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
revelasse or se hanc fidem Deum revelasse habere ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti and this a motive morally infallible namely consensum Ecclesiae or Universal Tradition concerning which he thus goes on Verum in ordine ad nos revelatio divina credibilis acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva inter quae unum ex praecipuis merito censetur authoritas consensus Ecclesiae tot saeculis tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held always necessary neither for the humane inducement to divine faith For he goes on quamvis id non unicum neque simpliciter necessarium motivum est quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur His adde Non tantum variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri sed etiam alios aliis facilius partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem impulsionem sicuti not avit Valentia q. 1. p. 4. arg 18. partim propter animi sui simplicitatem quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt Qua ratione pueri apud Catholicos cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt acceptant sidei mysteria tanquam divinitus revelata quia natu majores prudentes quos ipsi norunt ita credere animadvertunt So then if all saving faith must be sides divina infallible that which can rightly be produced to advance sides humana into it is not the authority of Scriptures or of the Church for Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humana credit but only auxilium Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui c in the stating of this learned Casuist Thus you see by what is quoted here out of Estius Lugo and Layman that the moderate Catholick writers concede divine and salvifical faith where no infallibility of any outward evidence or motive And perhaps it might conduce much more to the prayed-for union of Christ's Church if so many Controvertists on all sides perhaps out of an opinion of necessary zeal to maintain their own cause to the uttermost did not embrace the extreamest opinions by which they give too much cause to their adversaries to remain unsatisfied and to make easie and specious replies being helped also by the more moderate writers of the other side As if they chiefly endeavoured to fright their enemies from any yeilding or hearkning to a peace whilst they hold it still upon higher terms than those the Church Catholick proposeth which hath redounded to the multiplication of many needles controversies From what hath bin said I think we may infer 1. First That it is not necessary to true and saving faith that all the mediums by which we attain to it be infallible That neither an infallible Judg nor a known-infallible argument from the Scriptures or writings of Fathers c. is absolutely necessary to it but that it is sufficient to believe the things revealed by God as revealed by him see § 1. holding whatever is his word to be infallible which is a principle to all men and needs no proof by what weak means soever we attain the knowledge of such revelations whether it be by Scriptures Catechisms read or Parents Pastors instructing yea tho these instructers did not know whether there were any Scriptures as the Eunuch believed without those of the New Testament and how unevident soever their confirmation thereof to us be only if we receive from them whether from the credit we give to their authority or to their argument so much light as together with the inward operation of the Spirit opening the heart to receive and accept of it of which Spirit yet we are not so certainly sensible as to know the proper movings thereof for then this were a motive all-sufficient without Scripture or Teacher doth sway and perswade the understanding and so produceth obedience Which faith tho it is not such for its immediate ground as cui non potest subesse falsum by reason of any humane evidence it hath yet many times it is such as cui non subest dubium of which we doubt no more than we do of a Demonstration by reason of the strong adherence we have to it either from the power of God's Spirit or probability of arguments c. See § 35. c. But neither is this actual non-doubting necessary for there is many times doubting in a true but weak faith see § 46. but this is enough if any thing be so far made probable as that it turns the ballance of our judgment so far as to win our assent nay nothing can be without sin disbelieved which seems generally including here also the argument from authority more probable than another thing tho it have no demonstration Which demonstration or also an infallible proponent that the faith of most men wants see the plain confession as it seems to me of Mr. Knot in his Answer to Mr. Chillingworth 4. cap p. 358. A man may exercise saith he an infallible act of faith tho his immediate instructer or proposer be not infallible because he believes upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infallible and is such indeed to wit the word of God who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every true act of divine faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons from whom God exacts no more but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities and use such diligence as men ought in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certain that every one of those thousands whom St. Peter converted did hear every sentence he spoke but might believe some by relation of others who stood near And 1. c. p. 64. the same Author saith that a Preacher or Pastor whose testimonies are humane and fallible when they declare to their hearers or subjects that some truth is witnessed by God's word are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith depending immediately upon divine Revelation applied by the said means And if you object saith he That perhaps that humane authority is false and proposes to my understanding Divine revelation when God doth not reveal therefore I cannot upon humane testimony representing or applying Divine revelation exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer it is one thing whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain that I exercise an infallible act of Faith and another whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an act Of the former I have said nothing neither makes it to our present purpose Of the latter I affirm that when indeed humane testimony is true tho not certainly known by me to be so and so
applies a divine revelation which really exists in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith The reason of this seems clear because altho a truth which I know only by probable assent is not certain to me yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that time for which it is c. Thus he The sum of which is That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent but only from God's concourse See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36 37. de resol fid saying the like 2. Again in the 2d place it may be inferred * That receiving of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not necessary to true faith or * That one may truly believe some who doth not believe all the points of faith which the Church proposeth or any for or upon her proposal or lastly * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof I willingly grant here 1. first That he who believes aright any divine truth must believe that it is revealed by God or that God hath said it and That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God can believe no other thing at all as he ought that is as from divine revelation he must believe all such or none at all aright 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation as of the Scriptures or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition I accord that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God but such as he knows to be proposed to him by the Church or Tradition to be such either immediately in her exposition of obscure Scriptures or mediately in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture and therefore that who denies this authority in some points suppose in those points where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points according to the Schools Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae i. e. in omnibus quae proponit omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult quae non vult non tenet non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae sed propriae voluntati But note that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati because he may hold such tenents not quia vult but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point That Scripture is God's word So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture because containing something opposite to their opinions could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest because that Scripture they refused came recommended to them by as much and the same authority as that they accepted But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition because for the former concession it is one thing to believe such a truth to be divine revelation another to be rationally assured thereof the first we grant is the second I think we have proved not to be necessary to all true faith For the second tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit nor upon that principle can believe one thing unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe as I think is before-proved And hence it follows that one may truly believe some other points of faith who doth not believe this point in particular That the Church or Universal Tradition is infallible Thus much * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in every believer to render his faith true divine and salvifical * and of the erring in some one article it s not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest But to conclude this Discourse Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed 1. First that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense that is in rendring his faith in other points tho not false yet non-salvifical to him 2. Again he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church known to him to be so in some point not absolutely necessary I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation as some points there are so necessary tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife yet this opposition in that error is by the common doctrine of the Church accounted so great a crime as that unrepented of it renders his true faith being destitute of due obedience and charity unprofitable for his salvation which I thought fit here to mind you of that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries as long as he stands tho in some as he accounts smaller points after sufficient proposal in opposition and disobedience to the Church i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters See before § 50. 3. And lastly if this Article of Faith That the Church'es authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed or at least so supreme that none may in any wise dissent from her determination can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation to be by every Christian believed then since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article it must follow That every one that opposeth the Church is also from his disbelief of this Article excluded from salvation FINIS OF INFALLIBILITY CONTENTS PART 1. COncerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed § 1 2. 1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant writers § 3. Where How far points necessary are to be extended § 4. That the Church not private men is to define what points be necessary § 6. If these points be necessary at all to be defined and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals § 7. 2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all § 8. 3. Infallibility Universal in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth is not affirmed by the Roman writers §
