Speculative doctrines of which it appeareth not that in the former Councils they are peremptorily defined ut certa tanquam de fide necessaria for this well accords with what is but now recited out of him de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. According to which c. 8. in his answer to the 10th Objection concerning a difference between two Councils about the number of Canonical Books of Scripture and so pertinens ad fidem he writes thus Concilium Carthaginense esse majoris authoritatis quam Laodicenum quia posterius And Concilium Laodicenum posuit in Canone eos libros de quibus Episcopi ejus Concilii certi erant alios autem omisit non quidem negans eos esse Canonicos sed nolens rem dubiam definire Concilium autem Carthaginense re magis discussa definivit id quod prius Concilium reliquerat sub dubio Where we see that latter Councils may discover something even in rebus pertinentibus ad fidem which former have not and may define the others doubtings Again tho he numbers amongst points of faith in which the Church cannot err not only quae expresse continentur in but also quae evidenter deducuntur ex Scripturis Prophetarum Apostolorum and so makes it the business of a Council as declarare quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum so praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducere conclusiones which conclusions also he numbers amongst dogmata sidei yet he grants that in some deduction as he calls it and ratiocination the Council may err in saying neque rationes quae adduntur quoted before affixing the Church'es Inerrability only to those deductions quae deducuntur evidenter and to such deductions only as are her express decreta and as are proposed tanquam de fide See the former quotations out of him de Concil Authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Like things much-what you may read in our learned Country-man Stapleton See in his Principia fidei doctrinalia 4. controv and 2. quaest his septem notabilia where he saith first that Ecclesia non expectat doceri a Deo immediate solis Enthusiasmis novis afflatibus sreta sed utitur certis mediis ad dubii dogmatis determinationem quia docetur nunc non per Apostolos aut Prophetas quibus immediat a revelatio frequens erat sed per Pastores Doctores 2ly That Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilem peculiarem Spiritus sancti directionem quae necessaria erat Apostolis omnia de novo docentibus fundament a ponentibus sed non succedenti Ecclesiae sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti But 3ly That Ecclesia nihilominus

4ly observe concerning these derivative articles that since the deductions which may be made from such as are express and tradititional are almost infinite tho we cannot deny that all of them even to the least are still de fide or matters pertaining to faith for how can the premises be so and not the conclusion yet all not necessary to be believed or matters pertaining to necessary and required Faith. For so neither is every thing that is plainly set down in the Scripture necessary to be believed tho it is all matter of faith being made known to us that it is there written as the Cardinal saith de verbo Dei 4. l. 12. c. Necessario creduntur quia scripta sunt yet not ideo scripta sunt quia necessario credenda erant such as are many things historical there A pure nescience or also a blamelesly-ignorant contradiction of such things hurts no man's faith so we deny them not to be truth when we happen to know they are Scripture but that we should also know them to be Scripture there lies no tye upon us So is it with these Deductions which if in themselves as some points are they were necessary to salvation to be believed they would have bin so always not only after the Church hath made them but before But so they are not for then former generations perhaps not knowing some of them at least would be deficient in requisite faith A pure nescience of them therefore in the simplicity of which they are neither affirmed nor denyed or also when denyed not knowing the contrary determination of Scripture or Church hurts none but only a peremptory denial of them or the asserting and maintaining of an error contrary unto them or destructive to that former express traditional Article of Faith from which they are drawn and this when we have a sufficient information from Scripture or the Church to know that it is so which we have always after t is known to us that a Council hath determined against it and many times may have so before And hence it is that also after the decision of the Church still to many not the pure nescience or contradiction of such a point but the opposing it and asserting the contrary when we know it to be proposed by her is pernicious In Dr. Holden's Phrase de Resolutione fid 1. l. 4. c. lectio 2. Cum quis sciens vidensque universam esse Ecclesiae sententiam illam tamen pertinaciter obstinate denegaverit aut etiam oppositum sustinuerit c. But concerning the unwittingly affirmers of the contrary to some decision of a Council thus Estius in 3. sent 23. dist 13. § Diligenter distinguendum est inter eos qui retenta generali promptitudine credendi quicquid Ecclesia Catholica credit per ignor antiam tamen in quibusdam fidei dogmatibus errant propterea quod nondum iis satis declaratum sit illa Ecclesiam credere eos qui post manifestatam sufficienter Ecclesiae doctrinam adhuc ab ea vel contrarium asserendo vel certe dubitando dissentire eligunt quod Hoereticorum est proprium Fidem illi in universali atque in habitu ut loquuntur totam atque integram retinent dum quicquid Ecclesia credendum tradit suscipere se ex animo profitentur De quorum numero fuit Cyprianus c. Where also we see that the Church doth not lay on all men an obligation of knowing whatever she defines in matters of faith but of not contradicting or doubting of them when made known to any 5ly Neither is it necessary for the Church to make or propose any such deductive Articles suppose such as those in the Nicene or Athanasian Creed nor perhaps ought she to charge the faith of Christians with them but only where some error ariseth contrary to and undermining some former received Article or practice whereby her Sons to the damage of their Christianity are in danger of infection But any such errors spreading the Church doth not her duty if she neglect to promulgate the truths opposite to them See before § 14. For tho the explicit knowledge of such truths is not necessary yet this is necessary to the believing such fundamental and prime Articles of faith as God requires that one together with them do not believe and affirm any thing contrary to and destructive of them after he may have sufficient assurance that it is so and this he may have so often as the Church states it so So I suppose the pure nescience of some deductive Article contained in the Athanasian Creed condemns none but the maintaining of the contradictory error thereto after such light given him by the Church which light she is bound continually to hold forth to her children so oft as any mists of false opinions begin to overcast the clearness of the former faith 6ly But in the last place note from what hath bin said that tho no points become de side because the Church defines them but are either so before or never can be so at all yet some of those points which were always de fide objects of faith or dogmata fidei so Scotus said Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei till the Lateran Council meaning by it dogmata credenda i. e. which men were then tied to assent to may become creditu necessaria for all points de fide or appertaining to faith are not necessaria creditu after the Church'es determining of them which were not so before Creditu necessaria not in themselves or affirmatively as if they ought to be explicitly known as some other points de side must with reference to attaining salvation but only so as not to be denied or opposed or the contradictory to them maintained whenever they are first known to us to be declared by the Church whom we are to presume never to divulge such truths but upon necessary occasions pressing Her to it and this out of the obedience and submission of judgment which we owe to her Decrees And of this submission due to Councils even when they determine points not of clear Tradition but some-way formerly dubious we have a pattern in the busines of Rebaptization which tho formerly not so evident before the decision of the Church Scripture seeming to favour one side and Ecclesiastical custom the other so that Provincial Councils varied in their judgment of it some pro some con nor they heretical that affirmed it yet decided once submission of judgment was unquestionably by St. Austin reckoned as due from all and they Hereticks who after this opposed See for this S. Austin de Baptism cont Don. 1. l. 7. c. Quaestionis hujus obscuritas he speaks concerning Rebaptization prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos Patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus

diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus sirmaretur Again 2. l. 4. c. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid he speaks of the same point auderemus asserere which argues some inevidence in the matter nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse Cyprianus sine dubio crederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Yet were the after-opposers anathematized as heretical Again cont Ep. Parmeniani 2. l. 13. c. Haec quidem alia quaestio est Utrum Baptismus ab iis qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani potest dari nec aliquid temere inde affirmandum est sine authoritate tanti Concilii quantum tantae rei sufficit De iis vero qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptisma dare possint Hoc enim in ipsa totius orbis unitate i. e. in the Council of Nice discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est So contr Crescon Gram. 1. l. 33. c. Quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli motuit obscuritate hujus quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat Obscuritate quaestionis for tho elsewhere de Baptismo cont Don. 5. l. 23. c. he supposeth it an Apostolical Tradition on one side Apostoli quidem nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sicut sunt multa quae tenet universa Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur and tho this custom was by the Bishop of Rome and his party much pressed against Cyprian and his adherents and Agrippinus St. Cyprian's Predecessor is said to be the first that introduced a contrary practice see Aust. de Bapt. 3. l. 12. c. non novam se rem statuisse Beatus Cyprianus ostendit quia sub Agrippino jam coeperat fieri yet it appears that St. Austin did not think all common customs and traditions tho pretended Apostolical before they were approved and warranted by the judgment of the Church in her Councils to be so simply obligatory as that they may not be disputed if seeming opposite to another surer Apostolical Tradition i. e. the Scriptures as St. Cyprian thought this custom was and so answered Steven see Cypr. Ep. ad Pomp. contra Steph. and in this answer is defended by St. Austin see de Bapt. 2. l. 8. c. quia tunc non extiterant c. Noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas etsi non veras quod eum latebat sed tamen non victas veraci quidem sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere Assertae i. e. by * any Council or cleared not to be * against the Scriptures urged but mistakenly by Cyprian And St. Austin also himself saith the same thing with Cyprian de Bapt. 3. l. 6. c. Quis dubitat veritati manifestatae debere consuetudinem cedere This I have set you down the more fully that you might see the power and authority of General Councils not only in declaring points traditional but in deciding questions some way obscure and doubtful and what submission was due to such points once determined in St. Austin's opinion who yet held former by latter Councils might be amended and consequently their in some things liability to error or doubting And so such points are to be believed in consequence only to another point of necessary faith namely That private men ought in all things at least not demonstrative on the contrary to submit their own to the Church'es judgment as many things written in God's word are necessary to be assented to when known to be there written which are not written there because they are necessarily to be known or believed in consequence to that necessary point of faith that whatever is written in God's word is true And hence also are there two sorts of Hereticks some are such before any Council condemning their Tenent if it happen to be against points de fide clear necessary and universally or eminently traditional so were there presently after the Apostles times many Hereticks before any Council assembling or condemning their opinions others only such after their error condemned by a Council if the points be of less evidence c. These latter rendred Hereticks not from the nature of their Tenent but their obstinacy and opposition to the obligation which the Church'es Authority lays upon them in her determinations Whose publick proposal of such doctrines as divine truths is sufficient for their belief and further embracing the same as such and therefore their further opposition of it is not error but heresy unles they can infallibly demonstrate the contrary In which case if ever any such can happen they are free from wilful opposition or heresie i. e. I mean in their denying their assent to the Church but in public contradicting even those infallibly certain c. may be still faulty else they stand guilty thereof and also of Schism if for such a decision they go on to forsake the Church'es communion So St. Cyprian's followers after a General Council were counted Hereticks tho the matter of this Heresy as also of many others so called from opposition to General Councils seem not to be in themselves of very great importance not so He before it In which opinion namely that the Baptism of Hereticks was ineffectual saith Dr. Potter sect 4. many good Catholick Bishops accorded with him and the Donatists as likewise with the Novatians in another viz. that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners before the Nicene Council So tho since the Decision of the Florentine Council 1439 those who hold animas justorum non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem are by the Church of Rome counted Hereticks from opposition c yet those who before that time maintained it amongst whom was Pope John the 22d they acknowledge were free from it See Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 4. l. 14. c. Respondeo Johannem hunc revera sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem caeterum hoc sensisse quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo haeresis nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesioe definitio In such sence Scotus saith Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council Thus you see tho all divine Revelation and necessary deduction from it is de fide and the object and matter of faith

errs therefore she cannot know or be sure but that she errs in every thing unles first it be shewed that she knows all things from an equal evidence But 3ly these two not hindring infallibility general in all things which the Church shall propose or decide unles it can be proved that all hitherto passed in the General Councils is only necessaries or that she can determin nothing unnecessary to salvation I see not that it is nor any need that it should be affirmed neither from our Saviour's promise which we have no reason to extend beyond necessaries neither from the force of those reasons which are well urged by some to prove General Councils infallible in necessaries but are faulty if any will apply them to an infallibility General The chief of which reasons I think are these The 1. A Generali Concilio appellari non potest which is granted unde apertissime sequitur non errare Nam alioquin iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo judicio quod erroneum esse potuit R. The argument is good for points de fide necessaria but no further for by this reason the same Councils could not err in judging particular causes and matters of fact for from a General Council in these also is no appeal unless in infinitum to the same court Again some points there are in Non-necessaries wherein General Councils are granted liable to error by those Authors who urge this argument for infallibility as is shewed before § 9. But yet there can no appeal be made from them and peremptory obedience is required to be yeilded to them in these Lastly supposing that no court were infallible yet unappealable some must be that contests and strifes may have an end As also it is no less in temporal courts for temporal causes tho these courts fallible Therefore from unappealablenes doth not follow infalliblenes 2. The Second Haeretici sunt excommunicandi omnes qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis haec Concilia dicunt Anathema contradicentibus but Anathema's and Excommunications for contrary opinions proceed only from the Council's infallibility R. Not always from infallibility for such things are done by Councils less than General and therefore fallible and lawfully see Bell. 2. l. 10. c. done by plenary Councils in cases wherein fallible Anathema's always where lawfully used argue in some authority in others a duty of submission to it and are lawfully used for any thing I know by particular as well as general Councils and against the Schismatical for smaller matters or opinions disturbing the peace of the Church after dubious things determined as well as against the Heretical for necessary and certain points of faith denied As for applying the word Heretick to those who oppose things established in General Councils it is granted that such Council is infallible in all fundamental or absolutely necessary truths If therefore it be affirmed that it never defines any points but such it is granted to be infallible in whatever it defines and this proof thereof taken from the opposers thereof their being called Hereticks may be spared But if we suppose that a General Council may define or determin some points which are not such then the word Heretic must be a little better examined before any thing for infallibility of Councils can be proved from it For either he is said to be an Heretic who knowingly opposeth any definition whatever of a Council proposed under Anathema c. tho it be not in a fundamental or necessary point of faith but if thus then we cannot argue the Council infallible in every thing because he that opposeth her in any thing is accounted an Heretic Or he is an heretic only who opposeth such a Council not in any but such definitions as are made in matters of necessary faith But if thus then we must know Conciliary Definitions exactly which are such which are not before we can know whether the opposer thereof be an heretic neither can we prove the Council Universally infallible because he who opposeth it thus in some points is heretical 3. The 3d. If the Church be not infallible in all that she proposeth none could have any certainty of his faith which faith he must receive and learn from the Church R. Yes he that believeth the Church in all she saith will still have a certainty I mean for the certitudo objecti and will be free from error in all necessary faith which is sufficient if the Church be in the proposal of all necessary points of faith infallible which is affirmed But as for certitudo subjecti i. e. his being certain that in all such points he is free from error which concerns not this place I refer you to those fuller Notes about it Concerning the necessary ground of Saving Faith. 4. But fourthly tho Universal infallibility c may perhaps not be made good by these or any other reasons yet I think by what I have said it appears That none may from this not proved or his proving the contrary think himself discharged of his obedience which is due upon other grounds sufficient without this namely 1. * upon her Supremacy and unappealablenes whom Christ hath commanded him to hear and repair to as his guide and governor under pain of being treated as a Heathen and Publican was amongst the Jews and 2. * upon her Infallibility in all necessaries by which there is no danger to him for any error or mis-practice wherein she may mislead him neither will God for such error call him to account but let him certainly expect this if deserting his guide he doth mislead himself and 3. * besides these upon the dictate of common and natural prudence according to which none may justly withdraw his belief and submission of judgment to those of the greatest skill and integrity in the things wherein he wants instruction meerly upon this pretence that every man may possibly err or lie to him Suppose he thinks that he is infallibly certain in some thing that that which she teacheth him is false yet thus will his obedience be still obliged and kept entire for † most points as with which at least he may not dispence for any lesser scruples and doubtings but apparent counter-demonstrations but perhaps for † all points if he please to examin his own knowledg who goes upon no evidence which the Church also hath not and be not willing to mistake seeming for true certainty from which commonly the most ignorant are appearingly most certain Again suppose he discover General Councils to contradict in any point which yet if it be must needs be in a point not necessary yet may he not therefore totally withdraw his obedience save only to those things wherein they contradict nor perhaps in these neither for according to St. Austin's rule of Councils differing the last obligeth him by which the former may be amended amended therefore also contradicted But then

in things wherein he finds all or many of them unanimously agreeing or being established by some not contradicted or amended by any other succeeding but by the General practice of particular Churches conformed to these he may presume to be truths from their accord as the other falsities from their variance and therefore by no means may plead a release from the one by shewing the other FINIS CONCERNING The OBLIGATION of not professing or acting against our JUDGMENT or CONSCIENCE AND Whether the obedience of Non-contradiction only or also of Assent be due to the Decrees OF COUNCILS CONTENTS IN what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own Judgment § 2. Concerning the Church'es lawful Authority to excommunicate dissenters in non-fundamentals § 4. As likewise to decide which Points are fundamental which not § 7. Several exceptions against obedience only of non-contradiction for Non-fundamentals And that at least all those not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in Non-fundamentals to an obedience of Assent and therefore the most are so bound § 11. Replies to several Objections § 12. The 1. First concerning an inferior Councils decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned 2d Concerning faith salvisical that it must be infallible 3d. Concerning union of Charity sufficient § 14. 4th Concerning trying of doctrines necessary § 15. 5th Concerning what Church'es determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to § 16. A Post-script 2d Paper Concerning infallible Certainty § 19. 1. Infallible Certainty excusing all submission of judgment to others 2. Infallible Certainty to be had in some points Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain 3. Infallible Certainty at least not pretendable against any General contrary judgment of the Church An instance in the Controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only § 27. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible Certainty not excusing our dissenting from the judgment of the Church An explication of Rom. 14. 23. Conference at Hampton-Court p. 72 73. Mr. Knewstub's 2d quest Lastly if the Church have that power also i. e. to ad significant Signs as the Cross in Baptism c. yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was How far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King in his Answer hath these words I will have one doctrine and one discipline one Religion in substance and in ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judgment or Conscience SIR YOU ask my Opinion 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Non-contradiction or also of assent to the Decrees of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Non-fundamentals wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable supposing that such Councils require our assent therein And 2ly Whether one is or can be bound to assent when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgment and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing Answ. I answer on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discours of Infallibility § That if you take judgment here for infallible certainty which see more largely explained below § 19. c. I can soon resolve it negatively That you are not nor cannot be so bound Of which see more below § 20. But if you mean by your private judgment opinion short of infallibility i. e. some reasons that you have either drawn from the natures of things on from the sence you make of divine revelation to think that a thing is thus or so contrary to that general judgment 1. First this question seems * decided on the affirmative part viz. that you may go against your private judgment in mens ordinary practice In secular affairs do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend both believe him to be in the right and do a thing contrary to our own judgment i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have not to do it Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own reason Rom. 4. 17 18. And so the man in the Gospel Mar. 9. 24 Yet I know you will not say that they went in this against their conscience What is the meaning of that ordinary saying These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit to the Church Is it only I submit my judgment in regard of the publishing of it So Dr. Fern comments upon it 2. Treat 1. c. numb 1● But thus the phrase seems very improper for this is a submission of our speech or silence but not of our judgment at all and is a submission which may well be professed also in things wherein our judgment is utterly unchangeable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain 2. Again * decided by the concessions of several Protestants which seem to yeild the very same thing See Dr. Fern ib. n. 13. where he alloweth that in matters of opinion and credibility or of discipline and rites till we have sufficient evidence or demonstration of truth to the contrary our conformity i. e. of judgment which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our practice remains secure Secure saith he till we have sufficient evidence c. But sufficient evidence we have not in opposition to the Church in things where possibly we may be mistaken and we may be mistaken in any thing whereof we are not certain ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty Likewise Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit his assent alloweth a bare yeilding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve them Which he saith may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the governors of it without deeming them inerrable And in Schism 2. c. 10. s. he saith A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Where surely this submitting and depositing our own judgment implies something more than the concealment of it only since the concealment of our judgment being the least degree of obedience we can

himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are † Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the H. Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5. 36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. 15. 19. 2 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. Mar. 16. 20. required belief and submission to their doctrine And † Universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus his being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Paul's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jerusalem received from Jesus working miracles and raised from the Dead as Universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Church'es doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the doctrines of the Church and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scriptures very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bid us Hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult in which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17. 8 9 10. Matt. 18. 17. Lu. 10. 16. cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that text Gal. 1. 8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Church-men shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these be Anathema to you But rather it saith this If an Angel or I apostatizing as some shall Act. 20. 30. shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received i. e. from the Church let him c. which makes for the Church'es authority very much The Scriptures then recommending tryal do no way warrant to us a tryal of the publick doctrines of the Church by our private sence upon the Scriptures that so we should adhere to it against them but a tryal of the doctrines of private teachers by the Churches publick sence of the Scriptures that in adhering to it we may be always secure 5ly They question since there are many present divided Churches to the judgment of which of them they shall repair I answer Had this question bin asked an hundred years ago in Luther's time any one could have solved it What any one would have done then let him do now since all grant that the Church which was then Catholick is not changed since in its doctrines or practices only some men are since gone out of it and he may know by this that he is not to follow them because they are gone out if he resolve once to be a follower of the Church'es authority All or most of modern controversies either Councils which the present Church allows have decided or collectively the solution of them may be known by the agreeing tenets of particular Churches and their Bishops even before and without any General Councils Most of the decrees of the Council of Trent tho it should stand for nothing yet we must grant were the general tenets and practice of the present Church of that age and of many ages before that and many Councils also which must be granted at least Patriarchal or Provincial have decided the points now in controversy or many of the most considerable of them and we find no other superior Synod at all contradicting them in those or later times but the same things ratified by the general practice which followed If therefore there was a church Catholick in those days that had or exercised any authority and this I think we confess in our Creed surely such tenets were established by it neither can we acknowledge one Holy and Apostolick Church in those times save only that by whom such things were used and by whom also many of them decreed After that therefore we have once yeilded to conform in our judgment or in not-contradiction to the Church we need not demand and expect for these things a future General Council for we are judged already we learning what is the Church'es judgment sufficiently by the decrees of former Councils Provincial at least which with this universal practice following them are equivalent to General Els many ancient heresies as Pelagianism c remain yet uncondemned in the Church these having bin censured only by Councils Provincial whose judgments afterward were generally approved and by the general practice of that Church which Church we cannot deny to be the same with that which once was the total Catholick and which is also now if we look after the major part of the Church the greatest communion of Christians Such things as these are said and you must tell me what I must reply to them And indeed if Protestants saw no eminent Church to which if all her decisions were made authentical men would presently apply themselves their contention would not be so earnest against our ascribing too much to the Church'es authority But suppose say they that the church present determin things against Scripture and against the former Church Why may not I say I again as well suppose you who think thus of the present Church to mistake Scripture and the former Church your selves and why may I not say again to you suppose that she err in fundamentals where are you that in these do follow her judgment Yes but the fundamentals she directs me in are more plainly set down in Scripture Well then since you may not judg against her in the plain may you in other things less plain But say you our Saviour hath promised in these she shall not err Then you need not fear erring with her in the rest for were truth in the rest so necessary as you pretend God could and would here also have made her an infallible directer And we are to know this that the Church may be faulty in something that she enjoyns and yet he that assents to her judgment not be so but faulty he will be if he do not assent Els what shall we answer to Deut. 17. 11 unles we will say

matters deserving her anathema's as well as the dissenters from her faith in greater whilst she determins some matters for settling peace as well as others for necessary faith See Notes of Infallibil § 29. I think none will deny this lawful enough and what communion is there which doth not require it 8ly But if she requires to them also a Subscription not only of non-contradiction but of assent and of submission of our private reason or judgment to hers yet I see not considering that she in such a collective body is much wiser and more seen both in the holy Scriptures and writings of the Ancients than we and the duty we owe to her as being our appointed Guide in such things our Guide I dare say as much as those under the Law were Deut. 17. 8. c. to the 14th I see not I say but that in things where we are not infallibly certain but only have some private reasons or opinion that is short of assurance that such things are untrue or unlawful we may thus subscribe her decrees or practise her commands See what Dr. Hammond saith Schism 2. c. 10. § A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the Church's communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice I suppose he means such as are immediately built upon the fundamentals are not concerned in the concessions one would think in these points especially that a person to be safe should rather trust to the Church's judgment than his own he will chearfully express his readines to submit or deposit his own judgment in reference and deference to his Superirors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due for the Church where his lot is fallen may by heresy or schism stand divided from the Church Catholick See this point discoursed at large in Obligation of our judgment or conscience § 2. and in Infallibility § 35. Now a subscribing professing or acting in this manner I conceive will never be construed a going against our conscience or judgment considered in general tho it should be against some private reasons of ours because this preferring of hers before our own judgment is also an act of our judgment For there being such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of my own but short of certainty on the other my judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is more safe for me to submit to the first than to rely on the second Here therefore I shall only go against my conscience if I go against this my judgment in adhering to the 2d and forsaking the first But indeed if the Church should require me to subscribe not that I believe her authority more than my private reasons but that I have no private reasons nor scruples in my mind for the contrary of her tenet when indeed I have so the subscribing thus would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done But I am confident no Church will exact such a confession nor would ever reject I say not from bearing any office in her wherein perhaps she may be more strict but from her communion such a submission as this Wherein one first acknowledgeth her infallibility or actual unfailance in all doctrines necessary to salvation and 2ly promiseth in no other point publickly to gainsay her Conciliary doctrines and 3ly in these points to endeavour as far as is in his power to submit his private reason and judgment to hers tho perhaps the repugnances of some verisimilities of the contrary may hinder his yeilding so plenary an act of belief to the truth of some of them as some others do Or again if any one is perswaded in his judgment or conscience that when the judgment of the Church is contrary to this his private reason or judgment so often he ought to adhere to his own not to hers such an outward submitting or subscribing to her judgment when this is against his own private reason in that matter would be going against his conscience and he ought at no hand to do it But yet in the not doing it he may be guilty of great crimes heresy schism c. But 9ly such subscription of a firm belief of all her doctrines or of exact conformity to all her publick rites I think is by no Church required from all that either are born in or are afterward converted to her communion but only from those whom she prefers to be the Spiritual guides of others and admits into Ecclesiastical revenues For those of the Roman communion of the strictnes of whose profession of faith I find our men much complain the Council of Trent requires a profession of their faith to be made or her decrees of which Pius 4tus hath compacted a form particularly expressing the chief of them to be subscribed or sworn to only by Bishops and by others who undertake curam animarum See 24. Sess. 1. c. and 12. c. de Reformat Neither doth Pius the 4ths Bull so much accused require it of more unless it be of Regulars In which Bull observe that the Oath or Subscription of such persons having curam animarum c is required not only to some Articles or Canons of the Council namely to those expressed in the Bull for the naming of which being about some twelve Heads the Council of Trent is said to have added twelve new Articles to the Apostles Creed to be believed under peril of losing salvation but to all the rest of the decrees of that Council whatever as well as those and likewise to all things tradita definita declarata by any other Council which by the Roman Church is reckoned Oecumenical as well as those delivered by that of Trent See the words Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus that is yet something more too Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuera sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita definita ac declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor c. After which it follows Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest sponte profiteor veraciter teneo From which words if we will say the Roman Church hath added new Articles of Faith to the Apostles Creed to be explicitly professed and believed under pain of damnation we must argue not only those 12. points to be added by her but also all the rest not only whatever the Tridentine but any other of those she calls General Councils hath delivered or declared But indeed from this large reception of and subscription to not only some but all points determined by such Councils we may gather 1. That it is only a subscription and profession in such a manner to and of them as the Councils have proposed to be received and

or God's word §. 21. Concessions 1. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only God's Word §. 22. 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition §. 23. That the authority of Scriptures and Church is learn'd from universal Tradition §. 24. §. 25. Concessions concerning Tradition 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether ●●fallible or no to ground a firm faith upon §. 26. §. 27. §. 28. 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho notabsolutely un versal §. 29. 3. That no one age of the Ch. is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition §. 30. 4. Tha● the testimony of the present age is sufficient to inform us therein §. 31. 5. That Tradition of the Ch. is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures §. 32. 6. That the Ch. is a sufficiently certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary §. 33. Digression That all traditions carry not equal certainty §. 34. Where concerning the Church'es and the Heathen and Mahometan Traditions §. 35. 3 Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward mean. §. 36. 1. That all Faith wrought by the Sp●rit is infallible §. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science c. §. 38. 4. Th●t from these concessions it follows not that all who s●vingly believe have or must have aninfallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe §. 39. N●i●ther from the evidences * of Scriptures §. 40. Nor * of the Spirit §. 41. Nor * of Church-Tradition §. 42. §. 43. For these following Reasons §. 44. §. 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. §. ● §. 2. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed §. 3. 1 Infallibility of the Church in Necessaries granted both by Catholic and Protestant writers §. 4. Where How for Points necessary are to be extended §. 5. §. 6. That the Church not private men is to define what Points be necessary §. 7. If these points be necessary at all to be defin'd and exactly distinguished from all other her proposals §. 8. 2. Infallibility of the Ch. in matters of universal tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all §. 9. 3. Infallibility universal in whatever the Ch. proposeth delivereth is not affirmed by Catholic writers §. 10. But only in those points which she proposeth tanquam de side or creditu necessaria §. 11. Where conc the several sences wherein points are affirmed or d●nied to be de fide §. 12. That as only so all divine revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide. i. e. the o●jects and mat●ters of Faith. And that the Ch. can make nothing to be de Fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c. which was not so always from the Apostolick times §. 13. §. 15. That all divine revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de Fide i. e. creditu necessaria §. 16. And that the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so §. 17. §. 18. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express i● only in points clearly traditional §. 19. §. 20. §. 21. §. 22. §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. §. 27. Whether and by what marks those points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de side or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other proposal §. 28. §. 29. Anathema no certain Index thereof PART II. §. 30. Concerning obedience and submission of private judgment whether due to the Ch. supposed not in all her decisions infallible §. 31. §. 32. §. 33. ●● That no submission of Our judgment is due to the proposal of the Church where we are infailibly certain of the contrary §. 34. 2. That no submission is due to an inferior person or court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superior to repair to for resolution §. 35. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever short of infallible certainty §. 36. §. 37. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture §. 38. 2. From Reason §. 39. Several objections and scruples resolved §. 40. §. 41. §. 42. §. 43. §. 44. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. Conclusion §. 55. §. 56. §. 57. §. 58. §. 59. §. 60. §. 1. §. 2. n. 1. In what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own judgment §. 2. n. 2. §. 2. n. 3. §. 4. 11. 2. §. 3. §. 4. Concerning the church'es lawful authority to excommunicate dissenters in non fundamentals §. 5. §. 6. §. 7. As likewise to decide which points are fundamental which not §. 8. 2 Tim. 4● 1 Cor. 12. 7 8. §. 9. Several exceptions against obedience of non-contradiction only for non-fundamentals §. 10. §. 11. And that all at least not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in non fundamentals to anobedience of assent Therefore the most are so bound §. 12. Replies to several Objections 1. Concerning an inferior Council's decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned §. 13. 2. Concerning faith salvifical that it is to be infallible §. 14. 3. Concerning union of Charity sufficient §. 15. 4. Concerning tryal of Doctrines necessary §. 16. 5. Concerning what Churches determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to §. 17 §. 18. Conclusion §. 19. Concerning infallible certainty §. 201 1. Infallible certainty excusing all submission of judgment to anyother §. 21. Infallible certainty to be had in some things §. 22. Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. 3. The plea of infallible certainty at least not usable against any general contrary judgment of the Church §. 27. An instance in the controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only AEn Sylv b●st Bohem 35. c. §. 28. §. 29. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible cer tainty not excusing one dissenting from the judgment of the Church §. 30. §. 31. An explication of Rom. 14. 23. §. 1. Sufficient truth alway to be found in the Church Yet false Doctors must be 1 Cor. 11. 19. §.

will be no more belief but sight and science which are opposed to faith properly so called See 2 Cor. 5. 7. Jo. 20. 29. The knowledge and assurance then of things past for time or far distant for place must be conveyed either by relation only or extraordinary revelation 2ly Again let it be granted That Tradition may be certain enough tho contradicted by some for what is there also in nature or sense that hath not by some bin opposed and not absolutely universal Els the Scriptures themselves are not received by sufficient tradition for most of the sacred books have bin opposed by some and that for a long time and some books by many But if notwithstanding this they be thought sufficiently attested so also may many other things whereof hath hapned some contest 3ly Let it be granted likewise that the universal Church of no one age can be mistaken in the delivering of any eminent and more material tradition wherein her care is interested For who so denies this must either affirm that no Tradition can be certain to us or that it is so only by the records and histories of former and those the very first times for if the present age may fail in these so might any present age before it except the first whereby the traditions of the present must be confirmed But since these records and writings of former times were casual and since our Saviour established his doctrine only in a succession of his messengers and from them only without any writings for a time the Church learned her faith surely Christians according to this tenent if destitute of writings would have bin left uncertain in their religion notwithstanding the provision made by our Saviour of Teachers of his Gospel to the worlds end 4ly Let it be further granted 1. Not only that he who diligently searcheth after the truth of a Tradition cannot ordinarily err or mistake that for a Tradition that is not or that for no Tradition that is but 2. that the general testimony of the present age is enough to warrant a Tradition to him from which he may receive a sufficient certainty without examining a succession of the same doctrine from the first age or searching the conformity of the present with former times as well as he is sufficiently assured that there was such a man as William the Conquerour or is such a City as Rome only by the general undisputed accord of all of the present time namely amongst whom he converseth without reading the Chronicles up to the Conquerour or consulting the several interjacent Provinces between his abode and Rome Nay 3ly let this also be yeilded concerning the present age That tho quo universalior as well universalitate loci as temporis traditio eo certior yet one without searching the universality of the present age may have sufficient assurance of what he believes from the publick Liturgies Canons Articles Catechisms and other common writings such as come to hand where they all or most accord one with another of which books also that such Fathers and Synods c. are the Authors as are pretended let it be likewise granted that he may learn from the same surenes of Tradition as he doth that such an one was an Emperour c. for so he believes the same Tradition for Tully or Livy being the author of such books as for Caesar being Emperour of such a people and then the same assurance which he hath of Secular Authors he may have of Sacred or as he doth that such are his Princes Proclamations or Edicts which he submits to without any signed testimony or any scruple that they are such nor doth any venture to transgres them upon the not absolute impossibility that they are forged 5ly Let it be granted which we know by experience That the Tradition of the Church is easilier understood in those points which she undertakes to expound than the Scriptures themselves which are by her explained For supposing the contrary then were Creeds Catechisms and all the Church'es teaching needles since of two things equally obscure the one can never illustrate or explain the other Therefore men may be more assured in many things of the doctrine and meaning of the Church than of the Scriptures As for example t is easier especially when not some single text is considered apart but all those which both sides urge are confronted together to understand what we are to hold concerning the Trinity from the Nicene Creed and concerning Grace and Free-will from the decrees of the Milevitan Council than from the Scriptures So in Luther's time it was easie for those to know the Church'es tenent and practice concerning Adoration of the Eucharist Auricular Confession Invocation of Saints c. who were not able to examin the doctrine of the Scriptures in such points so that it must be yeilded that Tradition is a more evident Guide for many things than those Sacred writings are 6ly Lastly since this Tradition of divine things in which above we have pleaded sufficient certainty to be is contained in the Church and delivered as it were from hand to hand by the successive Guides thereof therefore let it be granted That the Church which pretends not to make any new Articles of Faith at all but to recommend to her children what is deliver'd to her is infallible or a certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary in the same manner as Tradition may be said to be infallible or certain For to say Tradition is certain is to say we have some way to know Tradition suppose that Tradition of the Scriptures being God's word without being deceived in it and this way is the testimony of the Church therefore is this also certain Having made these Concessions concerning the evidence of Church-tradition and the sufficient testimony it affords us to ground our faith on at least in all the principal points of our religion wherein such Tradition both as to delivering a sufficient Canon of Scripture and the true meaning of this Canon is most full and unquestionable Yet I must mind you before I proceed further to avoid your mistaking that I hold not all Traditions that we meet with to have an equal certainty or creditablenes one as anther because all circumstances considered they have not an equal evidence but very different and therefore ought carefully to be examined and compared For example The Tradition that such a person suppose Mahomet lived in such an age may have much more certainty than that Mahomet or such a person said or did such or such a thing in that age Neither is the argumentation good The one is believed from Tradition therefore the other ought to be so because caetera non sunt paria and there may not be the same plenitude of Tradition for both and more may bear witness both in that and latter times of the one than do of the other Of Traditions therefore

reasonable that the Church'es infallibility in Necessaries should be taken in the latter sense there being nothing in our Saviour's promise that appears to restrain his assistance or in the conveyance of Tradition that appears to restrain its certainty to the former sense See Church-Government 2. part § 31. In which former sense if it be only allowed the Church'es insallibility in guiding Christians will be confined only to two or three points and those scarce by any at all doubted-of or disputed In this latter sense therefore both because of our Saviour's promise and the evidence of Tradition it must be said that the Church cannot be mistaken in defect but only if at all in the excess not in substracting from Christians any part of such necessary faith or duty but perhaps in superadding thereto something as necessary which is not 2. And here also secondly concerning such excess I think you will grant me That it will be hard for a private man to judge that any particular point decided by the Church is not some way or other necessary to be stated known and believed by reason of some ill influence which the contradictory thereof may by some consequence at least have upon our other faith or manners necessarily required and formerly established Nay farther that it will be hard to say that any point decided c is not necessary either directly and immediately or by connexion with some other points that are so to the actual exercise of Christian Religion and the practice of a completely holy life to which the most contemplative points of faith are very much conducing tho they mistakenly seem to many in this respect useless and therefore that they ought not to be so rigidly vindicated 3. And thirdly yet further if the Church be granted infallible in Necessaries however we take them it seems also most reasonable that from her we should learn if this be at all requisite to be known which or how many amongst many other decrees of hers if she makes any besides those concerning Necessaries which I say or how many are necessary For to what other Judgment can we repair for this unless to our own But how unreasonable this That whilst she is appointed to guide us with her infallibility in some points we are to state to her in what points only she can infalliby guide us This Mr. Chillingworth well discerned when he said 2. c. § 139. We utterly deny the Church to be an infallible Guide in Fundamentals for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals it follows nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not and consequently to make any Church we may say or Representative of the Church i. e. a General Council an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all things which she proposeth and requireth to be believed i. e. In as many things as she saith are fundamental and she may say all are fundamentals or necessary if she will. Thus he So 3. c. § 59 60. to that objection since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe Her in fundamentals and cannot precisely know what be those fundamentals we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point He answers by granting the consequence and denying the supposition I mean the former part thereof That we are obliged to believe her in fundamentals in delivering of which he saith she may err As for that Objection ordinarily made against the Church'es defining what points they are that are necessary and wherein by consequence she is infallible viz. that then Ecclesia non errabit quando vult because she may as she pleaseth nominate the points fundamental c. We answer that it being supposed necessary that the Council or the people must know not only the fundamental points but an exact distinction of such from the rest of which presently the same divine hand that will not suffer the Council appointed for the peoples guide to erre in any fundamental neither will permit them to say or to define any point to be fundamental that is not because this latter thing is supposed as necessary as the former i. e. God will never permit them to say they do not or cannot err in any point wherein they may err 4. But fourthly after all this it seems to me not to follow necessarily that if our Saviour by his Spirit preserve the Church an infallible Guide in necessary points of Faith 1. Therefore she must be infallible in distinguishing them from all other points which perhaps are not the same if we speak of those whereof men are to have an explicit knowledge to all persons and from whence if it be true it will follow that the Church shall travel in vain to prescribe any set number of such points See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. 1. l. 4. c. Solutio Quaestionis hujus i. e. of absolute necessaries inanis impossibilis Nor 2ly doth it follow that therefore the Church should certainly know in what particular points she is infallible and in what not Certainly know I mean not for some but for every point to the uttermost extremity of Infallibility For who can doubt that she is both certain and may profess her certainty and infallibility and the absolute necessity that lies on all to believe some of them for many of those points she delivers namely for those at least which are of clear revelation of universal Tradition and also for the immediate manifest and natural consequentials thereof Nay who denies that private men also from the abundant clearnes of Scripture only may attain sufficient certainty of many doctrines of Christianity But I say certainly know that she is inerrable for every point in which she is so For as to one ground of her infallibility the assistance of the Spirit leading her into all truth necessary since men may be and all regenerate men are guided by the Spirit of God and yet without extraordinary revelation cannot certainly discern and distinguish the particulars wherein they are guided by it nor sensibly perceive the motions thereof why may not the Church also be ignorant in what particular points she is so far assisted by God's Spirit as never to give an erroneous judgment in them And as to the other ground evidence of Tradition tho I grant sufficient assurance or infallibility in it if plenary yet 1. Tradition of some points being greater and of some other lesser and more obscure this Tradition seems not always in all points to be such as to amount to that certainty some of late pretend 2ly By this the Church can only know her infallibility in points traditionary But then some determinations of Councils and that under an Anathema will be found to be not of doctrines clearly traditional and such as have bin the common tenents of the former Church but of new emergent

