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
all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures our Saviour's promise c. delivered there and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible because this is one of her traditions or doctrines is granted even by some of the Roman writers to be a circle See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9. c. Non audentes fidem divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali i. e. in universal tradition and he gives the reason because they cannot be perswaded quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltant c. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it than this of Mahomet If he should first write a law which tells the people that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth and then prove to them that law to be or to say to them an infallible truth because he delivers it A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition that Scriptures are the word of God otherwise to men as to Protestants supposing the verity of Scriptures tho unproved by the Church t is no circle if any one suppose a Catholic from them being granted attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility tho the same Romanist also doth affirm that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church'es testimony or from tradition Only where both these Scripture and Church-infallibility are denied neither can be proved by the other till one is either supposed as true or proved by some other medium which medium is received to be tradition and if so then I say there can be no more certainty that the Church is infallible than that certainty which lies in universal Tradition 2. And secondly the same may be said for Scriptures which being supposed to be infallible because God's word yet if they are proved only by the same tradition to be God's word all the certainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradition For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath Again suppose I were without tradition infallibly certain that such Books are God's word yet can I not for all this quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith For my faith being grounded not on the bare words but sense of those books and the sense of the same words being divers especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary notwithstanding this clearnes become very ambiguous and that in some necessary points of faith as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and matters of faith to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity Grace and Free will Justification c. upon which first known I must ground my faith I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word Here therefore tho the Scripture for the Words should not yet my Faith for their Sense would have a dependance upon and repair unto universal Tradition and where-ever the Sense is doubtful to me as the Scriptures may be doubtful to one where perspicuous to another the chief certainty I can have for that Sense which my Faith ought to embrace will be from the universal Church-tradition Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore on which as the Final assurer of the Scriptures or of the Church'es Infallibility the act of Faith must rest let it be granted 1. First without disputing whether it be absolutely infallible because it is needles to the stating of our business That there is in it certainty or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon For tho t is willingly assented to that Tradition being in its nature a relation of a thing gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible for t is not absolutely impossible for all men in the world from the beginning thereof till this time to have lied in every thing they have said but yet he were no ordinary mad-man that upon this nonimpossibility would believe no relation at all only because t is not absolutely impossible that they may err and himself hit the right yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein or else that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures that they are God's word Which granting that some few learned and studied men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture yet for this the most of men especially as to some of the books thereof depend on the certainty of Tradition And indeed it were impious to affirm that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledg of good and evil upon which our eternal happi nes is to be acquired or misery sustained or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths whereby we are to direct our lives to that end for which he hath created us But this can be assigned no other at least to most men than Tradition Therefore it is the interest of all Christians as well those who submit themselves only to the Scripture as those who submit also to the Church unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty therein lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathematical or sensible demonstration they be made Scepticism and Quodlibets 2. But 2ly we must either hold certainty in Tradition or that we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent Yet transfer this discours to any other temporal matter and who can wish to be more sure of any thing than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them As for example that there is such a City as Paris or was such a man as Henry the 8th But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters that are of the same distance of time from us there seems to be much more certainty in that the providence of God hath appointed a selected company of men successively in all ages to be the Guardians Conservers Divulgers thereof to the world for ever 3. Lastly if this Tradition and the doctrines we acknowledge divine were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men not in all but some determinate time and place see Christ's Ben. p. 35. say how posterity can receive these from any other evidence unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven Christ's preaching miracles death to be presented before us and that before every one of us excluding all relations from others because these may be fallible But such a ground of our faith destroys the nature of faith and it
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