most firmly the principle and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation but are easily admitted to one anothers communion So the Roman or rather all the visible Church of God before Luther whether Eastern or Western in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour upon which ground they worship it to worship a meer Creature and so to commit idolatry and give God's honour to another yet this Church holding the contrary principle That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental nor are those unconvinced of their error dying in the Roman communion and in this practice by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 3. p. 78. sect 4. p. 123. But note That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points to regulate and guide our belief and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof because here contrary to the Supposition made before we have a sufficient proposal of the truth or an authorized proposer what in such doubtful points we are to hold For if we know or being impartial might know that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment we are convinced by this authority determining as well as by arguments proving Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place the set number of which varying so much according to several persons and conditions yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can tending any way to their Salvation can much less be prescribed than of the former The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility or Whether we cannot savingly and with such a faith as God requires believe some divine truth unless we be infallibly certain that it is a divine truth 1. First then concerning the object of Saving Faith It is true and granted that the object thereof is only God's Word and that this Word is infallible and that since God cannot lye fidei non potest subesse falsum Which saying refers not to the act but the matter of faith i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false because it is the Word of God which is apprehended by this Faith Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on or ultimately resolved into something which is infallible i. e. God's Word whether this be written or not written and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter tho we may unfeignedly for the act believe any thing but what is certainly true Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word and 2. that it be believed by us to be so So the Schools Fides non assentit alicui nisi quia est a Deo revelatum And 3ly that this word be believed to be utterly infallible From whence this therefore follows 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith 2ly That Faith believing any thing which is true yet not as divine revelation or God's word or this word not to be infallible is no divine or saving faith So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon But our Quaere goes further Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith that we not only believe what is God's infallible word but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty and assurance which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church and Tradition 1. First it seems that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these these again both the authority of the Scriptures and of the Church do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition By which I mean * a Tradition so universal as these things are rationally considering all circumstances capable of i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth and * a Tradition so full and sincere as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute 1. For first supposing the Church infallible yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition which universal Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof and not from the testimony of Scripture and so escapes a circular proof The series then of proof is this The Church is proved infallible at least in Necessaries from our Saviour's promise of assisting her c testified in Scripture These Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from universal Tradition and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible from the evidence and nature of it self because it is morally i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature impossible for so many men of so many ages so dis-interested to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter Or as some others express it such Tradition tho it were not so plenary as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church must be allowed to be infallible from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs amongst which are Miracles as it is contrary to the veracity of God supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship to permit that they should be fallacious The series of the probation runs thus The Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from the testimony of the Church which testimony of the Church or of so many people so qualified is proved to be infallible not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture for thus the proof would run in a circle tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid tho it be true also that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony but as being so universal a Tradition or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed as it is morally impossible especially considering God's veracity and providence that it should deceive us But as I said to prove the Church the other way to be infallible i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures which Scriptures to be divine we learn only from the Church Or more plainly thus to prove the Church to be infallible in
in which we may easily be deceived Ergo That it is true This for the Spirit In the next place to come to consider Whether all to have true and saving faith must be rationally assured thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition And here we will grant as t is said before 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary and that it is a medium for necessary points of faith free from error 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance and that any or most by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points from the traditionary doctrine and practice which they may see and hear dispersed thro the Church for doubtles our careful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full perswasion of faith in all sorts of men there where his Gospel is preached and this means all men for the ascertaining of their faith as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life according to their condition c. 3. That the Church-decrees may be certainly known and are easily understood and more easily in many things than the Scriptures namely where these happen to be doubtful to us and doubtful they are or should be where ever Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we and hence that this point being supposed that the Church is infallible those who believing her to be so do rely upon her judgment have for the most part a stronger perswasion and those knowing her to be so have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures because the former persons faith rests on a double ground the saying of Scripture and the sense of the Church interpreting it And thus one adhering to the tradition and doctrines of the Church hath more warrant for his Faith than a single Scripturist 4. That those who hold Church-tradition fallible can have no other way an infallible evidence whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith But all these granted yet such a degree and measure of certainty or assurance as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it and render it no true divine and acceptable faith but an humane opinion and perswasion as some contend But saving faith may be begotten where the proponent of the word of God or of divine revelation mediate or immediate is not or at least is not known to be which is all one with the former to the believer's certainty infallible and it sufficeth to it that what one believes is the word of God and that he believe it in some degree or other predominant to unbelief to be so And this I think may be shewn in many instances and by many reasons 1. For first some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles questionles endued with true faith yet believed before any certainty of the infallibity of their teachers or before or without seeing their miracles tho these also seen afforded to some no certainty who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1. meerly by the powerful operation of God's Spirit So the Eunuch to be a true believer needed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip So Cornelius and his friends some words of St. Peter The Jaylor and Lydia of S. Paul strangers and formerly altogether unknown to them the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts and finishing the work For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day supposing he at that time wraught miracles yet t is not probable that all these were spectators of them or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth but believed only the relations of others persons fallible who stood near him The Bereans why examined they the Apostles doctrines if they knew or esteemed him infallible The Believers at Antioch zealous of the law why contested they with St. Paul and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible Or the weaker brethren tho of the number of true Believers why doubted they long time of some meats unclean contrary to the Apostle's instruction T is true that whoever believes that which another relates must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived but yet he who in any other one thing doth not believe him doth not believe him to be infallible And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibility of the Hierosolymitan Council yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council but private Doctors whom I have shewed that some of them accounted not infallible nor yet was their faith nullified thereby 2. Believers no way heretical or schismatical but submitting unto the Church in all things and believing her and her traditions to be infallible c and consequently whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure yet if things be well examined all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means or motive or proponent of their faith I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures nor the Tradition of former times nor universal present Tradition nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church neither for other points nor yet for this That the Church or the Tradition they rely upon is infallible But being young as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians when children or illiterate necessitated to handy-labour quiescent in one place or perhaps inhabiting deserts and solitudes c do receive the doctrine of their faith believing and yeilding obedience thereto only from their Parents or the Curate of the place or from their bare reading or hearing read some portion of Scripture recommended to them for but not proved at all to them to be the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth and obeying it but having no more external argument or assurance thereof than another suppose educated in an erroneous Church and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical hath of his error Now private teachers even within the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant or rationally uncertain of what they teach and a Catholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion than the Protestant both inheriting their tenents from their next Ancestors For Error once begun is propagated afterward by Tradition as well as Truth Or 2ly being rationally certain of the truth yet may he wilfully for filthy lucre for fear for lasciviousnes c see 1 Thes. 2. 3 5 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14. misguide his disciples Or 3. lastly teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows yet is this his certainty tho something to the truth of the others faith nothing to their