in conclusione fidei semper est certissima infallibilis But then 4ly he saith that Ad Ecclesiae infallibilitatem in docendo satis est ut sit infallibilis in substantia fidei publico dogmate rebus ad salutem necessariis quia hic est finis datae infallibilitatis viz. ad consummationem Sanctorum ad aedificationem corporis Christi i. e. ad publicam salutem fidelium Deus autem Natura ut non deficit in necessariis it a nec superabundat in superfluis Nec ad quaevis particularia Dei providentia specialis deducenda est quae ut multos particulares defectus in gubernatione universali permittit ad decorem ipsius Universi ut not at Augustinus in Civ Dei 11. l. 18. c. sic multos privatos in Ecclesia errores multarum rerum non necessariarum ignorantiam etiam in doctissimis permittit And again to Calvin charging the Papists that they said Ecclesia nulli errori potest esse affinis he answers Infallibilitas docentis Ecclesiae ponitur tantum in rebus ad salutem necessariis atque adeo in ipsa conclusione Thus he But then he both assirmeth the teaching Church infallible in all her conclusions and then affirming her infallible only in necessariis ad salutem consequently he must hold all the conclusions which she peremptorily proposeth to be believed to be necessary ad salutem Hitherto Stapleton Lastly in matters of fact Bellarmin grants general Councils to have erred See 2. l. 8. c. Resp. to 14. and 15. Objection The Church therefore is not infallible in all her decrees but only those which are de side or which is all one in his sence which are proposed tanquam de fide Now things are said to be de Fide in many several senses and therefore you will excuse me here if I make a digression tho something hath bin said thereof in the discours of Necessary Faith § 1. to declare them that the different Notions wherein Authors use this term may be the better understood 1. First then you must observe as Bellarmin notes de verbo Dei 4. l. 9. c. that Nihil est de fide and therefore cannot be proposed tanquam de fide nisi quod Deus per Apostolos aut Prophetas revelavit aut quod evidenter inde deducitur Illa omnia quae Ecclesia fide tenet tradita sunt ab Apostolis aut Prophetis aut scripto aut verbo either by verbal or also written Tradition which is the Scriptures therefore he affirms ibid. Non novis revelationibus nunc regitur Ecclesia sed in iis permanet quae tradiderunt illi qui ministri fuerunt sermonis And Concilia Generalia non habent neque scribunt immediatas revelationes aut verba Dei sed tantum declarant quidnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum Quidnam sit i. e. from the Apostolical times before the meeting of the Council quomodo intelligi debeat praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducunt Conclusiones It aque Concilia cum definiunt qui libri c. non faciunt sed declarant esse tales Bell. de Concil l. 2. c. 12. But note here therefore that no points become de fide in this sence i. e. that they are verbum Dei or revelata because the Church defines them much less are all things that she proposeth straight de fide but that she defines them to be so only because they are so before even from the Apostles times either explicitly or implicitly either express and traditional and well known from age to age or necessarily involved in and clearly deducible from those points that are traditional For as is said before the Church hath no new revelation of any thing of necessary knowledge not formerly delivered not that I deny that some new revelations from God's Spirit concerning things Theological and of the next world can be now made to any in the Church but only affirm that all necessary ones are received from the beginning of the Gospel and that the Church can build upon no such new ones because she hath no certain way to discern them neither can the Church make any new Article of faith which much differenceth the Church succeeding from the Church Apostolical that none may argue the like fallibility or infallibility in both as to making or composing Articles of Faith but only the Church can declare what hath bin always formerly and explicate the sence or also educe out of it the necessary consequents thereof 2ly You may observe that all necessary deductions or conclusions tho perhaps formerly unknown yet being the necessary consequents of some other Articles known and common are properly called Articles of Faith or else we must deny those added to the Apostles Creed in the Nicene and Athanasian to be such or granting these two propositions Est unus tantum Deus and Pater est Deus Filius est Deus Spiritus Sanctus est Deus Deus here being supposed to bear the same sence as in the Major Proposition to be Articles of Faith we must deny this drawn from them Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus sunt unus tantum Deus to be so 3ly You may observe that such deductions are also necessary to be made and manifested by the Church from time to time in opposition to contrary errors destroying by consequence that known Article from which these deductions flow that as new Errors arise against the Faith so new Explanations of the Faith may counterpoise them and may preserve that former faith in its true sence and in its necessary consequences by which the explicit articles of our faith must needs increase to the end of the world if errors against the faith do so Which also we may call new Articles of Faith in respect of the arguing newly made and the proposition it self newly formed yet by no means are they new in respect of the principles out of which they are formed and do necessarily follow Now therefore they are for the form rather than the matter as if this proposition Omnis homo est corpus should be said to be newly formed when as these two propositions whereof t is made Omnis homo est animal omne animal est corpus were well known and received truths before Therefore in such sence to make new Articles there is no need of new revelation but for those more evident only the operation of common reason And thus many things become known to posterity even in things most supernatural which were not discovered to or discoursed of by their fore-fathers from a further examining upon some occasion given and discussing of ancient principles and comparing of former revelations as out of Mathematical principles new Demonstrations yet undeniable are daily minted In which respect knowledge of divine things as well as humane may be said to have a continual progress and increase to the end of the world Dan. 12. 4 But

and tho the Church can make nothing de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation which was not so always from our Saviour's and the Apostles times yet all divine Revelation is not de fide in another sence i. e. proposed by the Church to Christians as necessary to be believed and thus a proposition may be de fide to day which yesterday was not And those who affirm the Church to be unerrable in all points de fide mean not in all points absolutely which may possibly be derived from some traditional principle of Faith but only in so many of them as she proposeth to Christians tanquam de fide or necessary to be believed whilst very many theological propositions probably deducible from the delivered principles and even mentioned affirmatively in Councils yet are no part of these necessarily injoyned credends To return now to our matter whence we digressed § 11. and to pass from Bellarmin to some other late writers of the Roman Church of the moderatest sort These seeing that some deductions and consequences from revealed and traditional doctrines are neither so immediate and clear nor yet so necessary to be known and the contradictory of them to be confuted as others do assert and derive the Churches inerrability chiefly or only from evidence of Tradition not certainty of reason or extraordinary illumination of the Spirit Whence these also holding the Church'es infallibility in all things which she determineth tanquam de fide do likewise maintain all things determined by her tanquam de fide to be only doctrines traditional or those so evidently deductive as that in substance they are coincident with that which is traditional See Dr. Holden de resol Fid. 1. l. 9. c. I will transcribe you some part Quaedam consecutiones adeo evidenter constant primo intuitu ut nemo sanoe mentis supposita praemissarum veritate possit ullatenus de rei veritate ambigere as there he names this Duas esse in Christo voluntates proved ex duplici natura Christi against the Monothelites Quoecunque autem sub hac ratione conditione declarantur denunciantur ab Ecclesia universa seu a Concilio Generali veram habent divinae fidei seu veritatum revelatarum Catholice traditarum certitudinem c. Aliae sunt consecutiones sequelae quae non adeo manifeste evidenter emicant effulgent quin studium aliquod scientia requiratur c. Hujusmodi autem veritates quarum aliquas vidimus in Conciliis Generalibus definitas supremam illam Catholicam certitudinem quam vi traditionis universae attribuimus articulis fidei habere nequeunt Nullos etenim agnovit Ecclesia divini luminis radios sibi de novo affulgentes quibus veritatibus recenter detect●s particularium hominum ratiocinatione quodammodo develatis possit certitudo ab omni prorsus periculo erroris immunis atque fidei revelatis catholice traditis articulis par aequalis succrescere Thus Dr. Holden to whom I may add Mr. Cressy in his Motives approved by several Sorbon-Doctors 33. c. Besides the certain Traditional doctrine of which he speaks before other points of doctrine there are sometimes decided in Councils rather by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and weighing together the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors now such doctrines or decisions many Catholicks conceive are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith c. Then after If in such Decisions as these latter are there should happen to be any error which yet we may piously believe the assistance of God's H. Spirit promised to the Church will prevent but if this should happen c. And c. 41. And many Catholick writers there are who upon the same grounds with Mr. Chillingworth extend the promise of the holy Spirits assistance to the Church not to all inconsiderable circumstantial doctrines but to substantial and traditionary only Thus he See like things in F. Sancta Clara syst fid 12 13 14. c. -12 c. p. 110. Singula quae in Conciliis tractantur non sunt ejusdem considerationis Illa quae a Theologis hinc inde agitantur ante definitiones examinantur tandem non nisi magno labore rerum consequentiarum subtili trutinatione ex discursu longo perplexo ad Conclusiones statuendas devenitur hujusmodi omnia si tanquam non necessaria errabilia putantur nihil est contra Ecclesiae infallibilitatem And 13. c. p. 147. Cum hac tamen doctrina bene stat proloquium illud Scholasticorum Ecclesiam simpliciter non posse errare in fide licet bene circa fidem seu in appendicibus fidei hoc est ut alii loqui malunt in non-fundamentalibus seu non-necessariis And one such point which he instanceth in tho not as a determination of any Council yet see Concil Lateran 3. Can. which seems somewhat to favour this opinion yet as a common received tenent in some former times is this Papam ex Christi institutione plenissimam habere in universum orbem jurisdictionem temporalem eamque in Imperatores Reges transfudisse adeo ut habeat toti mundo dominari omnia regna disponere 12. c. p. 124. where he quotes many Authors Quod tamen saith he hoc saeculum in Scholis non fert ut satis colligitur ex Suaresio Bellarmino aliis See likewise the Authors quoted in Bellarmin de Roman Pont. 5. l. 5. c. § Argumentum postremum and § Sanctus quoque Bonavent where he names Hugo de S. Victore about 1130. who was one of the first qui temporalem potestatem summ● Pontisici ex Christi institutione tribuit And is not Stapleton quoted before of the same opinion with these when he saith It is sufficient that the Church be infallible in the substance of faith in public doctrines and things necessary to Salvation as Bellarmin grants some points de fide are not being the end of infallibility given God and Nature as they are not defective in necessaries so neither being superabundant in superfluities c. And doth not St. Austin's Saying so much noted shew him too of the same opinion I will transcribe it somewhat more fully than usual as being very considerable Answering to St. Cyprian's Authority urged against him by the Donatists for rebaptization of such as had bin only baptized by Hereticks amongst other things he goes on de Baptism 2. l. 3. c. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam c posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem scribuntur c. per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid c. ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones

vel Provincias siunt pleniorum Conciliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere quis autem nesciat ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat which he applies afterward to the point of Non-rebaptization when it was by the Church better considered See a like passage to this de Bapt. 2. l. 9. c. Si Concilium ejus i. e. Cypriani the Provincial Council called by him attenditur huic est universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium praeponendum Nam Concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponuntur universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur Now that St. Austin as Mr. Cressy well observes Motives 33. c. understands this emendation of Councils in points not of fact c. but of Doctrine I mean of such doctrines as are not expresly delivered by former plenary Councils and those Councils accepted by the Church catholick tanquam de fide which determinations the Church is conceived only to make in points more evidently certain to her and so never after amendable appears from the context both precedent and consequent where he goes on Quapropter S. Cyprianus qui c. satis ostendit facillime se correcturum fuisse sententiam suam si quis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi sic dari posse ab tis qui foras exierunt quemadmodum amitti non potuit cum foras exirent unde multa jam diximus nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse sine dubio cederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Which answers to what he said before aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat c. as elsewhere he intimates the former obscurity of this question de Bapt. 1. l. 7. c. Tho indeed it is well noted of some concerning this passage of St. Austin that by the Concilia plenaria he meaneth only such larger Councils as were composed of many Provinces inferior to the most General such as that of Nice because he saith Quis nesciat priora saepe posterioribus emendari When-as before his time there had bin only two of these most general Councils and of these the latter making no such emendations as to reverse or contradict any one doctrine of the former Now that Councils inferior to those collected ex toto orbe Christiano only if consisting of many Provinces were by St. Augustin and other Africans stiled Concilia plenaria or universalia see de Baptis 2. l. 7. c. 3. l. 2. c. Contra Parmenian Epist. ● l. 3. c. Contra Crescon 3. l. 53. c. Codex Canon Ecclesiae African passim num 19. 28. 65 25. Conc. Carthag A. D. 403. num 127. 138. of these inferior plenary Councils then St. Austin seems to speak when he mentions the latter correcting the former reading the words quae fiunt by way of Parenthesis Quis nesciat ipsa Concilia i. e. quae per singulas regiones vel Provincias fiunt Councils Provincial plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati those comprehending many Provinces and especially those quae fiunt ex toto orbe Christiano as that of Arls or Nice for one of these he meaneth here but rather that of Arls 1. see Canon 8. and St. Aust. Ep. 162. ad Eleusin sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque saepe plenaria those Councils comprehending many Provinces for this saepe emendari cannot be applied to the universally-General that were before St. Austin's times neither can his arguments against the Donatists stand good upon such a supposition of such Councils errability priora c. Again Bellarmin himself since he grants that Councils may err in the reasons they give for some Conclusions which I conceive extends also to the mis-interpretation of some Scriptures whence they draw them and in the deductions to be made that they may be de side puts in evidenter aut quod evidenter inde deducitur and allows latter Councils may determin what former Councils doubt of which determination when-as both of them have the same assistance of the Spirit is only from some rational light that latter Councils from more weighing and discoursing such points do attain doth he not affirm a Council in some smaller and less evident or less argued points of doctrine liable to some error And lastly that the Church doth not pretend to infallibility in all doctrines pertaining to faith but only to some as being more evident me thinks sufficiently appears from this That in her General Councils she decides not all pre-extant controversies but hath left many sharp ones namely where there is neither clear revelation nor tradition nor consequence from them for either side undetermined and in that she hath defined some others as probable see Concil Viennense fore-quoted But if she were by divine assistance in all doctrinals pertaining to faith whereof some are granted not necessary Bell. de Ecclesia 3. l. 14. c. certain of truth she ought never to state any as probabilities Whence also it appears that of all controversies that arise tho some way pertaining to faith one side is not presently to be called necessary and to be decreed and the contradictory thereof necessary to be confuted and exterminated But if in all truths necessary or not necessary when she offers once to decide them the Church must needs be infallible notwithstanding any mis-arguing by the supervising of the H. Spirit lest any should be induced to believe something false Is there not the same reason that in matters of fact notwithstanding any mis-information she should be by the same holy Spirit preserved from erring lest any should be obliged and that sometimes under her Anathema's for these also she useth in matters of fact to submit to what is wrong Thus much concerning this tenet That only Traditional points and their undeniable plain Consequences are the matter of the Churc'es infallibility and de fide necessaria of Christians But note that the Church'es infallibility must not be enlarged to all points which may be called Traditional neither for surely of all things pretended to be traditional there is not Tradition equally evident but of some less than of others according to which the evidence of the Church must be of many several dogrees neither may we reasonably ascribe to her the infallibility in all of them which we do in some other tho her evidence in the least may be so much as that none ought to reluct against her sentiment or practice The next thing which will be enquired after is How to know amongst many decrees of Councils which of them according to the expression of the former opinions the Church proposeth tanquam de fide or tanquam necessario credenda or which she proposeth as clear and

plenary Tradition or undeniable deduction therefrom it being agreed that all her proposals or decrees are not such A Quaere very necessary to be resolved for those if any such there be who affix obedience of assent only to infallibility and this infallibility again only to such decrees but a Quaere for all others me-thinks not of so much concernment I find the marks of such distinction set down in Bell. de Conc. 2. l. 12. c. thus Quando autem decretum proponatur tanquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii semper enim dicere solent 1. Se explicare fidem Catholicam 2. vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt Anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt What then what if it be only Anathema iis qui contrarium dicunt aut docent Quando autem nihil horum dicunt non est certum rem esse de side Thus Bellarmin But note here that Bellarmin tells us not plainly whether something in Councils is proposed tanquam de side without any Anathema set to it only he doubtingly saith non est certum and those others again who build the Church'es inerrability on Tradition and the evident Consequences thereof tel us not whether some of those Decisions that are enjoyned with Anathema's are not sometimes some of those secondary consequences more doubtful ad quas colligendas studium aliquod scientia requiritur or which are made by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors c. As indeed t is likely some of them are Anathema's being added so frequently even in smaller matters and in the newest controversies And perhaps it can hardly be shewn by these writers that every Proposition in a General Council that hath an Anathema affixed to it is traditional to such a degree of evidence since some Traditions are much more universal and evident than some others that it amounts to infallibility not from the assistance of the holy Spirit but from the clearnes of Tradition In this distinction therefore of points de fide or necessary credends wherein the Church is infallible exactly from others I think these Authors cannot speak out so clearly because tho some points are of much more certainty and also of much higher concernment than others yet Councils seem not so punctual in severing them by a diversity of expression unless in very few perhaps a thing not possible to be done by them see § 3. See Dr. Holden 1. l. 8. c. acknowledging some such thing In tradenda doctrina Christiana nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim cognosci possint hujusmodi sidei divinae dogmata ab omnibus aliis quae vel Ecclesiasticae sint institutionis vel quae centae revelationi divinae haud immediate innitantur atque ideo omnia simul confuse indistincte semper docuisse tradidisse Yet the same Councils may and do require subscription and obedience to all their definitions as they being the supreme and unappealable Judge * authorized by Christ for the peace and unity of the Church to give the law to all men * abundantly assisted by the Spirit of Truth for all Necessaries even the obscurest and most unacquainted doctrines if you can once prove them necessary and besides this if in some other matters of less concernment they be liable to error yet how much less they than private men And therefore their submission of judgment to these remains still most rational as well as obligatory The chief note which I find for the distinction of these points de fide wherein the Church is infallible from other determinations or proposals is the affixing of Anathema's which are the same with Excommunication But 1. first several of these Anathema's if we do rely on their form may require not internal assent as looking meerly at faith but non-contradiction as looking perhaps in some points more at peace many running only si quis dixerit c Anathema sit But if it be said that the Anathema's only that are set upon a Si quis sentiat or credat are the Index of such points de fide for necessary credends then will very few decrees of Councils pass for such for example not above four or five of all those made in the Council of Trent I mean as to this particular Index of Credends viz. Anathema and doubtles many more of the decisions of Councils are contended to be such credends than those that can shew this mark of Anathema fixed expresly to dissentients of which see more in Church-Government 4. Part. § 79. Again this injunction of Non-contradiction or of keeping silence tho it be * such as opposeth the saying that the contrary to the Church'es determination is a truth or that the Church erreth in any such decision much more an open departing for such unnecessary matter for the Church errs in no necessaries from her communion yet perhaps it is not * such as opposeth the making or humbly proposing of any doubt thereof at least in a second convening of the same Authority See I pray you in the denouncing of her Anathema's the great warines of the Council of Trent in 24. sess 7. c. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare cum docuit propter adulterium c Anathema sit noted by Soave in his History of it p. 755. Engl. Ed. to be done because she would not censure * some of the Greek Church who held the contrary opinion as likewise * some of the Fathers as S. Ambrose And surely this Council's affixing Anathema's sometimes to so many Lutheran errors some doubtles of smaller moment as they were gather'd here and there by some persons appointed to that purpose out of Luther's writings because they were opposite to the common doctrines of the Church shews that her Anathema sometimes eyed more the petulancy and contradicting spirit of the Author than the importance of the Tenet and was sent forth more to secure her peace than her faith What should hinder I pray since some questions possibly may arise in the Church undecidable clearly by Tradition and since no doubt of all questions now agitated among the Schoolmen or other Catholicks one side is not traditional for then how could so many Catholicks oppose a thing of such evidence again since it is the Church'es duty to provide for peace and unity among her children as well as faith and truth and lastly since sharp and vehement contests may arise in such new controversies to the great disturbance thereof what should hinder I say that the Church in such cases may not impose silence on both parties or secondly using her best search and going upon such Scriptures and reasons as perhaps some side urgeth declare her judgment and that under some penalty on the opposers and gainsayers