§ 14. Church-Governm 2. part § 36. c. It remains then that I go on to shew That where we have not this infallible certainty God hath obliged men to submit their own opinion to and to acquiesce in the judgment tho fallible of those Superiors whom he hath appointed to guide them and so per accidens hath obliged them to believe a falsity so it be not certainly known to them to be false or as you say to obey another in any thing right or wrong so long as it is not certainly known to them to be wrong and so long they know not but that it is right and that under pain of sinning against their duty Obliged them I say not only for opinions but actions which depend on their opinions For note that if we owe no obedience of assent to any judgment fallible lest they teach us something untrue neither owe we to them any obedience of our actions lest they command us something unlawful or also lest we act something contrary to our conscience which we never may Again To their Superiors I say if so be that they have no other higher Superiors in respect of whom the authority of the inferior is always voided whom in their doubtings they can repair-to and consult as in respect of General Councils tho they should be fallible we have not a superior Director 1. First for such obedience due not only to the supreme Synods or Courts but also to inferior Spiritual Governors fallible see the express divine command in many Scriptures Heb. 13. 7 9 17. whose faith follow Eph. 4. 11. c. Pastors and Teachers sent that we might not be carried away with other doctrines than those which they deliver Matt. 18. 15. c. We appointed to hear the Church upon penalty of being treated like Heathens and of being bound as on Earth so in Heaven Acts. 20. 28 29. The clergy appointed Episcopi to feed the flock that must be amongst other things surely with their Doctrine which is the Spiritual nourishment of the Flock not to be refused Luk. 10. 16. He that hears them hears Christ and the despiser of them despiseth Christ. To which may be added all those texts which authorize Ghurch-Governors to judge controversies and inflict their censures upon false teachers and spreaders of errors 1 Tim. 4. 11 -6 3 5. Tit. 1. 11 -3 10 11. Acts 15. 2. c. 1 Tim. 1. 20. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 17 18 -4 14 15. Rev. 2. 2 14 15 20. 1 Cor. 14. 29 32. Again all those texts wherein Christians are exhorted to note and avoid those that cause divisions Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2 Jo. 10. Again those texts also wherein Christians are charged to be all of one judgment which cannot be but by adhering to the judgment of some one person or assembly to speak the same thing Not to be wise in their own conceit 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 -15 5 6. Phil. 1. 27 -3 16. Again those texts which require Christians to acquiesce in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superior who is not only the Apostle but the Apostles Successors to the world's end 1 Cor. 4. 16 17. 11. 1 2. Phil. 3. 17. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. With which Successors is left the charge of continuing to the world the doctrine of their predecessors 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 13 14. 2. 2. which texts see more largely explained and the extent of obedience that is required in them vindicated in Success of Clergy 2. Secondly after these Texts commanding obedience and submission of judgment to the authority but not to the Universal infallibility for who will maintain this of all those Spiritual Superiors who are thus to be obey'd let us consider also the common practice in our Secular converse Doth not there lie upon children an obligation of duty especially in their minority to yeild the obedience of assent for else they may not the obedience of their actions to the rules and injunctions of their parents That saying Col. 3. 20. doth it not either argue all parents infallible in what they teach or command or that God hath bound children not capable of repairing to an higher Director to submit their judgment and actions to those who may guide them amiss Again whether no obligation of Scholars to their Masters and those experienced in the Science they learn I say whether it is not a duty in these to yeild their assent to them not only for the charge they have of obedience but also for the great disproportion of their judgments tho the other are not infallible and may possibly teach them wrong for there is no infallible Judge at all in the Sciences The like instances may be made in the People to their Pastor the Penitent to his Confessor the Christians to any Synod less than General for these are all fallible What mean those rules Oportet discentem credere Unicuique credendum est in sua arte To which I may add That right reason binds any to yeild faith to another not only if infallible but if all circumstances considered less fallible than himself If these be dictates of right reason what difference between this and the law of Nature And again what difference between that and the law of God Many Scruples I know and demurs and difficulties usually arise in our minds endeavoring to defeat such obedience and resignation of our selves to anothers authority when any way fallible You will give me leave therefore before I go further to take notice of some of them and to see whether they may not be rationally silenced 1. First then to this you may say that where-ever we doubt once upon reasons no way satisfied of any thing which such Governors enjoyn whether it be true whether it be lawful here we are quit from our obedience to them R. True if you have any other higher Judgment appointed to repair to and accordingly deciding such doubt in which case theirs is voided But mark here that thus you decline not their judgment because fallible but because you have another Director or Guide appointed less liable to error than they But where-ever this cannot be had duty obligeth you not to follow your own but your former Directors judgment whose Faith follow Heb. 13. 7. Will you restrain such Scripture-rules of obedience only to General Councils But if not their judgment whom we have named in case you can attain to no higher Tribunal whose doth your duty oblige you to follow your own But thus also then is it not your duty to follow a fallible judgment which may guide you right or wrong Tell me hath not God obliged every one to follow his * own conscience right or wrong Conscientia erronea obligat From what law but God's Obligat because he doth not know that it is erroneous how much more an * erring Council whose mistakes he hath many times less means to find out
consider whether a Church be not in such profitable helps of an holy life deficient For example If a Church should impose no affirmative credends nor enjoyn no practices but what all the Christian world will subscribe to and yet should hold That to abstain from any thing which it is lawful by God's word to enjoy is fruitless will-worship and superstition should disallow professedly or tacitly i. e. by suffering any such good custom to be diswonted for want of being recommended the confessing of sin to the Priest whether it be for more shame and humiliation of our selves for it or for their advice against it or their ministerial absolution from it or for their prayers and intercession against it c. should affirm confession to God or the Priest sufficient for remission without reformation of life or being sorry for them sufficient repentance without any further penances humiliations or punishing of our selves for them or without those of the body at least yet which still pampered no way consists with a soul afflicted or that these are necessary only when they are imposed to satisfie the scandal of the Church not to appease the wrath of God or that they are remitted by money or indulgence which is not preceded by penitence should not teach her children * the distinction of greater and lesser sins that so they may be more extraordinarily cautious of those which more provoke the wrath of God and * the several degrees of penitence required according to the several measure of their faults that so they may practise greater humiliations upon the commission of more grievous offences should hold that good works are not necessary to salvation or necessary only out of gratitude or as fruits that will necessarily spring out of true faith or that promises of reward are not made to good works but only to faith should require for our salvation faith only in our