I answer That from this judgment of such a Church so often as it is suspected by me I will not retreat to my private judgment but I will appeal to a more general judgment of the present Church which judgment I can either have conjunctim or divisim as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time and by the reformed opinion I shall be secure if I part not from the present Church for in fundamentals she shall in no age err but hold forth to me visibly the truth and if this error be in Non-fundamentals it amounts not as the reformed say to a heresy therefore will I still cleave to her i. e. the present Church and the supremest Authority I can find therein neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures or Fathers against her because she cannot be at least in points of great consequence opposit to them And if that religion as it might have bin had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2 and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures nor writings of Fathers then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church neither needed she for this to have bin made more infallible than now she is and doubtles my faith should have bin nevertheles sufficiently grounded i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her neither could any have made an argument that my faith was not salvifical for this reason because fidei non potest subesse falsum for she must then in defect of all writings have bin confess'd the pillar and ground of truth and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. the same then must she be still and Nations now as at the first before writings are still converted by her by her preaching before they come to peruse those Scriptures And so are we all also taught our faith first by her neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers But yet besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority any help that is from these writings enjoyed by any other is also by her that no body may boast over her in these advantages 2. It is objected That our faith to be salvifical must be grounded on something that is infallible and therefore only on God's word See this answered at large in the Treatise of Necessary faith § 43. c. Surely the Church groundeth her faith which she recommendeth to us on the Scriptures as well as private men think they do theirs when they leave hers to follow their own judgment And if the Church'es judgment is not neither is their own infallible for which they desert the Church'es But tho it is most true that true faith is always grounded on the word of God which word of God is infallible yet is it not necessary that every one who hath true faith do know that it is infallible or be infallibly certain of it For many have saving faith doubtles that learn this word of God only from a fallible man suppose from their Father or from their Pastor Neither is it necessary that this faith should be received from another person infallible besides God nor that it should be received from a writing at all There may be a strong adherence beyond evidence neither can it be unsufficient if it be so strong as to produce obedience to God's commands 3. T is said That one is for his salvation secure enough where ever these two are Unity of faith with the Church in fundamentals and then Charity toward the Church in the points not-fundamental wherein I disagree from her Charity i. e. not condemning her for them to be no Church c. I answer 1. First such a one must know well what are Fundamentals that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations Heb. 6. 2. if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth I know not how many other points may be brought in And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism Bishops Ordination c. 2ly Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith than only in fundamentals unles all points of faith be fundamental and if so then Churches that differ in any point of faith differ in fundamentals 3ly If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides doubtles are set over us to build us up in the unity also of this faith and not only of fundamentals See Heb. 5. 11. c. 6. 1. And therefore why Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13. should be restrained only to fundamentals as it is by some it seems to me strange I cannot think that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals see 1 Cor. 1. 4. c and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions and exhorts them to be all of one judgment which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment each one of their private reason but of the Apostle and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 18. Rom. 15. 5 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where speaking the same thing and being joyned in the same judgment contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind glorifying God with one mind and one mouth c. argue an unity required not only of charity but of opinion and judgment and that not only in fundamentals in which as I said all the factious Corinthians or most of them accorded but other beneficial truths which union how could so many judgments undependent of one another attain but by all of them retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor or Pastors 4ly If these points wherein the reformed recede from the authority of superior Councils be not very necessary tho not fundamental how can a separation for them be justified but if necessary why should we say that God requires not an unity of faith in them 5ly Again as faith and charity secure not our salvation if we be guilty of some other vice adultery c so they do not secure it if there be any denial of obedience where t is due especially to the Church disobedience towards whom is in a more special manner disobedience to Christ and to God himself and why may not this then endanger us if God hath provided teachers to keep us in the same judgment and we to the great hurt both of the Church and of our selves too by these divisions will every one follow his own judgment especially since
of his deductions and seldom examining the soundnes of some ground which he irrationally takes for granted becomes infallibly certain as he thinks of what is indeed an error and many times a gross one But it may be said again that where we can shew none of these differences in principles yet there have bin hereticks that have gone against tenets even in fundamentals of which tenets we must needs grant that any man may be infallibly certain as the Arrians Socinians Nestorians Eutychians c. To you I may speak my opinion In all these and many more which being chief foundations we usually also call most manifest truths yet the most of Christians E will not say all are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church from time to time by which they are kept fixed and not shaken in them And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason where the authority of the Church is laid aside Certainly to name some of them the omnipresence of God not in his power but substance his certain foreknowledge of not only what may but also what shall be yet so as not to destroy mans free election Christ's non-inferiority as touching the God-head to the Father and all those particulars about the Trinity Person Natures and Wills of Christ can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture to every one that grants it to be Scripture that all men without the Church'es guidance and education in such a faith c would have bin infallibly certain of them 2. But to let these pass and suppose in private men what infallible certainty you please of them or also of many other divine truths yet in the 3d. place I do not see how from the former instances we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible certainty against the judgment of the Church of many former ages for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on their side I suppose is Communion in one kind only which hath this prejudice also accompanying it that it was practised by the Church Catholick in the publick ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation Yet I think that none will offer to affirm that he is I say not much perswaded but infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church and some precepts there only temporary not perpetual as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it * That the Church hath altered many other things not only without our complaining thereof but with our imitating her Nay further * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture but amongst Apostolical Traditions only See Montag Origin Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scripturis Infantes baptizari aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare And Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us Such as are these which follow The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scripture The Baptism of Infants Perpetual Virginity of the B. Virgin Observation of the Lord's Day The Service of the Church in a known tongue The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times even in the Eastern Churches also of giving it in one kind to sick men to Seamen to Travellers to the absents upon necessary occasions from church to those also who came to church to carry home with them that they might there reserve it in readines and communicate themselves therewith when they thought fit on those days when there was no publick communion or they hindred from it by distance danger as in times of persecution or necessary secular busines that which they carried home with them being only of one species viz. that of the bread And * these things tho so done to avoid some inconvenience I suppose the spilling and the not-keeping of the wine as also it is now yet so done without any absolute necessity for the sick can take wine sooner than bread and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling and those vessels also be first consecrated and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to Infants newly born and baptized to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary only in one kind namely that of the wine When one considers * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent in the Greek Church for all days save Saterdays and Sundays because saith Balsamon Deo sacrificium offerre they accounted to be festum diem agere in the Latin Church for Good-Friday to communicate expraesanctisicatis i. e. on what was consecrated on another day and reserved till then which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread * The great cautiousnes of the former times against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood which could not be gathered up again as the bread might in their receiving it in some places sucked up through a pipe in others by intinction and dipping only or sopping the bread in the wine a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches Again whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect communion and robbing the people as it were of the chief part of their redemption yet when he hath considered * their never questioning the compleatnes of such Communions who thus received it in one kind which it most concerned people going out of the world and some of them perhaps then first communicated for their last viaticum to have most perfect Where note also †1. First * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so constantly believed that the use of the Cup also in publick communions was upon many abuses committed about it by little and litle in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess was only to warrant and justify the Church'es former custom against those Petrus Dresdensis the Hussites and others who then began to inveigh against it saying hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum illicitum as likewise against that custom to communicate men fasting and hence began to change it and to communicate after Supper and in both kinds And 2ly †* That some of the Reformed also
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. §.