thereof or require submission of their judgment also to her not as she declares her judgment infallible but only as it is definitive and unappealable else her orders are no more than good counsel On the gainsayers c. not as subverters of some necessary faith but as troublers for an unnecessary if truth of the Church'es peace and rebels to her authority whom Christ hath commanded to hear not only how far they list or in their private judgment see cause And if she may impose some penalty then why not anathematize or excommunicate This Anathematizing even Protestants do not so far charge as a trespass of charity or a sign of rigor upon the Church of Rome or her Councils but that they allow that those who turbulently or pertinaciously speak against the Doctrines of the Church in smaller points may be anathematized for it See Dr. Fern in his Preface to Consider of present Concernment c. We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously turbulently speak and teach against the doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one tho he denies not the faith yet makes a breach of charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus he of pertinacious and turbulent contradiction but then modest contradiction he allows Was Luther's and Calvin's modest Are not Anathema's used by her against Schismatical as well as Heretical spirits May not she excommunicate as well disturbers of her peace as subverters of her faith How come Schismaticks then thrown out of the Church Doth she not use Anathema's or Excommunications in matters of Fact wherein she is confest to be liable to error If in decisions not traditional c we are bound to yeild obedience as I shall shew anon what reason have we why the Church may not anathematize for these points those who contradict and disobey But if she may then Anathema for any thing we know is joyned to some point not traditional nor in which the Church is infallible 2. To put this matter more out of doubt why have Provincial Councils granted fallible used anathematizing than which nothing more frequent toward those under their Jurisdiction If any say they use Anathema's indeed but not to be in force I say not after they be contradicted which we grant but till they be confirmed by a General Council then why may they and have they bin put in practice before they were by any such Council confirmed Nay to what purpose such Council convened since it hath no power of excommunicating the resisters and since when a General Council sits that sufficiently obligeth before it sits the other obligeth not 3. Again many Heresies as the Pelagian c. by Provincial Councils have bin censured and supprest but who may judg heresies i. e. errors against points of faith may pronounce Anathema's Judicium non infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodijudicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale si secus egerint merito excommunicantur saith Bell. de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Judicio in points of Doctrine too for as for matter of fact he will allow the same liability to error may be in particular which in General Councils Thus much touching your first Quaere concerning the Infallibility of the Church Now I come to your second concerning Obedience due to the Church and submission of private judgment Where I think this will be made clear unto you That to what point soever the Church'es infallibility be enlarged yet this the Universal-Infallibility of this Supreme Judge of Controversies is not a necessary ground or the only rule of the duty of obedience thereto neither of the obedience of Non-contradiction nor yet that of Assent but that there may be and is just obligation of obedience I mean that of submission of judgment i. e. to believe what it delivereth to a fallible Authority i. e. one that may command us perhaps to believe sometimes what is an untruth And if this be a truth I conceive it may be of some good consequence For first so those also may be rationally induced to yeild obedience to the Church who now think themselves to be clearly freed from it unles it can first be shewed them that the Church is infallible in all her Propositions neither will they then suppose themselves so easily discharged by shewing the contradictions of General Councils in some few matters perhaps from their obedience in all other points wherein these agree or which some defining none other have reversed and the Church hath received in her general practice or also wherein they find even a later Council contradicting a former For if as St. Austin saith later Synods may amend and correct the former they ought also in what they amend them to be submitted-to non obstante the contradiction of the former Secondly so those who have not opportunity of consulting the highest Tribunal may not think their duty cancell'd excepting where they are certain to other their Superiors and Spiritual Guides because fallible or suborordinate nor will oppose so frequently to them not the Dictates of an higher Court but of their private judgment When-as certainly this submission of our judgment and reason to a Superior tho fallible authority is a duty most acceptable to God and which tho much unpractised by and I am afraid quite unknown to many Sectaries amongst Protestants yet hath bin always most religiously observed elsewhere in the Church of God by those who have bin most eminent in piety nothing conducing more to the preservation of truth unity of minds peace security and serenity of a man's conscience and lastly to true humility mortification and self-denial there being no mortification nor self-denial like this and therefore perhaps so many refuse it because there is nothing so much our self as our judgment And again the contrary thereof as it is the fruit of pride and self-conceit so having bin always the promoter of error and mother of distraction and confusion I cannot here but set down two or three words of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. sect This opinion saith he which T. Cartwright maintain'd against Councils c that an argument of authority of Man is in matters divine nothing worth being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort what it may grow into * God knoweth I may add * we have seen Now to shew this Truth 1. first I must grant to you That God hath obliged no man to believe a known-to-him error or to believe an error quatenus error for this I think is a contradiction in terminis to believe that to be a truth which he knows I do not say which he thinks or doubts is not a truth the same may be said of obligation to the doing or practice of any thing certainly known to one to be

unlawful and therefore I grant the consequence That if any be bound to believe or assent to a fallible Authority in all they determin for truth either they de facto shall never determin an error or at least a private man shall never certainly know that which they determin to be an error 2ly Again this I hold most certain That God cannot propose any error to be believed by us for a truth for this would mainly oppose his veracity as any impiety doth his holines And 3ly I see not that God in obliging to obedience of fallible Councils can be said to have absolutely necessitated any to believe an error tho unknown to him to be so unless we can say also that God hath necessitated that Authority to err for t is possible for one errable not actually to err But granting actual error of our Guides in some things to come now to some stating of this matter which note that it will be the same case in every thing concerning their injunctions of believing truths or falsities and of doing things lawful or unlawful 1. First then I am not obliged by God to obedience to any authority inferior or supreme in any thing I certainly or infallibly know to be an error or unlawful Some case therefore there is which if it happen I cannot be justly obliged to obey an authority fallible Therefore I willingly assent to such sayings as that of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. § quoted by Mr. Chillingworth 5. c. 110. § as if it weakened or qualified that Author's judgment elsewhere for submission to Church-Authority Altho 10000 General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence yet one demonstrative reason alledged demonstrative that is infallible or one manifest truly manifest not seeming so for what Sect hath not their called demonstrations and manifest texts testimony cited from the word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse but overweigh them all c. Will any Catholick writer deny this He may say further If an Angel from Heaven c. Let there be submission of judgment where such manifest texts and demonstrations are not and all is well And again I must grant that it follows not from the Church'es infallibility in Fundamentals or Necessaries being supposed that therefore all are tied to assent to her in whatsoever she proposeth if they can certainly know that she errs in any point because then they certainly know that such point is not necessary or fundamental since in such necessaries she is granted to be infallible Again I grant that if any can be certain that two General Councils do point-blank contradict one another tho one of them is in the right he may be certain that such point wherein they contradict is not fundamental but yet nevertheles he is in such point to assent to the latter Council unles he can infallibly demonstrate the contrary 2. Secondly I am not obliged by God to obedience of assenting or acting to any inferior Court or Magistrate in a thing whereof I doubt only whether it be truth whether it be lawful if there be any higher court to whom I have opportunity to repair for better information but if otherwise I am notwithstanding my doubting to acquiesce in the judgment of a lower court 3. Thirdly to the supreme Ecclesiastical court tho supposed fallible in some things I am obliged to obedience both of assent and acting at least in such a manner as is described before § 28. in all things which are not certainly known by me to be errors or unlawful What do I gain by this for obedience to them very much For 1. if all who cannot be sure that a General Council is erroneous in any point must submit their assent to all very few they will be most men being ignorant and not pretending at all to demonstrate against General Councils that may withdraw it in any thing at all and none at all in most things But 2ly by what way can any one in any thing be infallibly sure not think only or suppose that he is sure that such a Council errs By divine Revelation But whence can he certainly know that it is Divine especially when these contrary to the proposals of the Church'es supremest Council By the Church But that is She in the way wherein only she is capable of delivering it whose judgment he opposeth By the Scriptures Hath he any other then besides those the Church hath and which she first recommended unto him Or understands he them better He whoever pretends evidence of Scripture against the Church in very deed objects only his own interpretation thereof against that of the Church and for doing this methinks he might blush before so many Reverend Fathers For suppose he find the contradictory to their decision totidem verbis in Scripture words are capable of divers acceptions and the true contradiction lies in the sence not the terms But then hath he well compared Scriptures And is he sure that no other text is again totidem verbis contradictory to that he urgeth If it be then one place must not be understood as the letter soundeth and then why not that which he presseth I ask a Protestant Is a Catholick presently infallibly certain that the Protestant Synods are erroneous in denying of Christ's presence-corporal in the Sacrament so soon as he reads the words Hoc est Corpus meum I could heap up many instances in this kind But I would not have this so understood as if I held that a private man might not be sufficiently certain in many things from the exceeding evidence and clearnes of the Scriptures therein But hardly I say shall he ever be so in any such thing where a General Council is not certain of the same from the same so clear Scriptures but at least thinks its self from these Scriptures or notwithstanding them certain of the contrary Lastly by Reason But what arguments from their Reasons can counterpoise this from the authority of so many of much greater reason Ipsa sola Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas argumentum est majoris ponderis quam alia quaevis ratio quia credendum judicamus quicquid maxime vitam societatem humanam dirigit ac conducit Especially if this be considered That as many matters of our faith are obscure and exceeding the natural light of reason so evidence of private judgment in them against the Church can hardly be so pressing and irresistible as that he may not conform to her judgment Again what certainty can any presume-of in such a pretended demonstration as being communicated and made known to others yet convinceth none but himself The authority even of Councils less than General i. e. fallible to punish dissenters from their decrees unless they have unjustly hitherto usurped it methinks argues their errors to be by private men not easily discoverable But of this see more in Obligation of Judgment § 15. 22. c. Trial of Doct.

invocato Spiritu Sancto aliquid communi consensu statuentes Faciunt argumentum probabile therefore by acquiescence here is not meant only a passive submission to their censure nor yet that of silence only and non-contradiction which in any things of practice sufficeth not for unles one do what they command he cannot be said to acquiesce in their sentence neither may any exteriorly act that to the lawfulnes whereof he doth not inwardly assent See Dr. Holden who holding that in some doctrines of less moment a general Council may possibly err yet exacts obedience notwithstanding to those Decrees we think such de resol fid 1. l. 9. c. Veruntamen quando a Conciliis Generalibus ad evitandum schisma pacem in Ecclesia conservandam definitae fuerint hujusce naturae conditionis veritates he speaks of those in which there is not certitudo ab omni erroris periculo immunis eorum decretis obediendum esse novit unusquisque Ecclesiae Catholicae vere Filius He goes on Quaeret hic forsitan aliquis curiosius an liceat hujusmodi decreta interno saltem mentis actu in dubium revocare Cui respondeo Quod imprudentis superbientis animi indicium esset haec dubitatio aut saltem hujusce dubitationis publica significatio Ad quid enim valet supremi tribunalis judicium c. si cuilibet subdito aeque liberum foret post ultimum denunciatum litis judicium ac antea oppositum censere publice praedicare An discipulus supra magistrum nonne unicuique in sua arte credendum c. See the like in S. Clara's Systema Fid. 20. c. And thus Mr. Cressy c. 33. Such Decisions many Catholicks conceive are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith because not delivered as of Universal tradition But however an extreme temerity it would be in any particular man to make any doubt of the truth of them and unpardonable disobedience to reject them now in matters of practice not to obey in doing them is to reject them If in such decisions an error should happen since it c it were far better such an error should pass till as St. Austin saith some later Council amended it than that unity should be dissolved for an unnecessary truth Lastly t is commonly said that in a point controverted and not yet determined by any Council a man's private judgment ought to be swayed by the stream or major part of Catholick writers yet are not these fallible The same thing is ordinarily said of submitting our judgment to the Fathers in all things wherein we find the most of them to agree yet are not they liable to error But those of the Church of Rome that submit their judgment to a General Council and cannot prove it to be infallible as doubtless some of the simpler sort cannot do not so many submit to a Council for any thing they know fallible and yet they should offend if do otherwise For such submissions not the pretence of infallibility but the dictates of common Prudence are used and thought suffici Thus much of the Duty of obedience to all the decrees of General Councils tho these Councils be some way fallible wherein I have spoken of the obligation and rationalness of assent to their doctrines in case of our uncertainty of the contrary to be truths But remember that here I do not undertake to determin whether the Church thinking it fit perhaps to leave to her subjects in points of less consequence and such as are speculative more liberty of enjoying their own judgment so that only they disturb not her peace nor make faction hath only in some points of evident and universal tradition and more necessary consequence and practice required the submission of judgment and profession of assent and belief c under the peril of Anathema * where perhaps she expresseth her self in such terms as these Si quis non confitetur non profitetur constanter tenendum firma fide credendum nemo salva fide dubitare debet c And again whether in many other points of less necessity and not so common tradition tho perhaps certain deduction from those which are so she hath for only the preserving of her peace required the obedience and submission only of Non-contradiction and silence or Non-profession of the contrary under Anathema likewise * where she expresseth her self Si quis dixerit the most usual form in her Anathema's without any firmiter tenendum affixed to the contrary truth I meddle not to decide whether in the prohibition of the affirming an error the Church'es intention doth not always involve the profession of the contrary truth or whether all her Anathema's are not set only to points necessary to be believed but some to points fit not to be contradicted some Anathema's for consent some for peace and silence Again I attempt not to resolve here whether under the former of these the requiring of assent she means an internal plenary act of faith which perhaps is not in every man's power at all times faith having a great latitude of strength or weaknes according to the repugnancies of some verisimilities of the contrary running in a man's mind not fully settled and convinced and many times some mixture of unbelief Lord I believe help thou mine unbelief or else whether she means only a submissive endeavour and willingnes to believe and assent to her propositions In these things I can determin nothing neither if I have before argued that we may rationally yeild in such points more than the least of these submissions therefore will I deny that the Church may or doth require only the less as I cannot on the other side affirm that she hath not required the more But surely no more duty needs be paid to avoid her Anathema's than she chargeth us with tho she claim not all her due nor is more if so much necessary to salvation to be believed than she exacteth of us to be believed To conclude this discourse 1. Infallibility of the Church in all necessaries be they clear revelations and points traditional or consequential consequential clearly or not clearly deducted from the former provided that they be necessary to attain salvation for to be known or believed or practised by all Christians is not denied being had either by evidence of Tradition or assistance of the Spirit from the promise of our Saviour who fails not to guide the Church in all such truths for ever that she may in these also for ever securely guide others 2ly likewise at least for the most of these truths namely such as are of universal tradition or natural and immediate consequences thereof not only certitudo objecti but subjecti is granted not only that de facto the Church cannot err in them but that she knows she doth not err in them For it follows not that if the Church may err in something and not know that she

give to our Superiors will be due to them in some of those definitions made by them in fundamentals of faith and Christian practice which points he excepts here from submittance or deposition of our judgment See likewise which especially I recommend to your reading what Mr. Hooker as writing not against Catholicks but Puritans copiously saith in behalf of submission of judgment to the Church even when thwarting our private opinion in his Preface 6. § and in 2. l. 7. § near the end which you may find more fully set down and Mr. Chillingworth's Comment upon it in Answ. to Mr. Knot who pressed him with it discussed in the discours of Infallibility § 45 46. c. In the Preface speaking upon Deut. 17. 8. c he hath these words God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controvesie he ordained 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 and reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily unto some end And there he answers that 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 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 as no doubt many times the sentence among 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 Thus judicious Hooker And see what Dr. Jackson saith to the same purpose below § 29 30. Thus the reformed seem to allow in some things a submission of private judgment to the Church a submission not only of concealing it but of renouncing and deserting it in believing and hearkning to the Church rather than to it Now the Church doth never exact that you should profess or subscribe * that your own reason or private judgment caused from some evidence in the thing suggests or assures to you such a thing to be truth but * that you believe her in such a thing more than your own reasons to the contrary or * that you confess her judgment better than your own and so are content to be swayed by it in such a thing For if you heartily believe that the Church'es judgment is likely to be better than yours or that she is authorized by her judgment to guide yours it necessarily follows that in obeying her you do according to your judgment one way tho contrary to it in another way For your final judgment upon the points is this that tho you see reasons ex parte rei most or all contrary to what she defines yet that her judgment is better than yours or ought to guide yours and upon this you against your own judgment or reasons assent unto hers Note here that by the Church'es judgment I mean the ultimatest judgment and the highest court thereof that we can have So that when your Pastor teacheth any thing which is contrary to your private judgment you are not obliged to assent to him if another Ecclesiastical judgment superior be contrary to his For the decision of the Superior to whom in any doubting you may repair voids that of an inferior unto you and so voids also his Excommunications and Ecclesiastical censures and if the superior man or Council tell you one thing and the inferior another you are to hear the Church in the superior not in the inferior Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin which text see further explained below § 31. be applied to any for so doing because who so doth thus submit doth this out of faith namely this faith that the Church is wiser than he or that he is obliged to obey her expositions of Scripture directions counsels c when contrary to his own It is not only possible then but usual for one to believe a thing against his own reason or judgment or conscience if you will take these in such a sence i. e. against the reasons drawn a parte rei which he hath for disbelieving it but it is not possible for one to believe a thing against his reason or judgment or conscience in general or against some other reason taken ab authoritate which he hath still for believing it For certainly * when a fool believes a wise man against some conceit he had of his own or * when Roman-Catholicks consent to the Church in something doubtles wherein some of them may see reasons for the contrary and no reason perhaps for it save that ab authoritate viz. the Church'es determination and command or * when an Israelite submitted to holding or doing a thing which the Judges decided Deut. 17. 11 12. none of these may be said to do thus without or against reason because perhaps their private judgment is not convinced in the thing for they have that reason still for going against their other reason that the others whom they follow are wiser than they or also a 2d reason that the others are by God appointed to guide their judgment and opinion in such things and that they are commanded by God to consent to what ever those shall decide 3ly This thing seems decided by the allowed practice of the Church in excommunicating at least for such matters as she esteemeth necessary and fundamental those who dissent from her judgment For if in any thing at all if at least in fundamentals in which some say she cannot err the Church may excommunicate dissenters hence it follows both that it is possible and that a man ought in some things to consent to the Church even against his own judgment unless we will affirm that no man in such points as suppose in fundamentals can possibly have another judgment than hers But so there would never have bin any man erroneous or heretical in a point fundamental I say ought to consent For if God hath given power to the Church I mean the highest court thereof of punishing by excommunication all those who do not consent to some decision which she maketh then all ought to consent to such decision whether it be right or wrong to his seeming arguments or reasons whose consent is required for every one ought to do that for the not doing of which God appoints him to be punished besides that he who consents not to the Church'es judgment