Saviour's merits i. e. his good works so as to avoid inherent righteousnes or faith in Christ's satisfaction i. e. his sufferings so as to avoid all our self-afflictions mortifications and conformity to his death should teach our inability tho we be in the state of grace to keep all God's commandements and fulfil his law as touching all greater sins and offences against any part thereof and to please him in our works should hold no degrees of perfection in obedience nor any latitude of goodnes beyond that of being void only of sin making none better than him that sins not or him whoever is not most good an offender and the falling-short of the highest degree of prayer charity c guilty of sin to the taking away of all confidence in God from our good deeds and emulation of being perfect and pre-eminence of Saints should make the heavenly reward equal to all so that who is more holy than the least that enters in thither suppose S. Paul than the Publican in the over-plus of his mortifications c serves God for nought should extol predestination election grace certainty of salvation c i. e. the mercies of God so far as to remit and weaken all humane endeavors should deny the continuance of God's miraculous works now as hath bin in former times to holy men to the great weakening of prayer and faith and making use of the intercessions of holy men should make an equal facility of attaining heaven to all conditions of life not noting to the people those which have more temptations or hindrances in them than some others as marriage wealth honors should disallow or discourage Vows and other prefortifications against those things which have bin former-occasions of sinning should not exact of her children frequent hours of prayer in the day but discommend rather frequent repetitions i. e. importunity of prayers not exact frequent days of solemn worship in the year frequent celebrations of the Eucharist frequent fasts and macerations of the body or should not require some of these more especially from her Clergy at least Should use no publick or at least private Sacerdotal censures and penitences upon greater sins and should remit the reins of the obedience that is due unto her authority making her self uncapable to restrain except where her children are first perswaded she judgeth right i. e. according to Scripture as they understand it Should by her doctrines That such and such christian duties are not required with such and such a quatenus in such and such a sence or respect as not good works i. e. to justifie or to merit or to obtain remission of sin by them not penance i. e. to satisfie God's justice not confession i. e. as jure divino not such and such ceremonies set times of fast hours of prayer c i. e. as divine commands or essential parts of worship not poverty celibacy c i. e. as counsels to all but only contend that they are necessary duties to some whilst none know to whom in particular they are so which thing quite voids the duty Should I say by teaching much more vehemently how such duties are not required than how they are to be understood especially to one considering both the peoples and the teachers practice as if they argued that they were not required at all or by teaching that such and such practices are not absolutely necessary should be conceived to say they are no way beneficial or no way useful at all because they are not useful alone as is true of all manner of mortifications and castigations of the body If any Church I say should hold or is ordinarily by the people understood to hold such tenets as these who sees not that in such a Church tho commanding nothing unlawful yet omitting only the contrary doctrines to these before-named the people must needs desert many good duties grow cold in devotion and left to their most grateful liberty use it to their destruction But were it not so and that such a Church were free from blame yet were that Ecclesiastical Economy more to be preferred and would have a reward and something to glory of beyond the rest as S. Paul beyond other teachers 1 Cor. 9. that should thro these restraints of lawful liberty aspire to the more perfection That Church therefore seems more safely to be preferred and adhered unto which is more accused of excesses in religion than which is blamed of defects as that which is said to attribute too much to good works to extoll too much the vertue of self-mortifications and penances to superadd to God's commands a great deal of spontaneous and free-will-worship to abound too much in religious rites and ceremonies too much in corporal bowings and gestures too much in fasting-days to use too many vain repetitions in their prayers to reverence holy places and things and persons in excess to give too much authority and require too strict a submission to the governors and laws of the Church excessively to practise and recommend religious vows to make too great a
OF FAITH Necessary to SALVATION And of the NECESSARY GROUND OF Faith Salvifical Whether this alway in every Man must be INFALLIBILITY OXFORD Printed in the Year M DC LXXXVIII FIVE SHORT TREATISES I. Concerning Faith Necessary to Salvation II. Of Infallibility III. Concerning the Obligation of not Professing or Acting against our Judgment or Conscience IV. Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors and Trial of Doctrines V. Concerning Salvation possible to be had in a Schismatical Communion Estius in Sent. 3. d. 23. §. 13. Utrum in haereticis vera sit Fides Articulorum in quibus non errant Quaestio est in utramque partem probabiliter a Doctoribus disputata Ibid. Fidei impertinens est per quod medium primae veritati credatur id est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum Fidei Ibid. Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Courteous Reader THese Treatises by divers passages may seem to have been written before the Author was fully united to the Catholick Church So that some things in them are not so cautiously and clearly explained as had himself liv'd to publish them they would have been But we thought it our duty rather to represent them as he left them than to make any breach in the Discourse it self or to pull any threads out of so close and well wrought a contexture CORRIGENDA Page 8. Marg. such points very few p. 9. l. penult necessary besides the assent p. 32. l. 18. and is in some l. 38. some degree of incredulity Of Infallibility Pag. 15. l. 12. tho this can never p. 20. l. 1. pertaining to Faith methinks sufficient ibid. l. 9. in Doctrinals pertaining to Faith certain of truth p. 28. l. 17. But I say he shall never be so Of Submission of Judgment Pag. 30. l. 7. that it was generally practised Trial of Doctrine Pag. 21. l. 18. by most of differing p. 28. l. 5. He may be free l. 7. from the sin of Schisin and invincibly ignorant of the errors which are profess'd in his Communion he may attain in such a Church life everlasting because in desire he is hoped to be of the true Church l. 22. sufficient thro Godâ—s infinite goodness l. 23. crimes and invincibly errs in not-fundamentals errors unknown to them l. 30. we may hope Danger of Schism Pag. 3. l. 13. and if she deny it l. 14. which are accounted THE CONTENTS PART I. 1. COncerning Faith necessary for Salvation § 1. 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith. 2. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of Faith. § 2. 