implicit faith is accepted whether in our defects or also errors in matters of faith implicit faith being then only serviceable to us where faith explicit considering due circumstances cannot be attained by us Now what is said hitherto concerning knowledge of the Scriptures may be applied to the knowledge of the Church our guide in the Scriptures and the obedience due to her For he who believes 1. Either that the Church is infallible in her proposals to him what is the word of God or 2. That tho fallible in some things yet she is appointed in those things to be his Judge and the final determiner of them 3. or at least that in the exposition of the sense of Scriptures her judgment is better than his own such a one is bound to believe any thing to be God's word if she affirm it to him to be so And he who doth not believe any of these things of the Church is not presently therefore unobliged to her proposals unless he hath unpartially examined this matter and so finds no just cause to believe any such thing of her wisdom or authority as is pressed upon him For when some argue thus There is no danger to me in so or so disobeying the Church where she ought to be obeyed if having used the uttermost examination I can both of the point and of my own dis-interest I can find no such obedience due to her t is well reasoned tho such obedience were indeed due to her if we grant the Supposition that he hath examined to the uttermost who yet after all remains mistaken for a mistaking examination where there is no further power to discover it is no more blameable than a true one and in this case invincible ignorance or incapacity excuseth And God doubtless imposeth nothing to be believed by us under the penalty of sinning but that he gives sufficient arguments to evidence it to all men endued with the use of reason and void of prejudice and passion But hence is our error that we take an imperfect trial and examination for a compleat and suddenly rest in the dictate of our conscience un or mis-informed which is virtually a going against it and to God must we answer both for such a blind conscience and all the acts of disobedience that flow from it Thus much concerning our obligation to seek after the knowledge of all divine truth and concerning sufficient proposal and that upon this whatever appears to be God's word is necessary to our salvation to be assented to and believed But this granted in the second place you are to observe that it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is God's word be known to us to be so or be known by us to be a Truth For of these parts of God's word which are proposed to us some there are which concern the business of our salvation and again some others which do not as some passages of history and perhaps some subtle consequences of some beneficial point of Faith c Hence therefore ariseth a twofold necessity of belief either only in respect of proposal because we know they are God's word or besides proposal in respect of our salvation because they are some way advantageous thereto Now concerning the first of these tho such things once evidently proposed are necessary to be assented to or rather not dissented from yet it is not necessary at all that they should be either proposed to us or known by us but we may be ignorant of or also err in them without any sin any danger Concerning the second Divine Truths necessary to be believed with relation to our salvation may be taken either in a more strict or in a more large sense Taken in the most strict sense they are such articles or points of faith as without which actually known and believed none at all can possibly enter into heaven and escape damnation and of which not only the denial or opposition but the pure nescience and ignorance is a defect of faith to all adulti absolutely irremissible And these must needs be very few since we must make them no more than the knowledge whereof may be attained by the most illiterate indocile and the lowest conditions of men And likely according to the several degrees of the proposal and revelation of the mysterys of salvation fewer of these are required in some times as those before the Gospel than in some others as those since it Yet that now also in the greatest illumination there are but few we may gather both * from the short abridgment of faith the Apostles proposed in their Sermons to the people commonly including the Articles of the Passion and Resurrection and Kingdom of Jesus the Son of God and of David and the remission of sins to the penitent thro his Name and * from the yet shorter Confessions of Faith which the Apostles accepted as sufficient for bestowing of Baptism i. e. for admitting men to salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven so that in that instant had they died as the good Thief also did doubtless upon such a small stock of faith they had entred into life eternal See Act. 8. 37. 16. 31 33. Act. 2. 38. 10. 43. Now these absolutely necessary points are either 1. of pure faith or also 2. of practice 1. Again those are either * such wherein we more expresly give honor and glory to God in acknowledging Him and his wisdom and his works such as they are and that is much better and more wonderful than any lye can make them or * such whereby we * nourish our hope concerning good things belonging to our selves obedient and * quicken our fear concerning evil things appertaining to the disobedient Yet are not those amongst them which are most speculative to be thought useless or unprofitable to us even in respect of our practice they all generally conducing to the advancing of our admiration love and affection to God and of our confidence and reliance upon him and so to the animating of our endeavours and obedience accordingly to his commands Nullum est dogma Christianum quod non sit quodammodo necessarium ad praxim So that an orthodox faith in Speculatives is a main ground of a right practice and a strong faith of a zealous practice 2ly Those points of faith which are also of practice are such wherein we learn our duty to God. To particularize something in both these 1. Pure faith absolutely necessary to all in general even to those under the law of nature perhaps * is that faith only Heb. 11. 6. made evident evident enough to all by the works of God. Again faith absolutely necessary to those within the Church before the times of the Gospel is perhaps besides the former faith * a general trust and hope in the Messias to come See Jo. 4. 25. 1. 21. Mat. 2. 5. Jo. 7. 42. Again absolutely necessary to those under the Gospel
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
some there are and those as well within as without the Church much more doubtful obscure and questionable than others For 1. both truths committed to Tradition may fail in successive times vel per omnimodam cessationem vel ex eo quod oppositum introducatur viz. where Tradition is not come to a convenient and due pitch of universality as is granted by the strongest abettors of Tradition See Dr. Hold. Resol Fid. 1. lib. 8. cap. And 2. the unfailing Tradition of successive times may be defective in its first original's being false or els in its having many falsities in its current thro posterity superadded to and mingled with the truth as persons are interested or fanciful As Gentilism did superadd many things to the ground-work of religion received from the Jew and writings of the Old Testament For falsum poterit quodammodo caeteris paribus aeque certo ac verum per traditionem communicari els lies cannot be commonly believed But many such we know were credited amongst the Heathen concerning their Gods and are amongst the Mahometans concerning their Prophet and so it may happen that as undoubting an assent may be given to these as is to the truth for ignorance many times doubts less of a thing than knowledg doth But yet this we contend that it will never be so rational And indeed many disparities there are between the credibility of Heathenish or Mahometan and of Christian Tradition * Such as are in Heathenism these †1. that except some foundations of religion borrowed from the Jews and so free from error there is no constancy or agreeance in the tradition thereof but t is varying according to each city or country whereby any one of them much fails of universality and contradictory Tradition destroys it self And 2ly that †as we have said that falsities under the notion of falsities may be conveyed by Tradition so many of the absurd stories of Heathenism seem not to be believed even by the most or wisest of those who propagated them therefore are their Poets their Divines out of whom chiefly such tradition is learned And * Such as are in Mahometanism these †It s spreading 1. * by the force of the Sword contrary to the nature of Tradition and 2ly * by its plausibility and compliance with carnal lusts both great corrupters of the truth of Tradition whereas Christianity flowing down to all ages in opposition to both these by how much it was less pleasing or less protected seems to be strengthned in all times with so much greater evidence of truth and testimony irresistible †It s wanting that universality which Christianity possesseth never having had so large a circuit the Western part of the world having always bin a stranger to it and the growth of it now for many ages being stopped and it decreasing in the world and this great falshood by little and little giving place as is seen in the Eastern Countreys to its elder the Truth I say these and many other disparities there are but besides these the main thing whereby all such Traditions are convinced of falshood lies in this that they came into the world still later than that of the Truth and so are known to be false by their contradiction to it so that Truth against them may always plead prescription * So Heathenism was younger than the Tradition of God's word in the Old Testament and so indeed than the Gospel which also was contained in the Old Testament and taught from the beginning see Rom. 3. 