carried away with every doctrine c. Eph. 4. 11 13 Her authority I say toward all such men is voided because these two the giving private men power thus to judge and then the punishing them if they do not consent or if they declare their dissent do contradict For t is saying to them I grant and teach you that when you shall judge any thing which I enjoyn you to be contrary to God's word as possibly it may be so often it is your duty not to obey me nevertheles for doing this your duty I may justly punish you by Excommunication Or 2ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points of the truth whereof she is actually certain For thus it is pleaded by some That a Church which confesseth that she may err and mislead others and upon this consideration alloweth that private men may lawfully dissent from her may yet be sure that she doth not in such and such definitions contradict Scripture and therefore may according to the power given her by God Matt. 18. excommunicate her children for preaching contrary to or dissenting from her definitions and for violating her truth and her peace and upon this ground may affirm that what she thus binds on earth is bound in heaven as a man that may sleep run mad c may yet be sure that now at this time he is awake and in his wits See much-what the same said by Dr. Hammond concerning General Councils affixing Anathema's to their Decrees Paraenes § 12. p. 158. But this plea seems to ground the Church'es power of excommunicating and consequently her subjects necessity of obeying at least so far as not to contradict her definitions not upon her authority tho she as those Judges Deut. 17. 8. may be in some things liable to error but only upon her certainty of the truth in those things which she enjoyns as it is willingly granted she or any else of some things may be certain enough But then if others obedience depends not upon her determining or commanding but upon her being certain what is said before returns again they must have some means to know not only what she commands but also when she is certain in what she commands or that she commands nothing wherein she is uncertain in which she may be still uncertain even when she saith nay even when she thinks she is certain But there being no means to know this all men again will be left to their liberty The Church of England see before § 3. hath excommunicated all that shall say any thing is erroneous either in her Liturgy or 39. Articles Was she sure that she could not possibly mistake in any of these things which she hath said there if not such her Excommunication of contradicters will be according to this opinion unlawful Deut. 17. 12. it is said The man that will do presumptuously and not hearken unto the Priest even that man shall dye Matt. 18. 17. it is said If he will not hear the Church let him be as an heathen Are these punishments lawfully inflicted only in case that such Priest and Church be certain and infallible in their judgment or that such Priest and Church do not seem to any to mis-interpret the divine law 3ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points fundamental But here the same doubts arise still For I demand Whether are you to judge or she which these are or how many Surely this is very necessary to be known If you grant that she must judge this too for you which or how many be fundamentals as Mr. Chillingworth saith 3. c. 39. § in all reason she must if in fundamentals she be acknowledged your guide and therefore he denies her to be a guide at all then this thing To how many of her decided points you are to consent lies only in her judgment And then I ask Since some Non-fundamentals are plain in Scripture and since in these Non-fundamentals if a private man may be infallibly certain of somethings as they say he may and upon this infallibility of his seems to be grounded all his dissent from the Church for in things tho not fundamental wherein he is not infallibly certain of the contrary I suppose he is also to consent to the Church'es judgment then surely the Church may be so too why should you not be here also tied to take her sentence when she saith that she is infallibly certain of them too as you do take her sentence when she telleth you how many are fundamental And if you are to consent tho it be against your own judgment in the greatest matters what reason is there you should not do it in lesser You will answer because in these greatest matters she cannot err but she may in others My reply is and may not you in others also err much more Is she to guide your judgment in the main and not in less matters Is Scripture be plain in these smaller points for you to guide your self by it is it not so much more in fundamentals why therefore relinquish you your own and adhere to her judgment in these things most plain in Scripture and then take up your own and leave hers in the rest especially when being asked your reason for this your plea is because such points are plain in Scripture But then if our Saviour as this opinion makes him enjoyns only subscription to the Church in fundamentals who sees not that it is as necessary that our Saviour should have told us which points those were els we may assent too much to her in things wherein she may err or too little in the other wherein she cannot err I mean fundamentals and so be certainly damn'd But then since tho the General Church cannot yet a National Church may err in fundamentals also and may apostatize therefore you are here according to that opinion to assume to your self to judge what points are truth and what not even in pretended fundamentals before you yeild any consent to any thing at all call'd fundamental or other which a National Church proposeth and thus a self-opinioned man may easily throw off the yoke of obedience to all the proposals of all except General Councils a thing very unreasonable And as unreasonable is that which some say on the other side That we may not contradict or oppose our Pastor or Bishop in smaller matters but may in the greater when-as indeed in these greater matters there is more reason for our obedience and far more danger if we err in our contradicting Therefore neither in Non-fundamentals nor yet in Fundamentals may we properly contradict them i. e. in opposing our particular judgment upon Scripture to theirs What then must be done you will say since our Pastors and Bishops may err in fundamentals and particular Churches may apostatize Resp. Why both in fundamentals and non-fundamentals also where any considerable doubting ariseth we may repair from them to a

further information from the Church General such as we can have and then we are to follow her judgment when evident and undisputable as many times it is and if we be Presbyters we are also to teach her Doctrines and that in not-fundamentals as well as in fundamentals tho contrary to the commands of some inferior Bishop or Council Nor is this properly our but the Church-Catholick's contradicting such a one and our obeying only her's rather than her inferior's injunctions This discours ariseth from that term Non-fundamentals put in the Quaere when-as mean-while you may observe that this curiosity of knowing precisely what are fundamentals what not presseth only one side namely that which will allow obligation of assent to the Church'es decrees only in some things not in others but it doth not concern the other side at all because they hold assent necessary to all points wherein the Church I mean the supream power in it requires it And so also 1. ancient Councils under pain of Anathema require as in some things non-contradiction so in other things consent with whom Siquis non confitetur c Anathema sit is ordinary without setting down that the point is fundamental as likewise Si quis dixerit only is used by them in other points of greatest consequence which shews that the Church expecting the same obedience to her also in the points we call not-fundamental took not such exact care to deliver them distinctly nor indeed perhaps knows how to sever all points under such a distinction To say therefore that all such points where assent and confession is required are fundamental is gratis said and as easily denied but that all such points are very profitable to salvation I doubt not 2. Again all practical points cannot be said to be fundamental but where ever the Church enjoyns any practical things under Anathema she requires more than Non-contradiction as hath bin noted already for I may not practise a thing when I do not first assent to the lawfulnes thereof In practical things therefore commanded by her to be done I either owe her no obedience at all or els more than Non-contradiction Now the ancient Councils are frequent in these but if God had given her subjects liberty not to practise such things as are enjoyned by her if against their judgment neither hath he given the Church liberty to anathematize them for thus following their conscience For I pray you consider these two Propositions how they can both agree to the Church I know God hath given order that in non-fundamentals no man shall owe me such so much duty as to yeild his assent to me or to practise what I bid him when his judgment is contrarily perswaded but only so much as not to contradict me yet I do require of those same men not only not to contradict but to consent c or els I anathematize them Certainly if in Non-fundamentals a man of a contrary judgment to the Church can be only faulty in contradicting the Church she can excommunicate none such upon any other terms but only if they shall contradict her 3. Again the Scriptures have appointed Pastors Teachers c have bidden us hear the Church he that heareth you heareth me c without limitation to fundamentals sure this obedience to teachers is not fulfilled in reserving my own opinions and in not openly contradicting or confuting theirs Sure that power of teaching exhorting reproving correcting the word of wisdom the word of knowledge given to our Spiritual Governors for the edification of the Church in truths and practices any way profitable to salvation as well as in fundamental are not sufficiently answered on our parts with the obedience of Non-contradiction of them when they shall speak any thing contrary to our sence except it be in fundamentals only i. e. perhaps in two or three points but these Scriptures oblige us to submission of Judgment either to our particular teacher or when he seems to guide us contrary to the word of God or contrary to the rest of the Pastors of the Church to his and our Ecclesiastical Superiors in whose judgment we must acquiesce and consent that we may not be tossed c Eph. 4. 14. compared with 11 as we see they are that take only their own sence of Scriptures See Heb. 13. 7. I Tim. 4. 11. I Tim. 6. 3 4. Where note that consent is not to Scriptures that were not then so common but to the doctrine of Godlines delivered by Timothy If therefore any dissent from an inferior Pastor or Council as he may upon any suspition that such goeth against the Scriptures or the Church'es doctrines he may not therefore acquiesce in his own judgment either concerning the sence of Scriptures or the sence of former times the Fathers but is to repair to his Superiors and to hear the Church then in being in all things wherein he clearly sees her opinion and in which she requires his subscription which Ch. is set for a guide to him on an hill to interpret to him the Scriptures in all controverted matters for if she be worthy to be heard in fundamentals as well agends as credends is she unworthy to be heard in smaller matters And such a Church eminent and conspicuous there always was even in the Arrian times to which Athanasius fled for succour also and with which he joyned himself and always such there will be nor will she ever be hid and who goes with her shall go with the Scriptures and with the Fathers too but whoso will go with them against her shall also lose them and vanish away in his own self-conceit If we now on the other side take into consideration the obedience of Non-contradiction much pressed by the Reformed as in many cases only due yet the limitations which they annex to it are such as leave not the matter clear to what points and from what persons such obedience-only is required as necessary For 1. it is not said by them that all men are bound even to this lesser obedience of Non-contradiction For if this were affirmed that all inferiors whether Pastors Bishops or Councils were obliged to such obedience in respect of their superior Councils it were something but as I think t is affirmed that a National Council may contradict a superior Council and so a Diocesan a National And 1. I ask Why may not then a Pastor contradict his Bishop or the Diocesan Council which the reformed will not so easily allow since this Pastor also is a teacher and an over-seer over God's flock Act. 20. 28 and if private men may so may he be infallibly certain that such a thing is in God's word and that thing too wherein he contradicteth may be very beneficial for salvation Neither is the peace of the Church disturbed more by him teaching contrary to a Diocesan than by a Bishop teaching contrary to a Provincial Synod and as other mens contrary doctrines may consist with their

union of charity as this opinion limits it excludes not all separation from a superior authority but only requires non-condemning of such authority or those that adhere to it in our separation But here methinks the words of Cassander Consult Art. 7. are of some weight where granting that the reformers did not condemn the Church from which they separated yet Non video saith he quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem in observatione tam universalium quam particularium rituum violes condemnes institutis majorum pertinaciter repugnes quod certe est contra officium charitatis qua maxime internam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est Contra officium charitatis I say if we take charity not negatively for not hating cursing damning but positively for love and amity which sure the Apostle requires in all the members of Christ especially toward their Mother the Church which charity he describes 1 Cor. 13. 4. c to think no evil and well to interpret all things and we may judge this in private amity where our love ordinarily happens to be very cold toward the person whose ways customs conditions we once hate and condemn Certainly in the many sects now in this Church of England and in the division of the Protestant from the former Church tho it be supposed all these agree in fundamentals and have all such an union of charity to one another as is mentioned before yet there is a great fault somewhere for diversity of opinions that must be answered for by some side at the day of judgment nor doth the Church seem sufficiently in charity toward those superior Church-governors whose decisions and Canons she not only refuseth but also proceedeth so far as to reject their external communion and not to admit them or the Churches adhering to them to her communion because of the faultines wherewith she chargeth such their canons and decisions 6. Lastly let this be considered which you may find more prosecuted in Tryal of Doctr. § 42. c. that tho one follow the Church in fundamentals yet by departing from her judgment in other points he may lose many wholsom advices in things practical extremely profitable and advantageous to attaining salvation Our own judgment sways us to liberty and God knows how many souls have perisht in the reformed religion by throwing away the Church'es counsels and commands tho in to-them-seeming small matters as Fasting Confession c. And that text 2 Pet. 3. 16. methinks might a little affright us wherein the Apostle saith that there are things in Scripture that are hard to be understood sure these are not Fundamentals then which we contend are plain which are wrested by the unlearned and the unstable sure he means here men not adhering to the fixed doctrines of the Church to their own not harm but destruction 4ly It is urged that the H. Scriptures have commanded that all men lest they should perhaps be misguided should try and that by the same Scriptures their teachers doctrines that so if they find these doctrines not to agree with the H. Scriptures they may withdraw their belief from them See Jo. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Cor. 10. 15. Matt. 16. 6 12. 15. 14. Gal. 1. 8 9. Esay 8. 20. In answer to this for a stricter examination of some of the texts here urged I must refer you to Succession of Clergy § c. and to Trial of Doctrines § 3. 11. c Only here this I say to them in general Trial of Doctrines by Scripture is 1. either of the doctrines of private teachers by the Church-governors of which no question is made or 2. of the doctrines of private teachers by private men and these they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves left their trial be mistaken in the sence of these Scriptures according to the exposition thereof by the Church i. e. * in her General Councils or * in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures and if thus searching we find the doctrines of the teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to withdraw our belief from them Or 3ly this trial by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i. e. of those doctrines which are delivered not by a private teacher but * by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest which we can discover or * by General or other Superior Councils or * by the Apostles or by our Saviour Himself Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two sences 1. Either in this sence Search and try my or our doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my doctrine agreeing thereto if you search aright and as you ought And in this sence the tryal by the Scriptures of the doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles St. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of Him is both allowed and recommended For since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my doctrines by the Scriptures and if you in your search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or S. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private men's searching or gave any such priviledge to it unles you put in this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostle's or the Church'es doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend searching in such a sence or upon such conditions 1. Because such a searcher or tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest ormis-education or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogation of Circumcision under the Gospel Neither can any be easily secure of his dis-ingagement from all such Letts of using a right judgment in searching 2ly Because however the search or searcher prove there are other means and mediums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witnes to a falsity one may discover

therein clearly delivered as for example that Jesus is the Lord or that he died in some sence or other as hoc dato that he is the Lord he may be certain that he is the Lord or as he may be certain of identicals And as I think one may be certain of this so I do not think that ever there was any heretick that allowed the Scriptures i. e. as we have them that ever denied any such thing in general terms for this would be to affirm contradictories both true Again since the Ch. may be infallibly certain of something in the Scriptures from the evidence of revelation why a private man may not be so too I see no reason since the Church consisteth only of so many particular men and the reasons appearing to the Church may also be clear to him Tho here I must put some difference because as there is a certainty arising from clearnes of revelation so there is another from illumination of the H. Spirit see Jo. 16. 13. which illumination is promised to the Councils of the Church but not so to particulars and for this it is I think well said that the conclusions of such Councils may from the superintendence of God's Spirit over them be orthodox when the reasons upon which they are grounded may be fallible or not proving such conclusions A private man then in some things may be infallibly certain but since he also may be mistaken not only in * very plain Scriptures by † not comparing them with other places that say something contrary to the sence which they seem to him to bear † by education in such mis-interpretations and many other thousand ways as we have much experienced of late in the Socinians and our English Sectarists both great Scripturists but also * in thinking himself infallibly certain of something there when he is not which conceit many times ariseth not from the places incapability of any doubt but from his not being then acquainted with any objections against his sence of it The chiefest signs that I know by which any one may gather that he is infallibly certain indeed when it is in any point that is controverted are these two and they are such as will litle nurse him in his opinion of infallible certainty 1. The first is that no other man or at least not the major part of men having the use of reason understanding our terms and granting all the suppositions which we do doth contradict or frame any objections against our tenet The 2d That all having use of reason c or the most that were formerly of another perswasion to whom we propose all our grounds become certain of the same thing also I say the most because it is not here altogether as it is in Mathematicks the demonstrations whereof never any that see them contradict Now that you may not think these marks of certainty too rigid see the same proposed by the Reformed against the Puritans whom they think too rashly to pretend certainty in heterodox opinions See Hook. Eccl. Pol. preface 6. sect and Bishop Laud § 33. Consid. 5. n. 1. Therefore thinking one's self certain and his not having any doubt at all of the truth of the thing he holds is no sure note of certainty For potest non subesse dubium where yet subest falsum from the ignorance of those texts or arguments which prove the contrary of what he holds And tho there may be no doubt from contrary arguments yet is the greatest reason that can be to doubt from a publick contrary judgment where the much major part of such as I have opportunity to know their opinion these having all the same evidences as my self dissent from me Now against these indications of certainty proposed by us it may be and is said That passion self-conceit pride love of contention and especially contrary education and custom in error may blind some mens judgment so as not to discern the plainest things But mark first that this is said ordinarily by a man that is singular against the contrary judgment of the Church of God. Thou that judgest another judgest thou not thy self What can be a better argument for the Church than her former customs which thou accusest to mislead her present judgment Who are liker to be clear of passion those that submit to anothers judgment or those that adhere to their own Lastly from this it will follow that we also to be infallibly certain of a truth must be infallibly certain we are not misled by passion or education in an error as well as that others may be so and this surely is very hard to know In dissent from our Pastors saith Dr. Jackson we cannot but doubt whether we have learnt as we should the precepts of Christian modesty whether learnt to deny our selves and our affections to reverence him as God's Minister taking no offence at his person whether we have abandoned all such delights and desires as are the usual grounds of false perswasion And in another place he grants that to the disobedient and those who hate the light even plain Scriptures are difficult If we cannot be resolved in these then must we doubt whether we will or no whether our doubt and scruple be of faith and conscience or of humor What Dr. Jackson saith here of doubt I may say of certainty since many also are deceived in thinking themselves certain when they are not that till we are certain that we are void of such passion we cannot be certain that we are certain c. Again t is said That in points which we must needs grant to be most certainly plain to any rational man yet some hereticks have bin of a contrary judgment as t is instanced in the Manichees and in some frantick people of late acknowledging no obligation to the practice of Christian vertues c. I answer this comes about for the most part at least by their denying some principles which others argue upon The Manichees acknowledged divine Scriptures but not such as we have them but said that our Scriptures were miserably corrupted Our Sectarists of late acknowledge our Scriptures but say they were writ for and belong only to new beginners in Christianity not to the perfect c. So likewise those that vary in their conclusions t is notable to see how much they vary also in their suppositions Some in Scripture hold those to be counsels only which others take for absolute commands some suppose those precepts temporary as I think we must needs confess that Act. 15. to be which others will needs have to be eternal some will have the practices set down in Scripture to oblige as well as peremptory precepts others not c. And upon these various grounds which others grant not every one builds from those grounds most infallible conclusions which all the world if they yeilded to his principles would also with him assert Mean-while he looking at the plainnes

of his deductions and seldom examining the soundnes of some ground which he irrationally takes for granted becomes infallibly certain as he thinks of what is indeed an error and many times a gross one But it may be said again that where we can shew none of these differences in principles yet there have bin hereticks that have gone against tenets even in fundamentals of which tenets we must needs grant that any man may be infallibly certain as the Arrians Socinians Nestorians Eutychians c. To you I may speak my opinion In all these and many more which being chief foundations we usually also call most manifest truths yet the most of Christians E will not say all are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church from time to time by which they are kept fixed and not shaken in them And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason where the authority of the Church is laid aside Certainly to name some of them the omnipresence of God not in his power but substance his certain foreknowledge of not only what may but also what shall be yet so as not to destroy mans free election Christ's non-inferiority as touching the God-head to the Father and all those particulars about the Trinity Person Natures and Wills of Christ can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture to every one that grants it to be Scripture that all men without the Church'es guidance and education in such a faith c would have bin infallibly certain of them 2. But to let these pass and suppose in private men what infallible certainty you please of them or also of many other divine truths yet in the 3d. place I do not see how from the former instances we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible certainty against the judgment of the Church of many former ages for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on their side I suppose is Communion in one kind only which hath this prejudice also accompanying it that it was practised by the Church Catholick in the publick ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation Yet I think that none will offer to affirm that he is I say not much perswaded but infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church and some precepts there only temporary not perpetual as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it * That the Church hath altered many other things not only without our complaining thereof but with our imitating her Nay further * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture but amongst Apostolical Traditions only See Montag Origin Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scripturis Infantes baptizari aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare And Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us Such as are these which follow The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scripture The Baptism of Infants Perpetual Virginity of the B. Virgin Observation of the Lord's Day The Service of the Church in a known tongue The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times even in the Eastern Churches also of giving it in one kind to sick men to Seamen to Travellers to the absents upon necessary occasions from church to those also who came to church to carry home with them that they might there reserve it in readines and communicate themselves therewith when they thought fit on those days when there was no publick communion or they hindred from it by distance danger as in times of persecution or necessary secular busines that which they carried home with them being only of one species viz. that of the bread And * these things tho so done to avoid some inconvenience I suppose the spilling and the not-keeping of the wine as also it is now yet so done without any absolute necessity for the sick can take wine sooner than bread and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling and those vessels also be first consecrated and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to Infants newly born and baptized to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary only in one kind namely that of the wine When one considers * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent in the Greek Church for all days save Saterdays and Sundays because saith Balsamon Deo sacrificium offerre they accounted to be festum diem agere in the Latin Church for Good-Friday to communicate expraesanctisicatis i. e. on what was consecrated on another day and reserved till then which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread * The great cautiousnes of the former times against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood which could not be gathered up again as the bread might in their receiving it in some places sucked up through a pipe in others by intinction and dipping only or sopping the bread in the wine a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches Again whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect communion and robbing the people as it were of the chief part of their redemption yet when he hath considered * their never questioning the compleatnes of such Communions who thus received it in one kind which it most concerned people going out of the world and some of them perhaps then first communicated for their last viaticum to have most perfect Where note also † 1. First * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so constantly believed that the use of the Cup also in publick communions was upon many abuses committed about it by little and litle in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess was only to warrant and justify the Church'es former custom against those Petrus Dresdensis the Hussites and others who then began to inveigh against it saying hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum illicitum as likewise against that custom to communicate men fasting and hence began to change it and to communicate after Supper and in both kinds And 2ly † * That some of the Reformed also