1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe whatever is known by us to be Gods word Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be Gods word which knowledg obliges us afterward to belief § 3. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal § 6. 2. That it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is Gods word be known by us to be so or in general be known by us to be a truth § 10. Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all Such points very few Not easily defined § 13. In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large 2. That it is highly advantageous to salvation that several other points of Gods word besides these be known § 14. 3. And our duty each one according to his calling to seek the knowledg of them In respect of which the Apostles Creed is too narrow § 15. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons c. And § 17. That the Decrees of Councils not obligatory at least to some against a pure nescience but only opposition thereof and not any opposition but only when known to be their Decrees PART II. II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical whether it must be in every Believer an Infallibility that the matter of such Faith is a Divine truth or Gods word § 20. Concessions § 21. I. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only Gods word II. Concerning the Act of Faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition § 22. That the Authority of Scriptures and Church is learnt from Universal Tradition § 23. Concessions concerning Tradition § 25. 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether infallible or no to ground a firm Faith upon 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho such Tradition be not absolutely Universal § 28. 3. That no one Age of the Church is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition § 29. 4. That the testimony of the present Age is sufficient to inform us therein § 30. 5. That Tradition of the Church is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures § 31. 6. That the Church is a sufficiently-certain Guide to us in Doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary § 32. Digr 1. That all Traditions carry not equal certainty § 33. Digr 2. The difference between the Church's and Mahometan and Heathen Traditions III. Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit § 35. Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward means 2. That all Faith wrought by the Spirit is infallible § 36. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science § 37. IV. That from these Concessions it follows not that all who savingly believe have or must have an infallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe § 38. Neither from the evidence of Scriptures § 39. Nor of the Spirit § 40. Nor of Church-Tradition § 41. For these following reasons § 43. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons § 51. CONCERNING FAITH necessary to SALVATION AND Of the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether This always in every Man ought to be Infallibility SIR YOU have importuned me to communicate to You my opinion on these four Queries as being you say the chief subjects which are debated by our modern Controvertists and in which if one side should gain the victory there would follow a speedy decision of most other Theological Controversy The First concerning FAITH What or how much is necessary for our Salvation The Second concerning Infallibity in this Faith Whether it be necessary in every Believer to render his Faith Divine and Salvifical The Third concerning the Infallibility of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Fourth concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible For the two latter I must remain for a while your Debter On the two former I have returned you as briefly as
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-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
certitude thereof as long as they are not certain that he is not deceived Neither doth any ones believing the Church to be infallible ascertain him of the truth of his faith if he believe this her infallibility only upon the relation of his Pastor for so he hath no more certainty of the Church'es infallibility than he hath of the truth of such a relation which we have shewed is liable to error And then again it is much to be noted that one believing only and not being certain of the Church'es infallibility tho he immediately received all his doctrines from her self yet this could produce no certainty of the truth of what he receives it being no good consequence I believe such a one is infallible therefore I am certain what he saith is true But lastly let one be certain of this one point That the Church or her tradition is infallible which how many are there that cannot clearly prove and then from this known let him have infallible certainty at once of all other points whatsoever that are delivered by her or it yet supposing any to learn what are these her doctrines not from her self but from his private Curate which doubtles many true believers within the Church'es communion do his faith cannot plead any certainty this way For there is some distance between my knowing the Churche's tradition to be infallible and knowing in every point what is her tradition That which is said by Mr. Knot against Chill p. 64 and 358. in this point That a fallible motive applying divine revelation by God's supernatural concours may produce an infallible act of faith is granted But then this act of faith is infallible not from the proponent but God's Spirit in respect of which as is shewed before all saving is also infallible faith but not therefore known always to the believer to be infallible See before § 38. Again that which is said by Dr. Holden Resol fidei 1. l. 2. ◠That their faith who depend on their Pastors instructions is tutissima ipsique in rebus fidei securi modo sint membra illius Ecclesiae quae veritatem omnem revelatam amplectitur docet cujusque pastores rectores medii istius quo sibi divina haec doctrina applicatur veram rationalem habuerint certitudinem is also granted but it seems to affirm only sufficient safety in their faith without their certainty of the truth thereof Now as those of one side cannot plead their faith certain and infallible from their hearing and believing their private Pastor so neither may those of another side from their reading and believing and resolving their faith into the Holy Scriptures For since not so much the Letter of Scripture as the Sense is the infallible word and revelation of God and the letter many times is capable not only when in expression ambiguous of divers senses but also when most seemingly-plain of another sense than they import because of the consonancy they are to have with some other Scriptures lest God's word be made to contradict Hence is one man's Bible where thus ambiguous as fallible a proponent to him in respect of the possibility of his mis-intepreting it as another man's Pastor in respect of his possibility of erring And indeed the former interpreting Scripture to himself seems to be less infallible in his faith than the other learning of his Pastor expounding it because he is more likely to mistake the sense thereof than the other els why is he appointed for his teacher whose faith he is to follow Heb. 13. 