21 23. So that I may say Heathenism was the Antichristianism of the former Ages springing up after the tradition of God's true worship Again * so Mahometanism was later than the tradition of the New Testament being the Antichristianism of the last times but lest the world I mean that part of it to whom it pleased God to divulge the truth by false traditions should be deceived God hath always provided true Tradition to pre-occupate Faith and to anticipate and antidate error Therefore tho we yeild to the truth also of Mahometan tradition in some things as that there was such a one as Mahomet a Law-giver a Conqueror c. yet we know that Tradition that he received his writings from the Angel Gabriel c. to be false because contrary to that divine Tradition which besides many other advantages ought from its antiquity to be preferred God having given to Truth the Eldership of Falshood And on the same grounds may we reject that Heathen-tradition in the Acts of the Image of Diana falling from God c. III. And thus much be granted concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the external motives or proponents the Scriptures Church and Tradition 3ly Concerning the illumination adherence certitude which this Faith that ordinarily first cometh by hearing receives from the inward operation of God's Spirit 1. First let it be granted that the interior working of the Holy Spirit opening the heart is always required besides the outward means for the conception of all saving Faith that we cannot exercise any act thereof without particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost that it is the infused Gift of God as well as other graces of hope and charity see Jo. 6. 29 44 45 64 65. Matt. 11. 25 26. 16. 17. Act. 13. 48. 16. 14 15. Rom. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 3 9. 2 Cor. 3. 3. Gal. 5. 22 23. Eph. 1. 17. c. 2. 8. 6. 23. See Ben. Spir. p. Whence Faith is said to be supernatural as in respect * of its object things above the comprehension of reason and * of it s ultimate ground it builds upon which is divine revelation so * of its act being caused by the Spirit All the acts of faith being in some kind supernatural for such a degree of adherence as they have both because the relater or proponent thereof is many times not at least known to be infallible and because the object thereof many times tho there be all certainty from the relater is capable of much doubt and vacillancy from its supernaturalness and seeming-repugnancy to reason Therefore we see our first Father or at least his wife see 1 Tim. 2. 14. failed in not believing the words spoken by God himself to him and the Disciples when rationally believing our Saviour to be the Son of God and all he said to be truth and seeing his miracles yet desired the increase of their faith and were in it many times not a little shaken thro the contrariety or transcendency which it had to sense or reason And it is reckoned to Abraham as strong faith that he believed the word of God himself in things contrary to nature See Rom. 4. 18 19 20. which Sarah his wife flagg'd in See Gen. 18. 12. 2 King. 7. 2. Thus Faith to make it vigorous and lively comes necessarily to be a work of the Spirit either in regard of the sublimity of its object or
also of the incertainty of the Proponent 2ly Again let it be granted as freely That that Faith which is the Gift of God and work of the Spirit must needs be infallible and exempt from all possibility of error because the supreme verity cannot inspire a falshood 3ly Let it be granted also That the Spirit produceth many times in the soul such a supernatural and undiscursive light and evidence to the understanding and following this such a strong inclination of the will and adherence of the affections to the matter believed as do far exceed all science sense experience demonstration Tho this intuitive rather than argumentative or probative of such truths either to other's or our own reason which this Spirit captivates and brings into obedience * moving us to the strongest faith upon very small evidence and the smaller the evidence the stronger the power of the Spirit against many temptations of infidelity and * opening the heart to such a degree of undoubtedness that we are willing to undergo any Martyrdom rather than quit and renounce our belief See for such certainty 2 Tim. 1. 12. Act. 2. 36. Jo. 6. 69. IV. All this therefore being granted namely That all true saving faith is grounded on God's word which is infallible That all true faith is wrought in us by the Spirit of God which Spirit is infallible That there is a certainty or assurance sufficient if not infallible to be had from universal Church-tradition of both the former namely both * that such writings on which our faith is grounded are God's word and such their meaning and consequently * that the belief of such things contained in them is the work of God's Spirit Yet our Query remains still uncleared Whether I say not some for I grant many have but every one that truly and savingly believes must have an infallible certainty of his faith or must have a known-to-him infallible teacher or motive external as Tradition or internal as the Spirit to ground his faith upon by which he is not fully perswaded but also rationally sure of the truth of that which he believes And this to me notwithstanding the former Concessions seems not at all necessary for the producing of a saving Faith. And first for the assurance we may have from the Scriptures by knowing either in general that they are the word of God or that in such places or points where their sense is doubtful this and no other is the certain meaning of them I have shewed § 23. and 35. That the knowing this must either be devolved upon Ecclestastical Tradition or upon the Spirit And first for the assurance of these Scriptures and so of our faith from the inward testimony of the Spirit to which many fly for succour and first taking this for granted that every believer must be infallibly certain of his faith and then that tradition tho the most full and much more any private instructer being some way liable to errour sufficeth not for to produce such an effect they labour to ground this certainty upon the assurance of God's Spirit None can plead this at all from our faith being caused by this Spirit for it follows not that if the Spirit begets faith infallible in our hearts or also the most unexpugnable adherence thereto therefore we know this faith to be begotten by the Spirit or if it move us that therefore we can certainly tell when it doth so so that we can say to this God's Spirit moveth me to assent to this not For we may have from the Spirit the greatest perswasion or internal evidence if you will of a truth that may be imagined and yet not have any rational or discursive evidence thereof from it neither by other proofs nor by this which is sufficient that we clearly discern the good Spirit to produce it since the like assurance or confidence to some degree is frequently begotten by an impetuous lust or by the evil Spirit for most pernicious errors so nearly imitating the Spirit of illumination as not to be discernable from it by this sign of strong perswasion since many have had it so strong as to dye for them The assurance therefore or full perswasion of a Divine truth by the Spirit is one thing the assurance that this assurance cometh from the Spirit is another And indeed tho in some general things as of the Bible being the Word of God and of some universally-believed points of faith all men are confident of their assurance in them that it is from God's Spirit because indeed all Christians are in these agreed yet in descending to particulars as whether such or such a Book of Scripture be God's Word or be written by an heavenly-inspired author whether such a particular point of faith be to be stated thus or so whether such be certainly the meaning of some particular place of Scripture here I say where there is contradiction and doubt between parties few there are who will offer to plead such assurance from the Spirit as that they cannot be mistaken but labour to inform themselves as well as others the best they can from other reasons And indeed did the Spirit thus always bear witness to it self had we any such internal assurance ordinarily for extraordinary assurances of it happening to some greater Saints of God in very many things I deny not I mean not of the belief of the thing but that such belief of the thing cometh from the Spirit there needed no more confirmation of any point either from Church or universal Tradition or collation of other Scriptures or any other way but this For thus tho some men might profess an error against conscience yet err in very deed in matter of Divine faith none could for knowing that the Spirits operation is necessary to all true faith and knowing again when it operates he may be sure that that which it operates not is no true faith But this sufficiently argues that there is no such ordinary effect thereof in that the pretenders of the Spirit so frequently by this Spirit contradict one another and indeed this arrogant perswasion and ultimate refuge of singularity hath bin the great Source of all Heresie and Schism by reason of mens departing from Tradition and from the Church upon confidence of this Therefore we conclude a man may believe by the efficiency of the Spirit and yet not certainly know its efficiency and may know that by it he believes all which he truly believes in divine matters and yet not know that by it he believes such or such a particular thing So that tho this be laid for a ground That all true Faith is the work of the Spirit yet we must by Scripture or in things doubtful by the Church'es traditionary exposition thereof first know our faith to be true and thence by consequence gather that it is the work of the Spirit not è contra argue that it is the work of the Spirit
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
