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
applies a divine revelation which really exists in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith The reason of this seems clear because altho a truth which I know only by probable assent is not certain to me yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that time for which it is c. Thus he The sum of which is That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent but only from God's concourse See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36 37. de resol fid saying the like 2. Again in the 2d place it may be inferred * That receiving of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not necessary to true faith or * That one may truly believe some who doth not believe all the points of faith which the Church proposeth or any for or upon her proposal or lastly * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof I willingly grant here 1. first That he who believes aright any divine truth must believe that it is revealed by God or that God hath said it and That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God can believe no other thing at all as he ought that is as from divine revelation he must believe all such or none at all aright 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation as of the Scriptures or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition I accord that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God but such as he knows to be proposed to him by the Church or Tradition to be such either immediately in her exposition of obscure Scriptures or mediately in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture and therefore that who denies this authority in some points suppose in those points where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points according to the Schools Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae i. e. in omnibus quae proponit omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult quae non vult non tenet non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae sed propriae voluntati But note that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati because he may hold such tenents not quia vult but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point That Scripture is God's word So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture because containing something opposite to their opinions could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest because that Scripture they refused came recommended to them by as much and the same authority as that they accepted But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition because for the former concession it is one thing to believe such a truth to be divine revelation another to be rationally assured thereof the first we grant is the second I think we have proved not to be necessary to all true faith For the second tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit nor upon that principle can believe one thing unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe as I think is before-proved And hence it follows that one may truly believe some other points of faith who doth not believe this point in particular That the Church or Universal Tradition is infallible Thus much * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in every believer to render his faith true divine and salvifical * and of the erring in some one article it s not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest But to conclude this Discourse Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed 1. First that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense that is in rendring his faith in other points tho not false yet non-salvifical to him 2. Again he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church known to him to be so in some point not absolutely necessary I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation as some points there are so necessary tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife yet this opposition in that error is by the common doctrine of the Church accounted so great a crime as that unrepented of it renders his true faith being destitute of due obedience and charity unprofitable for his salvation which I thought fit here to mind you of that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries as long as he stands tho in some as he accounts smaller points after sufficient proposal in opposition and disobedience to the Church i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters See before § 50. 3. And lastly if this Article of Faith That the Church'es authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed or at least so supreme that none may in any wise dissent from her determination can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation to be by every Christian believed then since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article it must follow That every one that opposeth the Church is also from his disbelief of this Article excluded from salvation FINIS OF INFALLIBILITY CONTENTS PART 1. COncerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed § 1 2. 1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant writers § 3. Where How far points necessary are to be extended § 4. That the Church not private men is to define what points be necessary § 6. If these points be necessary at all to be defined and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals § 7. 2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all § 8. 3. Infallibility Universal in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth is not affirmed by the Roman writers §
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