acknowledge totum Christum to be contained in and exhibited to us by any one species and by the least particle thereof See Confessio Wirtenberg Chamier de Eucharist 9. t. 8. c. our Saviour's boby and blood and soul and Deity suffering now no separation See a further proof of the things said above in the discours on this subject And lastly if he hath considered a case not much unlike i. e. the communicating of Infants wherein if the Protestants had retained a contrary custom to the rest of the present Church perhaps they might have accused the Church for changing it not with less evidence than they do in this For first the Scripture saith plainly as of Baptism he that is not born again of water so of the Eucharist he that eateth not my flesh c shall not inherit eternal life 2ly And then the Primitive times according to these precepts practised it 3ly No more knowledge and preparation is required to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism for examining ones self and repenting is required to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist therefore if such things are not required of children for the one so neither are they for the other And I could press the like in Extream Unction which suppose that we had retained and the Roman Church left off as it is contrary how easily could we have charged them for abrogating a plain Apostolical precept Jam. 5. 14 And the same may be urged concerning the great act of humility washing one anothers feet before the Communion for which after that our Saviour himself had first begun the practice thereof there seems to be a plain precept Jo. 13. 14. And so the Church'es changing the celebration of the Lord's Supper into a morning exercise and that it should be received fasting was not done without some mens scrupling it See Januarius his consulting S. Austin about this Epist. 118. c. But if we can alledge in this matter the desuetude of former Church to be a sufficient rule and warrant to us for omitting of it then why may not the same plea of the Church'es desuetude be as well by some others enlarged to some other points wherein Scripture is urged against them I say therefore if such cases as these be well considered together with the understanding and the holines of these men who after our reasons given them are not convinced by such an evidence as we pretend methinks for one to say notwithstanding all this not that he is much perswaded but that he is absolutely infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice would not consist with that Christian humility which we ought to have and to which only God gives true knowledge nor with that charge of the Apostle not to be wise in our own conceits Whereas it is noted that the more eminent in sanctity any one hath bin the more eminent obeyer and defender not opposer hath he bin of the Church'es authority A like instance might be made in that mainly opposed doctrine of Transubstantiation where as long as a possibility thereof is granted as it is by many of the Reformed and such a declaration is found in Scripture as this Hoc est Corpus meum the most literal and proper sence whereof that can be tho the most heightning this mystery is Transubstantiation of the Elements See Treat of Euchar. § 28. n. 2. and as long as this Scripture is not found contradicted by any other Scriptures but that with less force the literal expression of them may be brought to comply with it than the literal expression of it to comply with them we also adding to these the final determination of the Church long before Protestancy thought on after so long and subtle disputes for about 300 years from the 2d Nicene Council till the days of Berengarius and after so curious an examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius Bertram and others 800 years ago I do not see where a man can ground an absolute infallible certainty against it T is a dangerous case to disobey where we see others of great judgment and integrity yeilding obedience with alacrity saith Dr. Jackson And indeed I cannot but approve of that constitution of Ignatius and think him a too much self-conceited man who when he hath I say not to the Church but suppose only to three or four whom he knew wise and learned and uninterested men shewed his reasons and they have weighed them and concluded against his former opinion would not quietly acquiesce in their contrary judgments supposing no superior judgment to have prejudiced them and this especially in a point not fundamental Tho I know not how it is that when we plead our security in our dissent from the Church'es judgment we presently say that the point we differ from her in is not fundamental and that unity of faith in those fundamentals is sufficient but again when we plead the necessity of using our own judgment and not trusting or relying on any other mans we presently represent the same Not-fundamental truths as of great consequence and say the blind meaning the Church which may perhaps err in such things leading the blind both may fall into the ditch and that that ditch also is damnation I cannot conceive therefore how any man can assure himself in any thing that is not of fact or sence but that is only a deduction from Scripture and Tradition contrary to the judgment I say not of his private Pastor but of the supremest Court of the present Church that he is infallibly certain of any thing small or great Small I say as well as great for from the Church'es being liable in some things to error doth not follow any likelihood of his being infallibly certain in those things of the contrary truth but rather otherwise because t is a sign that such things are not clearly revealed and that they being dark to her will be so much more to him To confirm which add these two 1. That in Fundamentals this thing is granted That none can be certain of the contrary to what the Church defines and then that how many points are fundamental is to him uncertain 2. That amongst many tenets of the Church this is one That private men are bound in all things to yeild their consent to the Church'es decisions where they are required so to do This tenet is plain in the practice of General Councils which Councils as well for Non-fundamentals as Fundamentals and for things of practice as well as of belief have anathematized the not only contradicters but Dissenters and Non-conformists Now then unles any one be infallibly certain of the contrary to what the Church determins and that this is no fundamental point also his judgment against hers cannot be infallible in any point whatsoever where she requires submission of his judgment In prosecution of which submission of our judgment in Non-fundamentals also it is to be noted that if our submission

to the Church in fundamentals were performed from any such obedience as we confess is by the command of God's word due to her determinations then the texts which may be urged to oblige us to obedience in these points would oblige us also in others for these texts are without any limitation of our obedience to fundamentals only But indeed our not so much assenting to her as consenting with her in fundamentals seems to proceed from other motives than obedience as from this that our Saviour hath promised that the Church for fundamentals at least shall not err and from a second that all fundamentals are most plain in Scripture and therefore as they cannot be hid to us so neither can they to her and therefore in fundamentals we must necessarily both agree in which agreeing we obey not her but together with her the Scriptures Mr. Chillingworth well saw this And hence those who withdraw one of these motives as those amongst the reformed who say Christ's promise before-mentioned is only conditional i. e. if the Clergy shall do their duty or who say that Christ's promise is more general i. e. made to Christianity but not to the Clergy thereof or to any General Council those I say make nothing to dissent from any Council or any Church that can authoritatively declare her opinion To conclude this Query I do not see then how any man can be or at least can know that he is infallibly certain of any point wherein the Church'es judgment is contrary to his 4. Now next if you be not infallibly certain then tho you have never so great probability that is short of certainty for your private opinion yet I think and I think the Reformed Divines conclude that you are notwithstanding to consent to the contrary determination of the Church or Council Els if only probabilities may serve to counterpoise the Church'es or Council's authority when or where will these be wanting You have seen Mr. Hookers and Bishop Laud's and Bishop White 's opinion in Church-gov 2. part § 36. Infallib § 45. And Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. I find saying thus Our disobedience is unwarrantable unles we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express law of the most high And elsewhere he saith Every doubt or scruple that the Church'es edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's law is not sufficient to deny obedience And again In doubts saith he and I say all is but more or less doubt until we be certain it will abundantly suffice to make sincere protestation in the sight of God or before the Magistrate if need require that we undertake not such actions upon any private liking of the things enjoyned but only upon sincere respect of performing obedience to Superiors c. And elsewhere We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary Again We can no more obey than love God whom we have not seen but by obeying our Superiors whom we have seen True Spiritual obedience will bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for Authorities sake than to disobey Authority for the private dislike of the things commanded Again If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whomsoever for whosoever shews the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me the flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them and so the donation of Spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer titles You see how we plead for obedience against our own Non-conformists yet for the former Church we support our selves against her authority with having infallible certainty But the Non-conformists cease not to plead this certainty also against us But indeed this he saith here is most reasonable For if you do not submit to the Church'es judgment when you have greater probability to the contrary you never submit to her judgment at all for when ever you have not greater probability to the contrary you have either greater probability of what she saith or are in a pure equilibration and in either of these you do nothing with or for which you would not and may not also do without her Well then we may not exact of the Church that she should prove nor may not only then yeild obedience i. e consent and conformity when she doth prove to us that that is truth which she commands us to believe and that that is lawful which she commands us to do But it is our duty to obey if our selves have not infallible certainty and proof that such things are untrue or unlawful It is not enough to license us to withdraw our obedience or assent to her that she may possibly err in what she commands us unless also we know that we cannot err our selves for the power of giving our assent requires not infallible knowledge that the thing we assent to first is true but only a not knowing infallibly that it is false It is not enough that we are not certain that she erreth not not enough that we have some scruples some reasons and arguments whereby it seems to us that she erreth but only certain infallibility that she doth err this indeed excuseth our non-obedience Els our Spiritual Superiors are in the place of God and of Christ to us and we are to shew to them whom we do see and hear the humble obedience we are ready in all things to render to God whom we do not see nor hear and as we are to shew our love to God in our Neighbour so are we to shew our obedience to him in his Substitutes 1 Thes. 4. 8. compared with 2. And it is not only lawful but a great virtue in us since the contrary is most-what an effect of self-conceit and arrogancy of wisdom and knowledge as to suppress the seeming suggestions of reason and sence about natural things which suggestions are against the revelations of God and divine truths so to captivate our understandings also and crush the suggestions of any singular interpretations and sences about these divine revelations which are against I say not every private teacher but the common exposition of the Church Were then all those which are the Church's decrees acknowledged and 2ly our infallible certainty so much pretended by us so strictly examined that weak probabilities be not accepted by us in stead thereof how few would the points be in which upon our concessions we could oppose the H. Church But again were all those people that had not in these few points that infallible certainty which the others learned have as one may be certain of a thing

reason or judgment may make use of the one for its guide as well as the other and when there seems contradiction against the other it seems much more easie by our private understandings to apprehend the Councils decision than to apprehend the sence of Scripture in such points as the Council decides and many may learn for example the orthodox tenets concerning the Trinity out of the Athanasian Creed that could not learn them out of Scripture without mistaking in some of them For tho it is true that a text of Scripture may be as plain as any decrees of a Council and that as we may judge what is the sence and meaning of such a decree so we may also of such a place of Scripture yet it may be presum'd that none of these plain Scriptures will ever be found opposite to the decree of such Council for if the place be so plain and intelligible to us surely so it would have bin to so learned and numerous a Council as well as to a private judgment Again what is said in Scripture concording with the decrees of Councils yet it may be presum'd is not there every way considering the counterpoise of other Scripture-texts so plainly said Else such Conciliary decisions are vain and we must likewise say that all expositions comments catechismes are no plainer than the text and to those who read Scriptures useles For words are only multiplied without necessity where what is said before is as plain as what is said after and the authority of the first infallible Thus if the Council remained as ambiguous as the Scripture supposing the Church infallible yet those who followed her sentence could receive no more satisfaction to their doubts than they had before and the sence of the Conciliary definitions might be disputed as much as of Scripture and both sides who subscribe to the Scriptures would also subscribe to them which we ordinarily see refused FINIS Concerning Obedience to ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNORS and Tryal of DOCTRINES CONTENTS SUfficient Truth always to be found in the Church § 1. Yet false Doctors must be And their followers not safe § 2. Doctors therefore may be tried § 3. Several ways of Trial § 4. 1. By the H. Scriptures § 5. Where 1. Concerning Trials of Doctrines and Commands wherein Scriptures are silent § 6. 2. Concerning Doctrines and Commands where the Scripture seems to us doubtful § 12. 3. Concerning Doctrines c. to which Scriptures seem to us contrary § 13. 1. Where we must proceed to use a second Trial of Doctrines by the Doctors of the Church § 14. And beware of depending on our own judgment made upon the Scriptures § 14. That there is always some external Communion of Christianity or other not erring in knowledge necessary § 18. We necessarily to follow the judgment of the Church'es teachers where universally agreeing § 19. n. 1. Where divided 1. We to follow either side rather than our own judgment opposite to both § 20. 2. Of the two to follow those whom the other acknowledge to have the judgment or practice of former times on their side § 21. Where this judgment or practice is pleaded by both we to search and to follow that which we find so by our experience § 22. That this thing is not hard to be found § 23. The Fathers being not for the main either repugnant to one another or ambiguous or impertinent Where Of certain Cautions in making judgment of the tenets of the Ancients § 23. And some Church also in all ages being like the former § 30. And Heresy still either going or being thrust out of this Church § 32. And its beginning discerned by its paucity So that discreet Trial cannot mistake § 33. Who can search no further They to adhere to the judgment of the Christian Church wherein they live rather than to their own judgment against it § 36. 3. Trial of Doctrine and Doctors by the Holines those produce and these practise § 37. Where more Truth more Holiness § 38. And where more Holiness more Truth § 39. Where more Error more Vice and è converso § 40. In Churches therefore we to compare 1. the strictness or liberty of their doctrines discipline c. § 41. 2. Their abounding or deficiency in doctrines tending to Perfection § 42. 3. Their writings of Devotion § 46. 4. The Lives of their Saints or Holy men § 47. 4. Trial of Doctrines by the Conversion of Nations § 49. Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors and Trial of Doctrines THat God by his Great Apostle Jesus Christ sent the clear light of all the mystery of our salvation into the world and that Christ hath and will continue it so much as is sufficient to us by his Substitutes in the same office unto the end thereof so that we need not remain in darknes but by our own default hath bin shewed you elsewhere in Sav. Ben. p. 12. c. and Succession of Clergy p. 1. But yet 1. it seems that notwithstanding these Substitutes there shall be some false teachers and as we hitherto see not all his other enemies so neither all error put under our Saviours feet as not sin so neither ignorance yet quite vanquished 1 Cor. 13. 12. because it so seemed good unto him for whom are all things as to permit evil always to make good arise more gloriously out of it so to permit error always 2 Pet. 2. 1. the more to illustrate truth and to make the followers of truth as well as of righteousnes by these oppositions more approved for their adherence to God and capable of greater reward it being far more glorious more acceptable to have discerned held defended the truth where there was a possibility a facility a pattern an opposition of error See for this 1 Cor. 11. 19. Matt. 10. 34 35. 17. 15. Act. 20. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 20. compared with 16. c. 1 Jo. 2. 18. Luk. 2. 34. Jo. 9. 39. Rom. 9. 32. This is shewed also by experience even when there were infallible teachers there were also false ones mingled a contending for the law at Antioch Nicolaitanisme at Ephesus Rev. 2. 15 Divisions about their teachers at Corinth Circumcision at Galatia opposers of the Resurrection deniers of Christ's true Incarnation Hymeneus Diotrephes c. Else could not God at the beginning have published his truth to all Nations as well as to Abraham or spread the Gospel at first over all the world Could not our Saviour have laid the chief foundation of the Gospel so firm and evident that the whole Nation of the Jews together with the chief Priests and Pharisees and Herod and Pilat should have bin convinced thereof by their own sences in shewing himself with his wounded side and pierced hands and feet publickly at that grand Festival as formerly he had done in the Temple and in the Streets in their Palaces and Courts and

then before all the people have ascended into Heaven to God and so have sealed for ever to that whole Nation the Confession of his being the Messias and thus with a great access to his Glory on earth have prevented their so great and long Apostacy What meaned he then to appear so sparingly and in corners the doors being shut and not to all the people saith the Apostle but to some few chosen to be witnesses tho he was not here defective in what was sufficient Again could not his Spirit that hath led some have led all into all truth if he had pleased to give it to them in a greater measure How easie had it bin for our Saviour who foresaw that sharp controversie concerning observance of the Ceremonial law by Christians the maintainers of which ceremonies contended only for them because they thought Christ had not abrogated them to have declared himself openly in that point when he was here on earth How easie for him foreseeing the controversies ever since even those so many about his own person those now between the Reformed and the Roman Church to have caused instead of an occasionally-written Epistle such a Creed as the Athanasian or such Articles as those of Trent or of the Augustan Confession or such a methodical clear Catechisme as now several Sects draw up for the instruction of their followers in the principles of their religion to have bin written by his Apostles Will any one say that had such writings bin H. Scripture yet these controversies had not bin prevented or at least not in some greater measure prevented than now they are Or would not brieflier all controversies have bin prevented had our Saviour as plainly said that the Roman Bishop should regulate the faith of his Church for ever as it may be said and is said by others There must be heresies then and therefore it seemed good to the wisdom of the Father that all things should not be done that might but only so much that was sufficient whereby they should be prevented Neither is it a good reasoning This was the best way for taking away all controversy and error in the Church that the Scriptures should plainly so as none may mistake set down all truths necessary to salvation or that there should be a known infallible Judge therefore they do so or therefore there is so because this seemed not best to God for the reasons fore-mentioned and for many other perhaps not known which made the Apostle cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11 33. to take away all controversie and error c no more than it did to prohibit in the world the being of evil I know not whether Tertullian's saying in praescript cont haer concerning this matter be not too bold Ipsas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluntate dispositas ut haereticis materiam subministrarent And haereses sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum accidere non poterant But we may make good use of it in being less rash and more circumspect in interpreting especially when we are singular where we may be so easily mistaken 2ly It seems since there is supposed sufficient means for all those who are in the Church to attain to the knowledge of all necessary truth for God and our Saviour have not bin wanting to his Church in necessaries that those who blindly obey such false guides as shall be in the world shall not be free from punishment tho they offend thro ignorance See Matt. 15. 14. Ezek. 33. 8. 3. 18. 3ly There being some doctrines false and danger in being misled by them it seems all doctrines may be tried and that by all persons See Jo. 5. 39 our Saviour bidding them try his Act. 17. 11. the Bereans and Act. 15. 2. the Antiochians trying S. Paul's See to this purpose 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Rev. 2. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 15. 11. 13. And the more trial the better so it be rightly performed whereby we may discover false doctrines and teachers that we may not be seduced by them whereby we may know more of God may confirm our belief of which there are many degrees in what we are taught and may be able to give better account to others of our faith 1 Pet. 3. 15. Col. 3. 16. and whereby truth will always have a great advantage of error For verum vero consonat 4. Now seeing that all Spiritual knowledge cometh first by Revelation from God the trial of any doctrine we doubt of is to be made either by the holy Scriptures written from the beginning by men inspired by the Holy Ghost or by the Interpreters of these Scriptures and those who were ordained by these men that were inspired and who had the form of sound doctrine committed unto them viz. by the Doctors and Pastors of the Church where also the doctrines of some Doctors whose tenets we doubt of are to be tried by the rest of the Doctors of the present times or the doctrines of all the present Doctors to be tried by the writings of the Doctors of former times Trials by the Scriptures were those Act. 17. 11. Jo. 5. 39. 2 Pet. 1. 19. Trials by the Doctors of the Church those Act. 15. 2. Gal. 1. 9. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 14. 32. c. 2 Jo. 10. Now these H. Scriptures and Holy Doctors collectively taken to the not-yet-so-far-grounded and illuminated are capable of being tried too The first Scriptures and Teachers by those who lived in the same times were tried by Miracles by those who lived afterward are tried by Tradition the second Scriptures are tried by their accord with the first as also by Miracles the 2d Teachers are tried by their Ordination from the first which Teachers if we find all agreeing in one judgment we need try no further our Saviour having promised his perpetual presence with them and that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the truth taught by them 5. Now first concerning trial of our Superiors commands and doctrines by Scriptures of which there are many several ways As trying 1. Whether such doctrines or commands be contained or commanded in Scripture 2. Whether the contrary to them be contained or commanded in Scripture Again if the contrary of them be contained there 1. whether as fact only 2 or also as precept 1. Now the first of these trials seems not necessary to be used 1. For it doth not follow that it is unlawful to do or to believe a thing because H. Scripture doth not say or command it Angumentum ab authoritate non valet negative Some things both in doctrine and discipline may possibly descend from the Apostles that are not set down by them in writing and these tho not absolutely necessary which very few points are yet very useful to Salvation Timothy might hear some things from S. Paul more than are set down in his Epistle see 2 Tim. 1. 13.