not his meer misbelief of that point for which he is accounted an heretick which excludes him from salvation Because perhaps many good Catholicks before the Church'es determination have mis-believed the same point as for example the point of rebaptization as well as he without any danger to their salvation But that which condemns him is that he hath fidem tho divinam yet not operantem per charitatem that he is obstinate and disobedient to the Church'es orders and decrees or if you will that he dis-believes this great Article of Faith which dis-belief is the fountain of his dis-obedience That the Church hath such an Authority committed to her by Christ as that he ought to conform to all her determinations and preserve in every thing the unity of her faith Of the Donatists hereticks thus S. Aug. Gesbacum Emerito Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam potest Emeritus Evangelium tenere potest in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti fidem habere praedicare sed nusquam nisi in Ecclesia Catholica salutem poterit invenire giving the reason afterward quia charitatem non habet and Ep. 48. ad Vincentium Nobiscum estis in Baptismo in Symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis in spiritu autem unitatis vinculo pacis in ipsa denique Catholica Ecclesia nobiscum non estis To Estius and Lugo add a third Layman a Casuist of great reputation Thus he therefore Theolog. moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. Fieri saepe solet ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae puta quae sunt de Deo Uno Trino explicite credantur ante hunc qui est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate Quinimo haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus Sancti promissione nititur ergo prius oportet credere Spiritum Sanctum adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse Praeterea constat Beatissimam Virginem Apostolos primosque Christianos fide divina credidisse non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae quae vel fundata non erat v. g. cum S. Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Mat. 16. vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat Again Formale assentiendi principium seu motivum non est Ecclesiae authoritas Si enim ex te quaeram Cur credas Deum esse incarnatum respondeasque Quia Ecclesia Catholica quae errare non potest ob S. Spiritus assistentiam ita testatur iterum ex te quaeram Unde id scias vel cur credas Ecclesiam non errare vel S. Spiritum ei assistere Quare recte dicit Canus l. 2. de loc Theol. 8. c. post med Si generaliter quaeratur Unde fideli constet ea quae fide tenet esse a Deo revelata non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere quia unum ex revelatis est quod Ecclesia errare non possit Interim non negamus saith he quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae quatenus Spiritu Sancto regitur fieri possit communiter soleat a sidelibus ipsis qui infallibilem Spiritus Sancti assistentiam ac directionem Ecclesiae promissam certa fide tenent his enim ejus testimonium ac definitio certa regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos Imo talis regula seu norma exurgentibus circa fidem dubiis omnino nobis necessaria est put a ad discernendum Scripturam Canonicam ab Apocrypha traditiones veras a falsis denique credenda a non credendis Sententia Scoti Gabrielis qui in resolutione recurrere videntur ad fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae quatenus ea est illustris congregatio tot hominum excellentium Exempli causa Credo Deum esse incarnatum quia divinitus revelatum est revelatum autem hoc esse divinitus seu revelationem hanc a Deo profectam esse ideo accepto seu credo fide acquisita quia it a scriptum est in Evangelio S. Johannis cui omnis Ecclesia seu congregatio hominum vitae innocentia sapientia illustrium testimonium assensum praebet Haec sententia inquam si recte explicetur a vero aliena non est Non enim mens est Doctorum illorum quod fidei divinae assensus in fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae resolvatur tanquam in principium sed tanquam in extrinsecum adjumentum conditionem sine qua non Etenim authoritas illa Ecclesiae non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus Sancti sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum c. est quidem formale principium credendi side humana sed non fide divina Quia fides divina est qua Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem veritatem ejus consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humana credit Accedit quod sicuti ipsemet Scotus Gabriel argumentantur assensus cognoscitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii quo nititur assen us autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet ergo fieri non potest ut assensus fidei divinae tanquam principio nitatur authoritate hominum vel simili motivo humano quippe quod secundum se absolute fallibile est Major autem imo maxima certissima animi adhaesio quam sides divina continet non ex viribus naturae aut humanis persuasionibus provenit sed ab auxilio Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui liberae voluntati nostrae By this it seems that ultima resolutio sidei divinae is in illam certitudinem quam habemus per auxilium Spiritus Sancti c. Hear then his last stating of the point Quod ad formalem de qua nunc agimus fidei resolutionem attinet expeditus ac verus dicendi modus est iste citing Cajetan for it 2. 2. q. 1. a. 1. Quod sides divina ex parte objecti ac motivi formalis resolvatur in auhoritatem Dei revelantis Credo Deum esse incarnatum Credo Ecclesiae item definientis authoritatem infallibilem esse quia prima summa veritas id nobis revelavit But if you ask whence or why he believeth Deum summam veritatem id revelasse he goeth on Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse ulterius resolvi vel per fidem i. e. divinam probari non potest nec debet quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur sed supponuntur I wonder why he adds not here that the believer hath fidem divinam infallibilem Deum veracem talia revelasse ex auxilio Spiritus S. succurrentis intellectui c. for he saith it before But then if asked again How he knows or believes that this his faith Deum revelasse c is ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti here at least he must have stay'd as at the first principle of Resolution of Faith divine But now that fides which he calls humana and fallible can go on further and give a ground or motive why it believes Deum veracem talia
9. But only †in those points which she proposeth tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria § 10. Where Concerning the several senses wherein Points are affirmed or denied to be de Fide. § 11. That as only so all divine Revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide i. e. the objects and matter of Faith. 12 13. And That the Church can make nothing to be de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c which was not so always from the Apostolick times § 12. That all divine Revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de fide i. e. creditu necessaria § 15. That the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such Points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so § 16 17. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express it only †in Points clearly traditional § 18. Whether and by what marks those Points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other Proposals § 27. Anathema no certain Index thereof § 29. PART 2. Concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment whether due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible § 30. 1. That no submission of our judgment is due to the Proposal of the Church where we are infallibly certain of the contrary § 33. 2. That no submission is due to an inferiour Person or Court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superiour to repair to for resolution § 34. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever that is short of infallible certainty § 35. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture § 37. 2. From Reason § 38. Where Several Objections and Scruples are resolved § 39. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 44. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks § 51. Conclusion § 54. OF INFALLIBILITY PART 1. IT remains that I give you an account touching the other two Queries proposed The First concerning the Infallibilty of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Second concerning Obedience and Submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible Two Points as they are stated on the one side or the other either leaving us in much anxiety and doubt or in the moveal of this swelled with much pride and self-conceit or leaving us in much tranquillity and peace accompanied with much humility and self-denial Points as they are stated one way seeming much to advance the tender care of the divine Providence over his Church and to plant obedience and unanimity among Christians or as stated another way seeming to proclaim great danger in discovering truth to call for humane wit prudence sagacity and caution and to bequeath Christianity to perpetual strife wars and dissentions And therefore it concerns you to be the more vigilant that affection carry you not on more than reason to the assenting to any Conclusions made in this Discours To take in hand the former of these Concerning the true measure of the extent of the infallibity of the Church by Church I mean the lawful General Representative thereof of which see Church-Government 2. Part § 4. and 24. in the beginning I must confess that I know nothing expresly determined by Councils except what is said Conc. Trident. 4. Sess. Praeterea ad câ—ercenda petulantia ingenia decernit ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei morum ad aedisicationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia cujus est judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Scripturarum S. aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat Neither is there any mention found of the word Infallibility in the Decrees of Trent or any other received Council or yet in the Fathers as F. Veron in his Rule of Faith 4. c. hath observed and therefore saith he let us leave this term to the Schoolmen who know how to use it soberly and content our selves with the terms of the Councils The best is as the exact limits of this Church-infallibility seem no where by the Church to be punctually fixed so they do not in respect of yeilding obedience to the Church seem necessary at all to be known except to such a one as will not submit his judgment to any authority less than infallible of which more anon 1. First it is granted as by all the Catholicks so by the most learned of the Protestants see them quoted in Church-Government 2. Part. § 29. That the Church or the lawful General Representative thereof is infallible in its directions concerning necessaries to Salvation whether in points of pure faith or of practice and manners tho I yeild Mr. Chillingworth denies this see the discussing of his opinion in Church-Government 2. Part. § 26 -3 Part. § 76. without which doing I think he could not have made a thorow Answer to Mr. Knot nor could he have denied those other points which seem to be consequents of this as namely That we must know from the Church also the distinction of Necessaries from others Or must assent to Her in all she proposeth as Necessary That the Defence of any Doctrine the contrary whereof is proposed as necessary against the determination of the Church or lawful General Council is Heresy as being always after such sufficient proposal obstinate That any separation from the external communion of all the visible Church is Schism as being always in her professing and practising all necessaries causless Which Propositions the defence of his cause seems to me to have forced him to disclaim and so also this ground of them That the Church is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals or Necessaries And this infallibility the Church is said to have either from the constant assistance of God's Spirit according to our Saviour's promise at least for such points or also from the Evidence of Tradition much pleaded by some later Catholick Writers But since here by Necessaries may be understood either Doctrines c absolutely necessary to be known explicitely for salvation and that to every one that shall attain salvation for to some perhaps more are required than to others according to their several capacity and means of revelation see Necessary Faith § 10. 11. 16. which may be perhaps only some part of the Creed or else by Necessaries may be understood all other doctrines and rules that are very profitable and conducing thereto The Church being granted by both sides an infallible Guide and Director in Necessaries 1. First it seems most