7 tho I affirm a sufficient and saving faith may be and is attained by either means hearing ones Pastor or reading the Scripture 3. Since all saving faith in us is the effect of the Spirit why may not our faith be so without any precedent rational certainty thereof According as it seems before granted That God's supernatural concours may advance an act of faith relying on a fallible motive into a belief infallible why may not this Spirit shew its strength then in the weaknes of external proposal But if we suppose it a partial cause and add to it for the production of faith not only some external proponent which that there is ordinarily is granted but this infallible and known also to be so Then to say nothing of the instances given before of the contrary nor to urge here why such an infallible proponent sometimes at least namely where the matter of our belief is as in many things it is most conformable to reason should not be a sufficient cause to beget saving faith without the supernatural concours of God's Spirit and what needs that to be also spiritually which is rationally discerned I ask what do we mean by a stronger and a weaker faith so often mentioned in Scripture Do we mean several degrees thereof the least of which is certain No. For we find doubt nay some degree of unbelief and that of the same thing sometime mixed with true faith See Mar. 9. 24. Mat. 14. 31. Which unbelief or doubt that it never happens in respect of the truth of the relation but always only in the supernaturalnes of the object I think none can rationally affirm See Luk. 24. 11. Only if there be not so much of assent as to turn the scale of our judgment then will it not be faith but either pure doubt or further unbelief Faith therefore as it comes both from the outward hearing of God's word and the several proofs thereof and also by the inward operation of the Spirit so is it capable of many degrees both from the several evidence of those proofs and also from the several influence of the Spirit God giving more external evidence to one than to another as to those who see miracles or who read and compare Scriptures and Councils than to those who only hearken to their Pastor and upon the same evidence made to many God giving a stronger adherence to such a truth to one than to another either * from the energy of the Spirit thro which many can die for Christ that cannot well dispute for him or also * from a natural more passionate temper or * from hiding from them contrary verisimilities and * from ignorance of the weapons of error c. So the unlearned many times believe and adhere to a truth more strongly thro ignorance of any arguments to the contrary than the learned do to the same thro reason assaulted with many doubts and a small argument to a weak understanding begets a more firm credence than a stronger to the learned So a true believer may be less confident thro a rational perswasion in his faith than another thro the violence of a misguiding lust in his falshood nay he may have less reason or proofs tho there be more for the one than this man hath for the other and yet his faith vivifical and acceptable and oftimes there is the greatest glory and merit in it when
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
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
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 detectâ—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 summâ— 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. â— 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
but only on the word of God you say something if that word could never be mistaken in the sence nor alledged amiss See Mr. Hooker's Answer to Cartwright on this point Eccles. Pol. 2. l. 7. sect The force of Arguments drawn from Scripture c. So that now and then they ground themselves on humane authority even when they most pretend divine Even such as are readiest to cite for one thing 500 sentences of H. Scripture what warrant have they that any one of them doth mean the thing for which alledged c. But 4ly here you will reply That surely God's wisdom in matters concerning Salvation hath provided some way or other whereby we may certainly know the truth R. What truth mean we If necessary so he hath in this General Councils err not If all truths whatsoever there are many truths not only Natural but Theological for which all grant that there is no infallible Judge to be had If the truth of all those things which shall be proposed by a General Council Why so Why may not God order them in their fallibility in such things to use the same prudence for ending troublesom and violent contests that any other temporal Courts do And since in these from God as in the other from the King the people have an injunction unlimited in all things to hear them why may not they punish the rebellious 5. But yet lastly if such be fallible in any thing you may say there will be some error of which there can be no remedy because they are unappealable R. Not so For in such things as former Councils may err in none denies but that latter Councils may correct them Only such will be errors indeed that private men cannot remedy and what matters all this I pray if these errors be not committed in things necessary as t is shewed before they never can be Again why are such Councils willingly granted by all to be unappealable in other things wherein they may err i. e. in maters of fact Nay why if some make them infallible in judging all truths so may not some others think it fit they should be so in all causes that come before them all which are afterward remediles But also in those doctrinals where because no Anathema's are affixed Bellarmin saith Non est certum si sint de fide and so neither is it certain whether the Church in them may not err yet is not in these submission of judgment required For if we withdraw this how if it should happen that they are de fide The same may be said in general That if the Church being infallible only in things de fide hath made no clear distinction of these points from the rest t is plain she obligeth us to the same submission in points where she may be fallible 3. This having bin said from § 39. to remove such scruples and demurs as we ordinarily use to make for the not yeilding up and resigning in any thing of our own private judgment 3ly to shew you That the duty of submission of judgment to an Authority fallible in all things wherein we are not certain that it errs is no Paradox I will produce you therein the consentient doctrine both of Catholick and Protestant writers of no mean note 1. For Protestants see the quotations out of Bishop White Archbishop Laud Dr. Jackson in Church-Government 2. Part. § 36. Oblig of Judgment § 29. 30. t is too tedious to repete them here To which I will here add that eminent testimony of Mr. Hooker in his Preface the 6th Sect. throughout who writing against Puritans there speaks much of submission of private opinion to the determinations of Ecclesiastical Authority The place is well worth your reading as likewise the 2. l. 7. sect which Mr. Chillingworth produceth as a qualification of this passage in Hooker pressed by F. Knot But I can see no such matter in that Section which proves against Cartwright the validity of Humane Authority where is no infallible demonstration against it see especially the latter end of that Section To return to the former Mr. Hooker there quotes Deut. 17. 