of the 6th or 5th or at least of the 4th age so as to involve S. Austin c. these being the times wherein she flourished under the protection of Christian Governors more ample in her power publick in her doctrines and discipline frequent and copious in her writings active against all sorts of hereticks as also more exercised with them which the present times as enjoying still the same happines must needs and ought more to resemble than the other and to which taken in this extent ordinarily differing Churches appeal 3. That he would not think that those practices which he observes to be used in the latter of these times and omitted in the former therefore are justly to be rejected unles they be also in that sence as they are afterwards used disallowed and opposed by the former and that by the more general vote thereof For what is said of Scripture § 6. may here be said of the Church that it follows not negatively that such practices are either unlawful or unexpedient because a former age did not recommend or did not use them Therefore that he would compare the practices and tenets of the present Church not with those of every but of any age of those primitive times so not contradicted by the rest In which age if any doctrine held we may lawfully say such is no new but an ancient doctrine or a doctrine of the Fathers 4. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should find in writers of so many ages and of so many several countries no differences at all for there he will find several both † of the former of those times or at least of a many in them from the latter * As the more common opinion and practice of the more ancient times of the Church are by some quoted somewhat to differ from the succeeding in the Millenary doctrine communicating of Infants vision of God before the day of Judgment in the rarer use of Images less observance of the Reliques in Invocation of Saints in the punctuality of Auricular Confession for some sorts of sins c. Quoted I say not that the difference in these is granted so great altogether as it is by some made concerning which as to some of these particulars see what is said in Church-government § 55. but that in the more and less practice of some of them and in the commoness of the belief of other of them there may be some difference in several times So the Millenary doctrine and non-vision of God in some places and times perhaps was the opinion more common So a common practice in some times was used of communicating Infants Images in some times also were less used tho then not the use of them I mean as practised by latter ages opposed and so of the rest that follow Concerning such things see what the 3d. caution saith But observe touching such things wherein difference is named That it is either difference of practice secundum magis minus not opposition of doctrine or opposition of doctrine only in some matters of small moment or the opposition of such times not universal but only of some places or Churches others practising or teaching the contrary And † in the same times he will find many differences of those of one Church from another As of the Eastern and Western Church about Easter the Roman and African Church about Rebaptization and afterward about Superiority of the See of Rome for Appeals and so many things practised in the Eastern Churches not at all or latter used in the Western And † in the same Church he will find one party against another as Epiphanius and Chrysostom c And the same party when of a more mature judgment differing from himself as S. Austin in the busines of Free-will and Grace c. But it is sufficient if in some other differences he finds them all or by much the most agreeing in most or in many points of those which are now controverted especially points of practice which are of greater moment to render up his judgment to them in those uncontrolable and plain things wherein they consent and more is not desired of him amongst which are the contradictories to most of those hurtful opinions related below § 41. c. and not to make that fallacious induction with which many satisfie themselves * They are not sufficient Guides in this or that point wherein they differ ergo they are in none at all or not in the many other wherein they accord and in this main point especially that universal obedience is due to Church-decrees and that it is lawful in no case to desert her external communion which settles all the rest * Or they clash in this and this point which truly for the most part are things of less moment see Church-gov 2 part § 55. c. tho by the then contenders much aggravated ergo they clash in all or in almost all when-as such arguments have force only against their infallibility or absolute unanimity in all things not against their accord in those things which are more necessary and for which we have occasion to search them So whereas we find the Millenary tenet and the place of faithful souls out of heaven till the day of Judgment and Infant-Communion anciently common tenets by latter times as is thought justly rejected to be urged as a proof of no safe adherence to all common opinions and practices of former Church because in some things errable we are to consider that these besides that they never were Church-decrees in any Council nor granted to be universal are not points of such consequence as to prejudice the ancient Church her authority judgment or guidance in all other necessary matters Hear what Dr. Ferne Preface to Consider touching Reform very judiciously saith of two of them after he had made much use of those instances Having spoken saith he the intent of this Treatise I must before I leave him intreat the Reader to remember one thing in the former the error of the Millenary belief and Infant-communion often instanced-in there and to take notice that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church universally and in all the members of it may err and be infected with error in points of concernment or prejudicial to the faith For that of the Millenary as it was not universal so not of such moment and that of the In-fant-communion tho more universal and of longer continuance was but a tolerable mistake So that all errors of the whole Church by his concession are ever either not universal or not of concernment 5. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should always find in them an unanswerable reason or justification of such and such practices or tenets for this we promise not

c see Jo. 5. 36. Matt. 16. 3. that Jesus was the Messias and the Prophet whom he had promised to raise unto them like unto Moses to whom they were now to obey in all things and to hearken to none contradicting his doctrines The many expressions therefore in the Old Testament that seem to speak of a total falling away of the Priest and a failing of the Church many of which were urged by the Donatists and answered to by St. Austin and other Fathers which see more fully discoursed in Success of Clerg § either speak not of the Priests ignorance at all but vitiousnes and neglect of duty or not of their teaching false doctrines as Priests but of their making false predictions as pretended Prophets or are texts Prophetical of their falling away after the coming of the Messias or speak not of their falling into Heresy but of their open Apostatizing unto Idolatry For Heresies and Sects retaining a distinct communion in the worship of the same God and acknowledgment of the divine law in those times of the Jewish Church we find none but both the Priests and people divided between true worshippers of God and flat idolaters Here therefore the Trier had always those to whom he might safely adhere and might always clearly discern who they were 2ly Nor those that try and after it make choice of falshood are thereby excused because since there is evidence enough one way or other given of the truth they who in searching find it not are some way or other defective in their trial Perhaps because they will not try * by all those ways which God hath left to witness his truth as both by Scriptures and also by the authorized Expositors thereof but only by one way which themselves most fancy Whenas doubtles the Jew or the Berean after their search of Scriptures had not bin excused in dissenting from the Apostles or from our Saviour's doctrine so long as this doctrine was also confirmed to them by other sufficiently evident and convincing arguments besides the testimony of former Scriptures viz * by the mighty signs and wonders which our Saviour and the Apostles did thro the power of the H. Spirit given them from God * by the Resurrection of Jesus and their mission by his authority c. After which confirmation the Apostle's advice to believers is to hold to Tradition to the doctrine formerly delivered Rom. 16. 17. Heb. 13. 7 9. and to prove and try the new spirits 1 Thess. 5. 20. 1 Jo. 4. 1. that perhaps might speak under pretence of that frequent gift of prophecying which the Devil also then imitated something dissenting from doctrines formerly received as appears by 1 Thess. 5. 20. and the clause of 1 Jo. 4. 1. the one bidding that they should not altogether despise these Spirits the other that they should not altogether credit them But of the Apostles doctrines coming with such a testimony of the Spirit Gal. 3. 5. they would not have them at all to doubt pronouncing Anathema to any that should contradict these Gal. 1. 7 9. Col. 2. 6 7 8. 1 Jo. 4. 6. Which 6th verse sheweth that the first verse is meant of the Church's or others trying the spirits of private men 1 Cor. 14. 29 32. not of particular men trying the Spirit of the Apostles or of the Church And should any now not out of affection to learn and to strengthen his faith nor to know what was the reason of them but whether there be any reasons for them try the doctrines of the ancient Councils as some have lately and by the just judgment of God upon curiosity have dissented from them such trial would argue much infidelity against our Saviour's promise and his vigilancy over his Church would much offend against the obedience we owe to the decrees of the Church and against the humble conceit we ought to have of our selves Whereas on the contrary the more indisputing obedience is which is the daughter of true humility the more christian the spirit especially where one is not in a communion of a Church of a later original nor that hath professedly departed out of another Church elder than it self And if any think that such an humble submission and assent to Church-decrees forfeits the use of reason and patronizeth ignorance 1. First the same thing may be said of our assent being tied to the larger Nicene and Athanasian Creeds 2ly Again the Church's decrees are but very few if we take only the decrees of Councils and not all the Theological controversies and determinations of private Divines of any side for such in comparison of the large field of divine knowledge wherein great intellects may still freely expatiate as appears in that great liberty which we find in the Roman writers I mean the Schoolmen freely dissenting from one another in many points Which differings when-as we also urge against them they defend themselves that such are points undefined in Councils But 3ly in things defined also we must acknowledge that learning and searching all arguments for truth well consists with obedience to Church-definitions as it did with our Saviours and the Apostles inasmuch as we find those who most profess this submittance as skilful and copious in giving reasons of their faith as any others and no way laying aside the use of reason or pursuit of knowledge Even as they who from the testimony of Scripture believe there is a God yet seek arguments from the Creation and Nature to strengthen or if I may so say multiply their faith Faith both to what the Scripture and to what the Church saith being alway capeable of a further growth And as oportet discentem credere so credentem discere See more concerning this in Infallibility § and Ch. gov 3. part § 39. But next since one may be born and bred in a Church Schismatical and here also by his condition and profession not capable of making this trial by comparing his present teachers with other modern and ancient Doctors yet upon the reasons above § 20. he is in far less danger in obeying his Spiritual Guides than in steering himself and in obeying them so long as heknows none better tho they be Schismatical he is free from Schism whereas following himself he becomes guilty of a 2d Schism and being free from Schism he may attain in such Church life everlasting nor can there any doubt be made but that a pious man living in the state of Schism and free from the crime is in a far better condition than an orthodox christian living in the habit and state of sin For tho Heresy Gal. 5. 20. i. e. either an error opposit to some truth necessary to be explicitly known to enter into heaven such as that Mar. 16. 16. Act. 4. 12. or an obstinate professing in other things against the known definitions of the Church and tho Schism i. e. a factious breaking the unity and peace of the Church

such are blameable in the same degree or that all such whether less or more deniers of Christ shall at the great day be denied of him and certainly incur eternal damnation Nicodemus Joseph of Arimathea and others being to some degree guilty of this and perhaps I may add to them Naaman the Syrian yet not excluded from all mercy nay to some degree who is not so Yet who thus deny him in some kind may be such as confess him in many other as also Joseph and Nicodemus did See Jo. 19. 38 39. Jo 7. 50 51. 2 Kin 5. 17. Neither may I make the return of such a one as lives in a communion less Christian yet where Christ is professed and the true Sacraments received to the Church as necessary and his staying out as desperate as of one relinquishing heathenism suppose Victorinus or the like Austin Confess 8. l. 2. c. But doubtles such a one convinced and for motives meerly temporal staying out must needs be in a very great fault and how great we know not and on the other side he oversees an opportunity put into his hands of honouring and serving Christ through difficulties and crosses the action of his reconciliation being so much more worthy and heroical by how much the obstacles are greater Or 2ly such as are hindred c for some consideration and design meerly Spiritual as for the procuring a reunion upon a better understanding of the Church's tenets of Churches divided from It as also some reformation of some manners in the Church Catholick by which others were scandalized the best mediators of such busines being thought to be such persons as are not openly engaged on the contrary side Such seems to have bin the project of Grotius Militier if the design were not rather to reduce all Christian Churches to some union and middle complexion by every Church's relinquishing their several errors and faults i. e. such as seemed to these men to be so in every one upon some Council of them all to be assembled to compound differences In which project they seem to suppose either no Church truly Catholick and the only orthodox communion distinct from the rest as Schismatical or that they see truth clearer than she that is the Catholick and that she is not sufficiently able from time to time assisted by the Holy Ghost to correct what may be amiss within her self without the directions of others who stand without Now this to me tasts of too much arrogance and self-conceit of their own judgments in comparison of hers and also supposeth the Church Catholick fallen into deeper corruptions than can well stand with God's providence and care over her and his promises to her Or for the gaining at least from amongst Schismaticks of many more particular souls with whom in such disguise they may converse and act more freely c mean-while being real factors for the Church and themselves forbearing in some way to confess Christ only to procure a further confession of him and staying themselves without the Church-door only that they may invite the more to come in In which thing they seem to have much encouragement from the Apostle who also caught men with an innocent guil who upon occasion used ceremonies of Legal vows shaving the head purifying offering sacrifices for the persons purified Act. 21. 23. Circumcision it self Act. 16. 3. tho it in some cases and for some ends unlawful and mischievous becoming all things to all men even himself as it were without law yet under the law to Christ that he might gain the more 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21. Now for such tho I much less dare damn them than the former 8. § 1. n. for their want of the external communion of the Church yet can I no way justifie such their doing For charity must be so wise as to begin at home and we ought not any way to neglect our own souls to gain other mens Now such a one is supposed either to continue still in the external communion of a Schismatical Church or else to communicate with no Church at all If he continue still in the communion of a Church Schismatical First 1. it may be such perhaps as hath not the right use of the Sacraments in it or also is defective in some of them and in many other doctrines and comforts wholsom discipline and strict orders of the administration of which almost no Soul is so perfect but that it will have much need 2. But 2ly Suppose no want of any such thing in it yet what if all such communion be utterly absolutely forbidden For if so then this is undoubted of that we may not do the least thing that is absolutely prohibited or unlawful that all the good in the world may come thereof Now such a communion seems forbidden both by many passages of Scriptures and by commands of the Church 1. First for the Scriptures See 2 Thess. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. compared with 6. 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 17 c. 2 Jo. 10 11. Matt. 18. 17. Tit. 3. 10. Eph. 5. 7 11. some of which texts contain a strict injunction for not keeping company or conversing with wicked livers and more especially with the infidel heretical schismatical more pernicious than wicked livers even in things indifferent as eating with them c. Which injunction of the Apostle seems to be made in imitation of the former law of the Jews forbearing eating or companying with the idolatrous Gentile According to which we read that S. Austin's mother forbare sitting at table or eating with her Son when addicted to Manichean opinions S. August Confess 3. l. 11. c. Which Apostolical injunction concerning converse in things indifferent I conceive always in force 1. first where it may probably serve to do some good to those we separate from as to make them ashamed c. and that is most likely where the heretical or debauched c are few in number in comparison of the orthodox and pious Or 2ly to do some good to our selves by separating from them as when we are in danger of infection from them or also of partaking God's judgments with them But other cases I grant there may be where such Separation is not obligatory As 1. first when probably more good may come to them by our converse if there be no prohibition thereof by the Church as where the accompanying of them is used by the more confirmed in virtuous habits some way to help those who are not found yet altogether incorrigible See for this Matt. 9. 12. 2. Again when such Separation may bring more hurt to our selves to the Church c than the benefit is we can reasonably hope from it As where the most are perverted the upright few in number where much hindrance or sometimes also mischief may come to the one by it and no shame or amendment to the other Quando

and not to transgress it Now if the Church hath in a lawful Council excommunicated and anathematized such congregations surely this is a sufficient prohibition to all those who will retain any relation to her to have no fellowship at least as to the publick prayers and sacraments with them For Excommunication being an expelling of such from being members any longer of the Church's communion a fortiori is a prohibiting any who pretends to be a son of the Church from becomming a member of their communion If we may not give the holy Sacrament to them where they submit to us much less may we receive it from them where we submit to them If she will not suffer us to be mingled with them in her society much less in theirs If when they happen to come single to us we must avoid them much more may we not where they are gathered in a body repair to them If we may not joyn with them where there is also other good and orthodox society much less where we have none but theirs Now not to examin here what later Excommunications of any particular hereticks or schismaticks have bin of which every one that professeth himself a son of the Church is carefully to inform himself I wil set down some ancient Canons c for any thing I know still in force expresly prohibiting such society Concil Laodicenum held by the orthodox in the times of the reigning of Arrianism before the 2d General Council approved by the 6th Constantinopolitan Council Conc. in Trullo where as it is decreed Non oportet cum Paganis festa celebrare 39. Can. and Non oportet a Judaeis azyma accipere 38. Can. so Non oportet cum haereticis vel schismaticis orare Can. 33. and Non oportet haereticorum benedictiones accipere Can. 32. Conc. Carthag 4tum Anno D. 436. a little after S. Austin's death Can. 72. Cum haereticis nec orandum nec psallendum Can. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato sive Clericus sive Laicus excommunicetur Here may be considered also * the cautious and scrupulous practice of the primitive times in their letters commendatory called Epistolae formatae which because of the Church's careful avoiding of all mixture with sectaries were procured by those who had occasion to travel from one Church to another without which testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers c. And also * the strict separation of the Catholicks that was made from that potent division of the Arrian sect who tho in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive heresy but only omission in the Creed of some truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see what is said hereof in Church-government 2d part § 40. c. yet were the orthodox tho much persecuted by the secular powers and tho by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian assemblies tho these having the same Sacraments with them and possession of the Cathedrals and other Churches and chose rather to relinquish their Temples to pray at home to live without the Sacraments nay to be without these in their sicknes and at their death than to receive them from the Arrians See Athanas. Epist. Synodica in Alexand. Concil Ep. ad ubique orthoxos Hilarii lib. contra Arrian Basil. Ep. 293. to some Egyptian Bishops Thus much of the Church's injunctions Now such a one as intends to have any relation and interest in her must know that besides our agreement in the faith and our being in full charity with the Church Catholick as being a body consisting of our fellow-members and brethren in Christ there is also a duty of obedience to be yeilded to all the injunctions and commands of the governors thereof as of our Spiritual Fathers in Christ which none that hopes to enjoy the priviledges of a son unless so far as he is by these dispensed with may without sin and great danger to himself on his own head disown and omit For what is this but as if a son should come and say to his temporal Father from whom he hath formerly run away that he embraceth him with all inward affection is sorry for any fault formerly committed will love and honour and do all the good he can for him but that he must excuse him if that for some reasons he doth not submit to or practise his commands except only that this our disobedience to spiritual Superiors is so much the more inexcusable for that all their commands are directed to the benefit of their children so that by omitting them out of this pretence of benefiting others such a one forgoes very much profit to himself None then can be a Son to the Church unless he render himself subject to her laws as well as affectionate to her practices Now of her laws the yoke of which if he reverence and bend to in some things he must not shake off in others non-communicating with Sectarists seems to be one and very considerable In which if some dispensations for good ends may be given by her yet none can be given by her for so far as the Scriptures have restrained us yet till such grant obtained from her he stands obliged to her commands Which grant from her if there were no other motive this is enough to obstruct that it is liable to be made use of instead of zeal to convert souls to many unworthy ends of serving our temporal interests and protecting a spiritual cowardise an avoiding of the cross and a not confessing of our Saviour before men contrary to Matt. 10. 27 32 37 38 39. See before § 8. n. 1. But laying aside this command of separating himself from schismaticks if he will be counted a Son he is to live conformably to all her other injunctions Now some and not a few of these are such as involve an outward communion with the Church And also many other of her injunctions see below § 14. which do not involve it if strictly observed by him wil quickly render him uncapable of any disguise to what party he belongs and bring the same jealousies and temporal inconveniences upon him which follow a publick reconciliation and which to avoid he yet stays out of the Church only with this difference that he shall incur likewise the odious aspersion of hypycrisie and dissimulation with which an open professor cannot be reproached And indeed setting aside any Church-command of such separation yet-a dissimulation or compliance tho it proceed not to the practising any thing in the matter of God's worship against our conscience yet that ventures so far as to use that sacred ceremony which is taken to be the greatest tessera and symbol of communion and by which all the world publish and distinguish their religions with those from whom he so much dissenteth and disalloweth I say a dissimulation that proceedeth so far seems to be