reasonable that the Church'es infallibility in Necessaries should be taken in the latter sense there being nothing in our Saviour's promise that appears to restrain his assistance or in the conveyance of Tradition that appears to restrain its certainty to the former sense See Church-Government 2. part § 31. In which former sense if it be only allowed the Church'es insallibility in guiding Christians will be confined only to two or three points and those scarce by any at all doubted-of or disputed In this latter sense therefore both because of our Saviour's promise and the evidence of Tradition it must be said that the Church cannot be mistaken in defect but only if at all in the excess not in substracting from Christians any part of such necessary faith or duty but perhaps in superadding thereto something as necessary which is not 2. And here also secondly concerning such excess I think you will grant me That it will be hard for a private man to judge that any particular point decided by the Church is not some way or other necessary to be stated known and believed by reason of some ill influence which the contradictory thereof may by some consequence at least have upon our other faith or manners necessarily required and formerly established Nay farther that it will be hard to say that any point decided c is not necessary either directly and immediately or by connexion with some other points that are so to the actual exercise of Christian Religion and the practice of a completely holy life to which the most contemplative points of faith are very much conducing tho they mistakenly seem to many in this respect useless and therefore that they ought not to be so rigidly vindicated 3. And thirdly yet further if the Church be granted infallible in Necessaries however we take them it seems also most reasonable that from her we should learn if this be at all requisite to be known which or how many amongst many other decrees of hers if she makes any besides those concerning Necessaries which I say or how many are necessary For to what other Judgment can we repair for this unless to our own But how unreasonable this That whilst she is appointed to guide us with her infallibility in some points we are to state to her in what points only she can infalliby guide us This Mr. Chillingworth well discerned when he said 2. c. § 139. We utterly deny the Church to be an infallible Guide in Fundamentals for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals it follows nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not and consequently to make any Church we may say or Representative of the Church i. e. a General Council an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all things which she proposeth and requireth to be believed i. e. In as many things as she saith are fundamental and she may say all are fundamentals or necessary if she will. Thus he So 3. c. § 59 60. to that objection since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe Her in fundamentals and cannot precisely know what be those fundamentals we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point He answers by granting the consequence and denying the supposition I mean the former part thereof That we are obliged to believe her in fundamentals in delivering of which he saith she may err As for that Objection ordinarily made against the Church'es defining what points they are that are necessary and wherein by consequence she is infallible viz. that then Ecclesia non errabit quando vult because she may as she pleaseth nominate the points fundamental c. We answer that it being supposed necessary that the Council or the people must know not only the fundamental points but an exact distinction of such from the rest of which presently the same divine hand that will not suffer the Council appointed for the peoples guide to erre in any fundamental neither will permit them to say or to define any point to be fundamental that is not because this latter thing is supposed as necessary as the former i. e. God will never permit them to say they do not or cannot err in any point wherein they may err 4. But fourthly after all this it seems to me not to follow necessarily that if our Saviour by his Spirit preserve the Church an infallible Guide in necessary points of Faith 1. Therefore she must be infallible in distinguishing them from all other points which perhaps are not the same if we speak of those whereof men are to have an explicit knowledge to all persons and from whence if it be true it will follow that the Church shall travel in vain to prescribe any set number of such points See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. 1. l. 4. c. Solutio Quaestionis hujus i. e. of absolute necessaries inanis impossibilis Nor 2ly doth it follow that therefore the Church should certainly know in what particular points she is infallible and in what not Certainly know I mean not for some but for every point to the uttermost extremity of Infallibility For who can doubt that she is both certain and may profess her certainty and infallibility and the absolute necessity that lies on all to believe some of them for many of those points she delivers namely for those at least which are of clear revelation of universal Tradition and also for the immediate manifest and natural consequentials thereof Nay who denies that private men also from the abundant clearnes of Scripture only may attain sufficient certainty of many doctrines of Christianity But I say certainly know that she is inerrable for every point in which she is so For as to one ground of her infallibility the assistance of the Spirit leading her into all truth necessary since men may be and all regenerate men are guided by the Spirit of God and yet without extraordinary revelation cannot certainly discern and distinguish the particulars wherein they are guided by it nor sensibly perceive the motions thereof why may not the Church also be ignorant in what particular points she is so far assisted by God's Spirit as never to give an erroneous judgment in them And as to the other ground evidence of Tradition tho I grant sufficient assurance or infallibility in it if plenary yet 1. Tradition of some points being greater and of some other lesser and more obscure this Tradition seems not always in all points to be such as to amount to that certainty some of late pretend 2ly By this the Church can only know her infallibility in points traditionary But then some determinations of Councils and that under an Anathema will be found to be not of doctrines clearly traditional and such as have bin the common tenents of the former Church but of new emergent
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
§ 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
so it is in the instance he giveth But in some other sentences it is false viz. when they enjoyn me an action the lawfulnes whereof is questioned For since I may never do a thing believed unlawful for me to do therefore here I must either believe their determination for my doing it just and right or I must not do it Now as I said before this I may believe either by believing the thing in it self lawful which they judg so or at least that it is lawful for me to do it rebus sic stantibus tho the thing in general prohibited or unlawful to be done without such circumstances because God hath peremptorily obliged me to obey their sentence tho in some things errable As may be shewed in many instances which were decidable by such Judges For example a controversy ariseth between a bounden servant and his master whether he is to obey his Masters command in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day The Servant arguing from Exod. 20. 10. In it thou shalt not do any work c that it is by God prohibited Here upon the Judges sentence well weighing this text with other Scriptures I say the Servant is bound by them to water his Master's cattel and therefore bound to think it lawful to do so none being obliged to do what he thinks unlawful to do for Conscientia erronea obligat The same it is if any one upon Levit. 18. 16. refusing to marry the wife of his brother deceased without issue making some false gloss upon Deut. 25. 