8. c. where he hath these words God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordain'd should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment Howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same Authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And there he answers the Objection That men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality that is as I conceive where they have no infallible certainty but only probability see the end of 2. l. 7. sect the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and final Decision shall determin Now they are to do nothing but what they are perswaded in their hearts that they may do when the Judge in some cases determines the lawfulnes of a thing tho they may do many things which they may think still that they are unjustly obliged by the Judge to do as when the Judge determines something to be their duty which is not yea tho it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn ex parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c. Where note that whatever Mr. Hooker means by that limitation controverted causes of such quality yet the Commission Deut. 17. extends to the Priests interpreting to the people and giving the sence of the law in whatever matters should be controverted as also it is more clearly expounded afterward in 2 Chron. 19. 5 8 10 11. where it runs What causes soever shall come to you of your Brethren between blood and blood between law and commandement statutes and judgments ye shall c. And Thou shalt do or practise according to whatever they shew thee requires not only a passive willingly paying the mulcts or undergoing the punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing of something to which I think I am not in duty obliged as paying 100l to one upon their sentence to whom I never owed any thing which I may do without believing
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
of which another is not tho he also might be certain conformable to the Church's definitions how near would this come to a perfect union Thus Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. Superiors are to be obeyed in all such points as their inferiors are not at leisure to examin or not of capacity to discern whether they be lawful or no. And in another place Some may sin in obeying authority whilst some others do not sin And again ib. Unles a man can justly plead some peculiar reason or priviledge it is a very dangerous case to disobey lawful authority in such matters whereunto he sees many men by his own confession of great judgment and integrity of life yeilding obedience with alacrity c. For indeed I suppose all inferiors not bound to examin the doctrines they receive from the Church But how is it then that those that are not certain are taught to believe those that upon this certainty depart from the definitions of the Church rather than to adhere to the Church Surely they ought to be taught otherwise even by these that are departed For suppose Luther upon some private certainty might not yeild his consent to former Church-definitions yet all the rest not having the same certainty even by the Protestants stating of this question ought to adhere still not to Luther but to the former Church And again Luther in this certainty being bound at least to Non-contradiction of the Church neither might he then go about to teach others that infallible certainty which he had of those points which oppose the Church You know the ordinary objection against what is above-said out of Rom. 14. c. 23. Where the Apostle saith He that doubteth of the lawfulnes of a thing and yet doth it sinneth and therefore it is urged that he that practiseth a thing upon the Churches command whereof he doubts whether it be lawful or subscribeth to the Church's judgment in a thing whereof he doubteth whether it be true sinneth To this I answered before § 2. and § 20. that he that believeth or is perswaded that he ought to yeild obedience to the Church in things contrary to his private judgment sinneth not in this sort because such a one doubteth not but is satisfied in what he ought to hold or to do But if the question be asked of those who have some doubt whether they ought to obey the Church or to follow their own judgment whether such at least ought not to follow their own judgment to avoid sinning I answer neither do such sin in obeying the Church rather than themselves Indeed where one side is undoubtedly lawful and the other only is doubted of whether lawful he who doth that which he doubteth of sinneth But where one hath or hath reason to have a double doubt and a doubt of the lawfulnes of both sides you see that here he must go what way he will do something when he doubteth or hath reason to doubt of the lawfulnes thereof And thus it is where ever the Church commandeth me to do a thing on one side and my particular judgment in the thing disswades me from doing it on the other for here in not doing it I may or ought to doubt that I sin against the obedience I owe the Church as well as in doing it against the obedience I owe to my own judgment or conscience Here therefore I am not to say my judgment being against it I must not do it or I sin if I do it and so oppose the Church'es authority out of conscience as I think but when a command of the Church is now come in upon me to do it and so it is not left free to me in respect of external authority as before and as it is in the Apostle's instances not to do it here I am first to examin whether this my judgment is not to be submitted to the Church'es judgment for if I am perswaded or so much as doubt whether it ought to be submitted I may now sin in not doing according to her judgment against my own i. e. I may sin in not doing it tho it is against my judgment to do it As in two instances it will be plain For suppose a Church-injunction come forth for Christians not to observe Jewish Sabbaths and some Christian Judaic in his own particular judgment thinks such Sabbaths are to be observed yet such a one sinneth if he doth according to this iudgment after and against the Church'es injunction see Gal. 4. 10. tho before this he had sinned if he had not done according to his own judgment See Rom. 14. 5. 14. Again suppose a decree of the Nicene Council that all men should subsubscribe their Creed and that some particular Christian thinks thinks I say is not certain in his own particular judgment something in it to be false if such a one doth not subscribe it tho against his own particular judgment he sins because he either knows or ought to know that in fundamentals at least his particular judgment is to yeild to the judgment of the Church But 3ly if the question be asked again Whether he that doubts not but is fully perswaded that he ows no such obedience to the Church and that he is to follow his private judgment rather than to follow that of the Church when they cross whether such I say may or ought to obey the Church against his private judgment I answer No by no means because an erroneous conscience obligeth i e. our words or actions may never go contrary to our heart And if any one tho in doing well thinketh he doth evil he in his intention doth evil But yet if his judgment oweth obedience to the Church'es tho he doth not think so in this following of his conscience he sinneth because he doth against his duty of which he ought to have informed his conscience better and this no small sin after such a known declaration He that heareth you heareth me and If he will not hear the Church let him be accounted as a heathen c. Concerning the Use of Private Judgment 1. FIrst it is true that we are in all things to follow our own judgment as our judgment reflecting on the former acts of the intellect and considering all reasons as well those taken from authority as those taken from the appearance of things in themselves to us finally determines what we ought to do But note that such judgment when ever culpably mistaken excuseth not from sin our acting according to it But 2ly it is false that we are always to follow or act after our own judgment as our judgment is taken for our own private argumentations reasonings and evidences concerning the subject we examin and judge of against the authority of whomever judging otherwise See Oblig of Judgment p. 1. and the Canons quoted before Ch. Governm 2d part how far the Reformed Synods have thought fit to restrain mens private judgments