thereof especially for what concerns the publick and solemn worship of God. Consider the Article of our Creed of which Creed we pretend a constant and publick confession that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolical i. e. one external visible communion upon earth that always is and shall be such but how is this sufficiently attested and professed by any who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it Such denying of the body of Christ before men seems to be next to the crime of denying before men the Head himself But chiefly there where this Church the Spouse of Christ happens to be under any disgrace or persecution our taking up the cross with her may be much more acceptable to God than the conversion of souls and the doxology of confessing him and her beyond our other best service See particularly that command of the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. Now if it be said that some of these texts fore-named are not to be understood as strict precepts always for avoiding sin but counsels only for attaining perfection yet thus also every generous Christian will think them prescribed for his practice Again consider that as both many Divine and Ecclesiastical commands from which I see no just authority any one hath to exempt himself at pleasure cannot be observed in our adherences to another communion so neither can they in our absence from the true Church For how then do we observe the publick intercessions commanded 1 Tim. 2. 1. publick teaching and exhortations c recommended by the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. Col. 3. 16. frequenting of the Sacraments 1 Cor. 11. 17 24. Confession and Absolution as need requires For the necessity of which Christ hath substituted some officers to be made use of from time to time for heinous sins committed after Baptism in his stead Jo. 20. 21 23. as likewise to guide and govern in all Spiritual matters those who pretend to be his sheep to withdraw our selves from whom is to withdraw our selves from Christ in a subordination to whom all must live Eph. 4. 5 11 12. Heb. 13. 17. and God tolerates no Anarchical persons in religion Add to this the benefits of the publick prayers and intercessions and oblations of the Church which such a one acknowledging himself a member thereof seems to his great loss to be deprived of As for that internal communion with the Church which some excluded from the external may nevertheless enjoy or the security in the actual want of participation of the Sacraments that such may have they seem no way appliable to such a person as this who is not by force hindred of her communion but invited to it voluntarily depriveth himself tho the reasons he hath in the doing thereof seem to himself never so plausible To partake the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing where de facto we may have them and de facto refuse them and where in case of necessity votum signifies something yet t is probable that to such a one necessitated the actual reception of them would have bin more beneficial could he have obtained it There seems to be no small danger in a silly sheep's staying out of the fold when invited and offered to be taken in and that without leave of the shepheard tho upon a to-himself seeming good design But yet supposing such leave indulged to any I see not at last what advantage can be made thereof but that all the scandals all the jealousies all the secular inconveniences or also disappointments of Spiritual designs that can happen to one actually reconciled to the orthodox communion will happen to one after absenting himself wholly from a false From which sequestring himself the ordinary jealousie that useth to be in religion will conclude that he who is not with them especially where many secular advantages accompany it is against them And whereas our conjunction with the true Church may be done with much privacy this desertion of theirs is the thing most liable to discovery Lastly since he that now is of no external communion at all was before a member of an unlawful one and perhaps there not only seduced but also a seducer of others or at least culpable of many misbehaviors toward the Church so much the more cause he hath with what speed he can to fly into the bosom thereof both because so he may procure his own safety and pardon and by an open subscription to truth and unity make an amends for his former error and division if he have bin any way consenting thereto and also because the truth c will receive a greater testimony and honour from one that publickly converts to it after educated first in error than from many that from the benefit of their first institution and breeding continue in it to some of whom a right opinion may be rather their good fortune than their choice The summe of all is The case of one's stay after such full conviction in the external communion where he is or of his staying out of the other who stretcheth forth her arms to receive him tho upon never so pious pretences is doubtful his reconciliation safe therefore this rather to be chosen and as for the good he hoped to produce God is able and either will otherwise by lawful means effect it or is not willing it should be effected and mean-while will rather accept of our obedience than of much sacrifice Note that in this discours I speak of a Church certainly Schismatical and of men after all convenient means of information diligently used fully convinced thereof and amongst these chiefly of such as in purposing some good ends to themselves intend to continue always or for any long space of time either in their former communion or out of the orthodox not of such as convicted are removing all impediments as fast as they can to unite themselves to the Church But 1. first concerning Churches schismatical I apprehend not Schism to be of such a latitude as that there cannot be any difference especially between Churches wherein are divers Apostolical Successions suppose the Eastern and Western the Grecian and Asian and the Roman Church before a General Council hath decided it without such a crime of Schism and violated unity of the Church on one side that all good men therein are presently obliged to render themselves of the opposit communion And 2ly concerning conviction I think men ought to take heed of being any way hasty which may proceed from a natural ficklenes of mind and over-valuation of things not tried to desert that Church wherein God's providence hath given them their education and which hath taught them the word of God and first made them Christian and which as t is said in the Law concerning possession Quia prior est tempore potior est jure i. e. caeteris paribus to desert the Church I say without much conference with the learned much weighing of reasons much study of Theological

communion cannot be concealed or if it can then may also our conjunction to a new society nay this much more easie to be hid than the other So that I suppose few cases will happen for which after the one done the other should be deferred 2ly If such cases should be put for a heathens deferring Christianity I think many of them cannot justly be allowed See 1 Cor. 7. 20 21. many converts professing Christianity when servants and probably some of them having infidel masters And I think every one is obliged to a more speedy return as the defection wherein he lives is more impious and perillous and opposit to true religion tho he must pass thro many temporal misfortunes to make this escape They saith the Apostle of the teachers complying out of fear of suffering from the Jews Gal. 6. 12 14. constrain you to be circumcised only lest they i. e. if they did not observe the Jewish customs should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. But God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom I am crucified unto the world And happy he who embraceth and rejoiceth in all occasions given him of bearing this cross and suffering chearfully the loss of means friends good name employments and whatsoever is here gain unto us for Christ's sake and the profession of a good conscience My brethren count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations Jam. 1. 2. because if we here suffer with him we shall also hereafter reign with him And that here we might suffer with him he came not to send peace but a sword and that a man's enemies should be those of his own houshold even father and mother and he that loveth any of these more than him is not worthy of him and he that taketh not up his cross and followeth after him is not worthy of him and he that confesseth him not before men him will he deny before his Father and his holy Angels in heaven In this discours it hath bin all along supposed That the Church is ready to entertain and invites this person convicted of Schism to return into her bosom So that all the aversnes hath bin on his side But now what if such Church admits entrance to none but upon their subscription to all her doctrines and engaging conformity to all her discipline and publick practices And then for some points of her publick doctrines or practice what if it be against the conscience of such a one to subscribe or conform to them Ought he not then to continue still in his former communion tho thought by him Schismatical or at least to be content to live out of her communion whom he thinks to be the Church Catholick To this having many Queries involved in it I have many things to say 1. No man may do any thing at any time against his conscience or which he is perswaded without doubting he ought not to do therefore if it be absolutely against his conscience to subscribe any thing whether truth it be or whether it be error he ought not to do it But let none please himself too much in this liberty for tho he shall thus in refusing to subscribe escape the sin of lying and hypocrisie yet if his conscience happen not to be rightly informed he may remain nevertheless guilty of schism and heresy See Dr. Ham. of Schism 2. c. 8. § where he saith That if the doctrines proposed as a condition of her communion by the Church be indeed agreeable to truth but yet be really apprehended by him to whom they are proposed to be false and disagreeable tho it be in this case hard to affirm that a man may lawfully thus subscribe contrary to his present perswasion yet it being certain that he who thus errs is obliged to use all probable means to reform and deposit such his error as long as he remains in it he is so far guilty of sin as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance and being obliged to charity and peace as far as it is possible and in him lies he cannot be freed from offending against that obligation to preserving peace and charity if he do not communicate with those the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful and therefore such a man tho acting according to his present perswasion is or may be in several respects criminous And afterward he saith Which way soever such man turns he is sure to sin the worst and most unhappy kind of strait he remains in error and schism on the one side i. e. in not subscribing and by flying from that he advanceth to lying and hypocrisie on the other So then one following his present perswasion may be notwithstanding guilty of Schism in refusing the Church's communion 2. Subscription to the contradictory of what I am infallibly certain is truth or conformity to any thing which I am infallibly certain is unlawful may not be made for this must needs be contrary to ones conscience 3ly Upon exclusion out of the Church in these or any other cases one may not therefore anew joyn himself to or longer continue in any communion he grants schismatical but is rather to forego the external administration of the Word and Sacraments and enjoy no external communion at all See 13. § 4ly No Church there is tho pretending never so much indulgence but that requires subscription from some persons at least to her publick Constitutions and Articles even tho such Church confesseth her self in these liable to error And the Church of England in particular in her 5th Canon excommunicates any who shall say that any of her Constitutions are contrary to the word of God and that is who shall say that any of them concerning divine matters is false or erroneous or not true See more of this in Submission of Judgment 5. § higher than which no Church can easily go And therefore if such subscription should be strictly required one revolted from the Roman Church and coming to render himself of her communion shall find as difficult an entrance thereinto as we complain is into theirs 5ly It is considerable That such Subscriptions in the Church Catholick are only required to the Decrees of her General Councils not to the tenets of private Doctors 6ly The Church Catholick as we imagin this Convert supposeth that Church in whose communion he desires to be in these her decrees for all points necessary to salvation is granted see in Ancient Church-gov 2. part § and Infallibility § 3. to be infallible and so in these can require Subscription to no error 7ly For as much as respects other points meerly speculative and not of like necessity to be believed or known if Subscription be required of us only for acquiescing to and not gain-saying them as certainly to many of her proposals and that under pain of anathema she requires no more the disturbers of her peace in smaller

be justly supposed by any therefore to justifie all their Acts Laws Injunctions or Censures whatsoever no more than from my peaceable obedience to my temporal Prince will any such thing be collected Suppose the Church pronounceth an Anathema on all those who do not believe her decrees yet can none hence justly conclude That every one that is in her communion believes them unless we are certain that every one doth what another requires who doth not quit all relation to him who requires it Neither have her Anathema's being universally pronounced more force upon nor are they more to be feared by one when he is now within than when he was before without her communion or than they are to be feared by all those who continue still without the further any one runs from the Church he the more justly incurring her censures Neither reasonably may those thro the Kingdom of France after the conclusion of the Tridentine Council who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church or Father Paul the Venetian who writ the history of that Council dying also in the same communion be therefore presumed to have assented or subscribed to all the decrees thereof Doth the 5th Canon of the Church of England bind all tho Non-Subscribers to forsake or not to enter her communion who think some one thing she saith not agreeable with the Scriptures for fear of their giving scandal by being thought to believe such points Did the many false doctrines of those who sat in Moses's chair and ruled in the true Church of God therefore warrant the Samaritan discession from the Church Consider well Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 10. 5. We may not being in her communion openly gainsay the errors of a Church such as are not fundamental as all I think grant how much less may we quit her communion for them And if one may not leave that which he imagines the true Church for such faults or defects neither may he forbear to return to it And if a member of a Church may not disturb her peace in an open speaking against some things he supposeth to be errors in her but not fundamental now for erring in fundamentals the true Church of Christ is secure and in the Protestants opinion the Roman Church doth not err in any such upon this pretence because else some may be scandalized as if himself also held such errors why may not one likewise enter into the Church's communion without an obligation of declaring against her supposed errors for fear of giving such scandal And indeed upon such terms i. e. of fear of giving scandal no man may be of any communion wherein he thinks any one untruth is held and then by being of none shall he not give more scandal as if he denied there to be on earth a Catholick and Apostolick Church to which he may securely joyn himself He that may not pass over to another Church because she hath some in his opinion errors may not stay in his own if he imagines the same of her But mean-while he that takes such offence may perhaps too magisterially accuse a Church of errors who 1. first ought not hastily to conclude especially the decrees of Councils to be untruths unless he be infallibly certain thereof And if he be so yet 2ly ought he not to be offended at anothers submission to the Church that holds them unless he knows also that the other is infallibly certain of their being errors But yet 3ly from the others submitting he cannot indeed gather so much as that such a ones private opinion in all things is the same as the Church's doctrine is but only this that such a man's judgment is that he ought to submit as much as is in his power his contrary reasons or opinion to her wiser and more universal judgment To conclude No man may neglect a duty for fear of giving some scandal or of having his actions by some weak men misconstrued For t is only in the doing and forbearing of things indifferent that we are to have an eye to scandal Now our communion with that which we suppose to be the Church Catholick must needs be a duty and that a high one Of which S. Austin saith so often see 5. § That there can be no just cause of departing from her Therefore either she errs not at all in her decrees or else we may not desert her communion because therein are maintained some errors tho some upon these be scandalized that we still abide in it I add as no just cause of departing from her notwithstanding such errors so no just cause of not returning to her when she is willing and ready to receive him By Him I mean here as likewise in the rest of this discourse such a one as tho he scruples at some of her in his conceit errors yet is perswaded that that Church to which he desires to joyn himself is the truly Catholick Luk. 9. 59 c. And he said unto another Follow me But he said Lord suffer me first to go and bury my Father Jesus said unto him Let the dead bury their dead c. Another also said Lord I will follow Thee but let me first go bid them farewell which are at home at my house And Jesus said unto him No man having put his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God. FINIS PART I. §. 1. 1. Concerning Faith necessary for salvation 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith. §. 2. 1. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of faith 1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe what ever is known by us to be Gods word §. 3. Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be Gods word which knowledg obligeth us afterward to belief §. 4. §. 5. §. 6. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal §. 7. §. 8. §. 9. §. 10. 2 That it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is God's word be known by us to be so or in general known by us to be a truth Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all 〈◊〉 points very few §. 11. §. 12. §. 13. Not easily defined In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large §. 14. 2. Other points only highly advantageous to salvation that they be known 3. Yet our duty each one according to his calling to seek the knowledg of them §. 15. In respect of these the Apostles Cre●d too narrow §. 16. §. 17. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons c. And the decrees of Councils not obligatory at least to some against a pure nescience but opposition thereof and not any opposition but only when known to be their Decrees §. 18. §. 19. §. 20. PART II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether Infallibility that the matter of such Faith is a divine truth

charity to other Churches i. e. with not condemning them to be no Churches so may his Considering these things may not such a one say Whether it is better to obey God than men judge ye 2. Again I ask If the power in the Church of Excommunication of private men binds them not to contradict her why doth not the same power in superior Councils to excommunicate Bishops and to annul the acts of inferior Councils bind such inferior Councils also to Non-contradiction 3. Again the obligation of Non-contradiction of private men to their Bishop or to his Synod in not-fundamentals will signifie little because an Episcopal or a National Synod may err in fundamentals and the judgment of this Synods erring in a fundamental is by the reformed left not to It which will never judg such a thing to be but to its subjects and they may misjudge a point not-fundamental to be fundamental and so may break their due silence neither can there be of this any remedy For none hitherto have contradicted the Church-decisions but they have made that which occasioned their contradicting to be a thing of great consequence Here therefore again in the yeilding of our obedience of Non-contradiction to a Provincial or National Church the Queries concerning Fundamentals will return Who is to determin what are such both for agends and credends which it is extream necessary to know that in such we may be sure to vindicate God's truth against that particular Church wherein we live Is not idolatry an error against a fundamental truth and doth not the Roman Church then err in fundamentals in worshipping bread as the Protestants think they do for Christ So that tenet of the Greek Church à Patre per filium is said to destroy the Trinity and so the Lutheran's Consubstantiation is said by consequence to destroy Christ's Humanity the Trinity and Christ's Humanity fundamental truths In such points and the like therefore none must be tied in obedience to their Bishop or Church-National to a Non-contradiction 2ly In respect of the Church in general the obedience of sole-Non-contradiction is limited by the reformed as we have said before to Non-fundamentals wherein the Church may err whereas in fundamentals wherein this Church cannot err here they also allow an obedience of assent But I ask again Who shall determin both in credends agends which are fundamental And why in these fundamentals especially are we wished in our judgment to conform to the Church'es since these are the points most clear in Scripture and such as without the Church'es direction we cannot mistake And methinks those places of Scripture concerning Tryal of Doctrines which we have learnt to turn against the injunctions of the Church hold as well or more for trying her Doctrines in Fundamentals than in any thing els because the rule by which we try is the most plain in these points Again I ask Are all the necessary consequences of fundamentals to be accounted fundamental If so then who knows how far these points may extend in which we are to consent to and not only not-to-contradict the Church'es decisions 3ly This obedience not of yeilding assent but solely of Non-contradicting is allowed and secured by the reformed only to those persons who upon examination of Scripture and Tradition are certain of the contrary surely then it must extend to very few persons and in very few things for how few are there that are able to compare the Scriptures or search Traditions Therefore the Scripture seems to make rules of our obedience to our present Spiritual Governors as if we were void of writings and not according to the extraordinary skill and learning of some few that are not rulers but according to the general capacity and knowledg of the flock of Christ. 1. Therefore it were well if these men who would not have their own knowledge restrained by authority would yet let the people know That only those who by long studying the Scriptures and Fathers have arrived to infallible certainty are tied only-to Non-contradiction to the Church-decisions but that all the rest to assenting For doth it not make our hearts yet to bleed to see so many thousands of the common people amongst us upon this mistaken priviledge even to disbelieve and not to yeild consent to the Church in fundamentals 2. When this is done how few are there of the learned that can say they are certain without some doubt that what the Church proposeth is false Are not all the rest then who are not infallibly certain to be taught that they must in Non-fundamentals subscribe to the Church-decisions Why labour we then more to free then subjugate mens judgments 3. But then for a private man's being infallibly certain upon which the reformed opinion seems to build much methinks this concession of the Scriptures which he reads to be the infallible word of God is not enough for his certainty almost in any point because there must be a comparing of Scriptures and a not interpreting of some places so that other places contradict and because the sence of the words may be diversly taken tho he were to judge only of one place by it self Besides there are many degrees of seeming certainty and t is hard to know when it is a presumption only and when a true certainty That men are ordinarily deceived in making this judgment is plain because two contradicting one another will often both affirm that they are infallibly certain The thinking ones self infallibly certain mostwhat ariseth from knowing no objections of any difficulty to the contrary which objections as one afterward discovers so his former certainty by degrees abates Hence we see the greatest Scholars many times dubious when the ignorant are either certain or strongly confident Four texts of Scripture that seem plainly to say a thing make one sure as it were and then two texts suggested to him that seem to say the contrary reduce him to doubt and make him begin to deliberate of the sense of the former I speak not this to affirm we are certain in nothing at all but that we have almost always reason to doubt where the same certainty that we have appears not to others But then if private men may be infallibly certain much more may the Church and so many Doctors be so they also all agreeing in their certainty So that all proofs of certainty to be had in divine truths rather strengthen the argument for obedience to the Church And she deals but with us in our own kind if she plead infallibility to require our submission to her even in Non-fundamentals as we do plead infallibility to avoid it As for those objections which the Reformed opinion makes 1. That possibly a National or Provincial Synod may or also hath broached some new mischievous tenet the contrary to which tenet neither the Creeds expresly nor former Councils have decreed into which error therefore my too secure obedience may betray me

I answer That from this judgment of such a Church so often as it is suspected by me I will not retreat to my private judgment but I will appeal to a more general judgment of the present Church which judgment I can either have conjunctim or divisim as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time and by the reformed opinion I shall be secure if I part not from the present Church for in fundamentals she shall in no age err but hold forth to me visibly the truth and if this error be in Non-fundamentals it amounts not as the reformed say to a heresy therefore will I still cleave to her i. e. the present Church and the supremest Authority I can find therein neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures or Fathers against her because she cannot be at least in points of great consequence opposit to them And if that religion as it might have bin had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2 and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures nor writings of Fathers then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church neither needed she for this to have bin made more infallible than now she is and doubtles my faith should have bin nevertheles sufficiently grounded i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her neither could any have made an argument that my faith was not salvifical for this reason because fidei non potest subesse falsum for she must then in defect of all writings have bin confess'd the pillar and ground of truth and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. the same then must she be still and Nations now as at the first before writings are still converted by her by her preaching before they come to peruse those Scriptures And so are we all also taught our faith first by her neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers But yet besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority any help that is from these writings enjoyed by any other is also by her that no body may boast over her in these advantages 2. It is objected That our faith to be salvifical must be grounded on something that is infallible and therefore only on God's word See this answered at large in the Treatise of Necessary faith § 43. c. Surely the Church groundeth her faith which she recommendeth to us on the Scriptures as well as private men think they do theirs when they leave hers to follow their own judgment And if the Church'es judgment is not neither is their own infallible for which they desert the Church'es But tho it is most true that true faith is always grounded on the word of God which word of God is infallible yet is it not necessary that every one who hath true faith do know that it is infallible or be infallibly certain of it For many have saving faith doubtles that learn this word of God only from a fallible man suppose from their Father or from their Pastor Neither is it necessary that this faith should be received from another person infallible besides God nor that it should be received from a writing at all There may be a strong adherence beyond evidence neither can it be unsufficient if it be so strong as to produce obedience to God's commands 3. T is said That one is for his salvation secure enough where ever these two are Unity of faith with the Church in fundamentals and then Charity toward the Church in the points not-fundamental wherein I disagree from her Charity i. e. not condemning her for them to be no Church c. I answer 1. First such a one must know well what are Fundamentals that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations Heb. 6. 2. if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth I know not how many other points may be brought in And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism Bishops Ordination c. 2ly Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith than only in fundamentals unles all points of faith be fundamental and if so then Churches that differ in any point of faith differ in fundamentals 3ly If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides doubtles are set over us to build us up in the unity also of this faith and not only of fundamentals See Heb. 5. 11. c. 6. 1. And therefore why Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13. should be restrained only to fundamentals as it is by some it seems to me strange I cannot think that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals see 1 Cor. 1. 4. c and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions and exhorts them to be all of one judgment which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment each one of their private reason but of the Apostle and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 18. Rom. 15. 5 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where speaking the same thing and being joyned in the same judgment contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind glorifying God with one mind and one mouth c. argue an unity required not only of charity but of opinion and judgment and that not only in fundamentals in which as I said all the factious Corinthians or most of them accorded but other beneficial truths which union how could so many judgments undependent of one another attain but by all of them retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor or Pastors 4ly If these points wherein the reformed recede from the authority of superior Councils be not very necessary tho not fundamental how can a separation for them be justified but if necessary why should we say that God requires not an unity of faith in them 5ly Again as faith and charity secure not our salvation if we be guilty of some other vice adultery c so they do not secure it if there be any denial of obedience where t is due especially to the Church disobedience towards whom is in a more special manner disobedience to Christ and to God himself and why may not this then endanger us if God hath provided teachers to keep us in the same judgment and we to the great hurt both of the Church and of our selves too by these divisions will every one follow his own judgment especially since