in obliging them to that of the Church 3ly It is granted that as our judgment is taken in this 2d sence namely for the private reasons and evidences we have of a subject in it self secluding from authority in some things we are allowed to use and follow it or to follow such reasons But we cannot collect from hence that we are permitted by God or have equal reason to follow it I mean our private opinion or reason in every thing unless it be proved 1. That all things are equally easie to be discovered by it and 2ly That there is no divine command for our yeilding obedience in some things to anothers judgment If any one should advise one to find out some reputed wise and experienced person in such affairs to consult with about something wherein himself knoweth little and such a one found wholly to rely on his directions and judgment therein answered he well that should say If I may rely on my own judgment in seeking out such a person why may I not as well rely on it for the matter about which I seek to him which only is well answered if these two be equally easie or difficult So the Reformed granting that we are to use our own private reason for discovering what books are the true word of God yet will not allow us having found such books to be his word to use our own private reason to examin by it whether what we find delivered to us therein be truth or no or when ever any thing therein seems I say not is against our reason as a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of Essence then to follow our reason in expounding it otherwise then it appears but now we are to lay aside the arguing of our reason and to believe all these Scriptures proposed after that by our reason we have found them to have divine authority So supposing that some Church were infallible it will not follow that if one may use his judgment in finding her he may afterward also use his judgment against her or any her decrees 4ly If you ask therefore in what things we may use and follow our private reason and opinion I answer in all things wherein God or right reason hath not submitted us to the judgment of another We may use it therefore in the discovery and search whether there be any such Judge at all appointed by God over us in Spiritual matters and what person or court it is to whose judgment he hath subjected us And in order to this we may use it in the finding out which of the several religions that are in the world is the true and which in the several divisions and sects that are in the true i. e. where some truth is by all retained is the Catholick and whether that particular Church wherein we were bred hath any way departed from it So in the finding out which Councils in some doubt concerning them are legitimate and truly General to whose acts we are to render up the submission of our judgment and which is the right and genuine sence where any ambiguity of their decrees in finding them out I say by the judgment and testimony which we find the present Church of our own days or that part thereof which seems to our private reason the Catholick to give thereof In this search that Proposition of Dr. La is very true Intellectus cujusque practicus judicare debet utrum is qui pro Judice haberi velit sit utique verus legitimus an media quae adducuntur ad hoc probandum fidei faciende sufficiant But such a Judge by our private reason being found to be and found who it is we may not for the things once judged and decided by him use or follow our own private reason any further but are now to quit it and our judgment having once discovered that such is appointed our Judge in such matters in this excludes it self and this Resignation we make of our judgment is also an act of our judgment In this manner the Apostle exhorts elsewhere not to trust every teacher but to try their doctrines whether agreeing with those of the Apostles i. e. with those of the appointed Governors of the Church and elsewhere that doctrine which they find the Church-governors to have delivered to them to stand constant and stedfast in it See Col. 2. 7 8. 2 Thes. 2 15. compared with 1. 1. Tit. 1. 9. Eph. 4. 11. compared with 14. Jude 3. 4. But you will say What if upon using my private reason I find not that there is any Judge or Law-giver in Spiritual matters cannot I then in all such matters use my private reason and follow the dictates thereof without sinning No if your reason in such search was faulty for as I said vitiously contracted ignorance never excuseth omission of duty 5ly As it is our duty where any cause of doubt diligently with our best reason to seek out the true Spiritual Guides and then having found to submit our judgment and reason as readily unto them so it seems much more easie to find out the Church which is to be our guide and to decide things to us than to find out the truth of all those things she decides more easie to find out who are those Spiritual Magistrates and Substitutes of our Saviour left to govern and guide his Church until his second coming lights not put under a bushel but set on high upon a candlestick to give light to all and a corporation and city set on an hill to be seen of all or amongst several sects and divisions to find out which is the Catholick communion from which all the rest in their several times have gone forth at the first very few in number v. Trial of Doctrines § 32. than by our own guidance and steering entring every one as a rasa tabula upon search of truth amongst the many subtleties of contrary pretences of contrary traditions in Antiquity to find out what is orthodox in all those points which points wean-while after so many hot contentions and wavering of opinion and mis-quoted Authors the Guide we neglect in her several Councils hath prudently fixed that we might no more like children be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive What wise work have the Socinians made and what strange truths have they discovered by waving the authority of Councils and laying hold of private reason to conduct them and be their judge assisted with plain Scripture after that they had made quest after some other Judge and could find none sufficiently infallible for their turn Who have bin so much so dangerously deceived as these wise and wary men who would trust none but the infallible 6ly Against that which is usually said that the words of Scripture are as plain and intelligible as the decrees of a Council and therefore our private
better to inform his conscience not only or chiefly in the confutation of the reasons he hath for his opinion which confutation cannot always be had or when had perhaps is by him not well understood but in the reasonablenes and many times duty of the submission of his private and singular judgment and opinion to those more wise more religious than himself or to those authorized to direct him 2ly Where the Doctors of the Church are not all of a mind but divided in their opinions it seems better to follow any party of them rather than our own judgment opposit to both because they having the same light of Scripture as we a calling to teach and interpret it being those to whom Christ hath promised more assistance using perhaps more means to understand it having more understandings agreeing in such a sence of it tho they may possibly err yet we are the more likely to mistake And experience daily shews that they who renounce fallible authority and stand to their own judgment to avoid one error incur twenty and those by God's desertions sometimes in the most plain points of practice * far grosser than ever any Church-authority or Synod hath lapsed into Neither are the diversities of opinion between Churches any thing in comparison of those millions of private mens singularities and as in sight we say many eyes see more than one so in blindnes or dimnes of sight many eyes are never so blind as one Let us avoid self-conceit and put on humility and then we * shall be glad rather to use the judgment for our way of another eye which if it hath motes in it we have reason to think that ours hath a beam and * will be ready to say if the Church be not infallible how much less I rather than the whole Church is not infallible therefore let me trust to my single judgment an illation not more unreasonable than usual 3. In following one party of the divided Clergy we are to avoid those rather who acknowledge the former practice of the Church against them and appeal to Scripture as long as the practice also pretends the same Scripture either for it or not at all against it For tho Scripture is a more sure foundation than the Church's practice yet since the practice also pretends as well as those who oppose it to be guided by the Scriptures so that Scripture and Practice is pretended on one side and Scripture only on the other side and since there is so great odds in number of those judgments concerning the Scripture that have ever so practised and also a succession of truth promised to be continued in the Church t is more probable I say that the practice is not mistaken in the sence of Scripture and of two we are to chuse the more probable 4. But if besides Scripture there be practice or tradition of some times of the Church the more ancient pretended against the practice of other later times here search is to be made by us and if such an opposition of the present and former Church seems to be discovered which indeed can never be by reason of our Saviour's promise in any matter of necessary faith the contrary course to heady Rehoboam is to be held the old mens counsel is to be taken and the former times are to be preferred except it be in matters not prescribed by God's word wherein the Church of all times hath power to constitute what she thinks fit Where therefore the Scriptures tho pretended by both sides plain yet are not so plain that both sides agree there let all the trial rest not * upon reading arguments pro and con in controversie-writers where wit and continual agitations of the question make any side tenable as men are biassed by interest and education but * upon this search of the Fathers and history of the Church and I am perswaded most controversies will quickly end For who tries them 1. First he will find in those voluminous writings many things more express and full and positive than they are in Scripture especially most of the practices of the Church put out of all dispute so that tho several men read those writings with a several interest as they do the Scriptures yet they shall find too much clearnes there to be corrupted by such interest For example those who dispute Episcopacy to be against the Scriptures yet are clearly convinced in the Fathers writings that it was practised in the primitive Churches and thought consonant to the Scriptures 2. Again he will find a most unanimous consent among them in most things and in many of those of present debate contrary to the opinion of many who seeing them quoted constantly by both sides almost in all controversies and that not only one Father against another but the same against himself seeing likewise books written of their many disagreeings which books are silent of the many more things wherein they accord do in this prejudice condemn them of the same ambiguity as the Scriptures and of much opposition besides and lastly of impertinency to modern controversie and so forbear to consult them and laugh at Vinc. Lirinensis his Rule Quod omnibus c as tho most true yet utterly useles But here some cautions must be given to the searcher which it were most unreasonable that he should not observe 1. * That in a search of the antiquity of opinions and not of the reputation of authors he would not reject writings which are evidently very ancient and likewise then approved since they are quoted by latter Fathers and Councils suppose those of the 3d 4th and 5th age after Christ. Because tho granted by all very ancient for the time they are uncertain for the author and bear a false title Such are for example the Apostolical Canons Clement's Apostolical Constitutions Dionys. Areop works of which it being disputed so early as A. D. 420. whether these were the genuine works of St. Dionysius shews that they were very ancient Again * that from discovering some corruption in some of the Fathers writings he would not argue there not to remain so much purity and incorruption in the rest as that in any thing controverted their true opinion can be known neither argue from his discovering their erring perhaps every one in something and that many times in a thing very inconsiderable that therefore in nothing they can be fit witnesses of truth and lastly from his finding them obscure or ambiguous in some places that they cannot be clear upon such subject in any other place or also in that place cleared by the context Yet such we find are most of the arguments that are urged for weakening their authority 2. That for the primitive times of the Church he would not only take those wherein she lived in persecution and left few records of her doctrines or customs as the first and second age but extend them to the end
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
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 â—â—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. Thaâ— 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 Spâ—rit is infallible §. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science c. §. 38. 4. Thâ—t from these concessions it follows not that all who sâ—vingly believe have or must have aninfallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe §. 39. Nâ—iâ—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 dâ—nied to be de fide §. 12. That as only so all divine revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide. i. e. the oâ—jects and matâ—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 iâ— 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. â—â— 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. 4â— 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 bâ—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. §.
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
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