5. should receive a command from these Judges to marry her My last instance shall be in the very matter whereof Mr. Hooker discourseth tho Mr. Chillingworth avoided it The Church of England passeth a sentence in the supreme Ecclesiastical court That every Minister in celebrating Divine Service shall wear a Surplice Here I say a Puritan may not do what the judicial sentence hath determined c by no means unless he first think or believe the determination of the Council lawful i. e. That his doing this namely wearing the Surplice is not against the law of God. The reason is because here they enjoyn him the doing of that of which the question is whether to do it be lawful But had they enjoyned him to pay a mulct for not wearing a Surplice then the question is not whether he may lawfully pay this mulct for unusquisque potest cedere de suo jure and he who doth this thing is supposed to be satisfied in this point that he may cedere suo jure but only whether that court had a just and legal cause for which they enjoyned this mulct which as to the point of lawful concerns them but not him at all But had the law said or did such a one mulcted doubt whether the law had said no man shall submit to any mulct or punishment which he thinks the Judge unjustly sentenceth him to then must he not pay the mulct till he thought the determination lawful A sentence therefore may be conceived unjust two ways 1. Either in enjoyning men to do a thing which the law as they conceive hath prohibited to be done such a thing may never be done as long as the sentence is thought unjust i. e. Enjoyning them to do what the law prohibits to be done Or 2ly in enjoyning men to do what the law hath prohibited the Judge in such a case to enjoyn but not the others in any case to do tho to do such a thing in such a point ought not to have bin imposed Here the judged doubtles may obey the sentence whilst he thinks it unjust To make things plain I fear I am too tedious See more of this matter in Success Clergy Mr. Chillingworth goes on to shew an impossibility that such a yeilding to judgment against our private opinion can be His words are If you will draw Mr. Hooker's words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of a judicial and final decision just and right tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right it is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus tho at the same time they think the contrary Thus far he To this I have spoken more fully in the following Discours § 2. To make Contradictories the terms in both Propositions must be taken exactly in the same sence els they will be only verbally so As I will shew you this to be after I have first premised this That taking thinking in the latter Proposition for infallibile certainty but t is clear Mr. Hooker means no such thing the words imply a true contradiction for he who saith he believes for any authority whatsoever humane or per impossibile divine contrary to what he is infallibly certain of saith he believes what he believes not or what he cannot believe So that where there is infallible certainty it voids all argument from Authority neither can any one say I do or will submit my judgment to such or such in a point whereof he is sure But let thinking therefore or private opinion be taken in any degeee below absolute certainty and then I think that expression had it bin Mr. Hooker's as it is tho not totidem terminis is far from contradiction To shew which give me leave to change this word think in the latter proposition into some other words which yet are plainly what Mr. Hooker means by thinking and you shall see they will be very well consistent I think or believe from the argument of the authority prudence c of such persons their determination of such a point to be right tho all the arguments I have from seeming reason of the thing or from that sence which I conceive of Scripture incline me to think that such a determination is not right Now I suppose as the terms are here explained none will deny That one may think or believe a thing to be truth not against his belief or thinking but against all arguments which are drawn from his seeming natural reason or otherwise except that ab authoritate if these do not amount to infallible certainty or that a man may yeild an assent of belief in respect of authority contrary to his assent of evidence in respect of the thing so that evidence be in any degree below infallible certainty Els we must deny that we can believe any mystery of faith which seems to us contrary to natural reason see Rom. 4. 17 18. 2 Cor. 10. 5. and these two propositions will contradict also I believe or think such a thing a divine truth from divine authority delivering it tho my natural reason inclines me to think or believe the contrary Doth a man speak a contradiction if he say to a Scholar or a child Do not believe or give credit to your own reason meaning by it the reasons or arguments his brain suggests to him about
errs therefore she cannot know or be sure but that she errs in every thing unles first it be shewed that she knows all things from an equal evidence But 3ly these two not hindring infallibility general in all things which the Church shall propose or decide unles it can be proved that all hitherto passed in the General Councils is only necessaries or that she can determin nothing unnecessary to salvation I see not that it is nor any need that it should be affirmed neither from our Saviour's promise which we have no reason to extend beyond necessaries neither from the force of those reasons which are well urged by some to prove General Councils infallible in necessaries but are faulty if any will apply them to an infallibility General The chief of which reasons I think are these The 1. A Generali Concilio appellari non potest which is granted unde apertissime sequitur non errare Nam alioquin iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo judicio quod erroneum esse potuit R. The argument is good for points de fide necessaria but no further for by this reason the same Councils could not err in judging particular causes and matters of fact for from a General Council in these also is no appeal unless in infinitum to the same court Again some points there are in Non-necessaries wherein General Councils are granted liable to error by those Authors who urge this argument for infallibility as is shewed before § 9. But yet there can no appeal be made from them and peremptory obedience is required to be yeilded to them in these Lastly supposing that no court were infallible yet unappealable some must be that contests and strifes may have an end As also it is no less in temporal courts for temporal causes tho these courts fallible Therefore from unappealablenes doth not follow infalliblenes 2. The Second Haeretici sunt excommunicandi omnes qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis haec Concilia dicunt Anathema contradicentibus but Anathema's and Excommunications for contrary opinions proceed only from the Council's infallibility R. Not always from infallibility for such things are done by Councils less than General and therefore fallible and lawfully see Bell. 2. l. 10. c. done by plenary Councils in cases wherein fallible Anathema's always where lawfully used argue in some authority in others a duty of submission to it and are lawfully used for any thing I know by particular as well as general Councils and against the Schismatical for smaller matters or opinions disturbing the peace of the Church after dubious things determined as well as against the Heretical for necessary and certain points of faith denied As for applying the word Heretick to those who oppose things established in General Councils it is granted that such Council is infallible in all fundamental or absolutely necessary truths If therefore it be affirmed that it never defines any points but such it is granted to be infallible in whatever it defines and this proof thereof taken from the opposers thereof their being called Hereticks may be spared But if we suppose that a General Council may define or determin some points which are not such then the word Heretic must be a little better examined before any thing for infallibility of Councils can be proved from it For either he is said to be an Heretic who knowingly opposeth any definition whatever of a Council proposed under Anathema c. tho it be not in a fundamental or necessary point of faith but if thus then we cannot argue the Council infallible in every thing because he that opposeth her in any thing is accounted an Heretic Or he is an heretic only who opposeth such a Council not in any but such definitions as are made in matters of necessary faith But if thus then we must know Conciliary Definitions exactly which are such which are not before we can know whether the opposer thereof be an heretic neither can we prove the Council Universally infallible because he who opposeth it thus in some points is heretical 3. The 3d. If the Church be not infallible in all that she proposeth none could have any certainty of his faith which faith he must receive and learn from the Church R. Yes he that believeth the Church in all she saith will still have a certainty I mean for the certitudo objecti and will be free from error in all necessary faith which is sufficient if the Church be in the proposal of all necessary points of faith infallible which is affirmed But as for certitudo subjecti i. e. his being certain that in all such points he is free from error which concerns not this place I refer you to those fuller Notes about it Concerning the necessary ground of Saving Faith. 4. But fourthly tho Universal infallibility c may perhaps not be made good by these or any other reasons yet I think by what I have said it appears That none may from this not proved or his proving the contrary think himself discharged of his obedience which is due upon other grounds sufficient without this namely 1. * upon her Supremacy and unappealablenes whom Christ hath commanded him to hear and repair to as his guide and governor under pain of being treated as a Heathen and Publican was amongst the Jews and 2. * upon her Infallibility in all necessaries by which there is no danger to him for any error or mis-practice wherein she may mislead him neither will God for such error call him to account but let him certainly expect this if deserting his guide he doth mislead himself and 3. * besides these upon the dictate of common and natural prudence according to which none may justly withdraw his belief and submission of judgment to those of the greatest skill and integrity in the things wherein he wants instruction meerly upon this pretence that every man may possibly err or lie to him Suppose he thinks that he is infallibly certain in some thing that that which she teacheth him is false yet thus will his obedience be still obliged and kept entire for †most points as with which at least he may not dispence for any lesser scruples and doubtings but apparent counter-demonstrations but perhaps for †all points if he please to examin his own knowledg who goes upon no evidence which the Church also hath not and be not willing to mistake seeming for true certainty from which commonly the most ignorant are appearingly most certain Again suppose he discover General Councils to contradict in any point which yet if it be must needs be in a point not necessary yet may he not therefore totally withdraw his obedience save only to those things wherein they contradict nor perhaps in these neither for according to St. Austin's rule of Councils differing the last obligeth him by which the former may be amended amended therefore also contradicted But then
in things wherein he finds all or many of them unanimously agreeing or being established by some not contradicted or amended by any other succeeding but by the General practice of particular Churches conformed to these he may presume to be truths from their accord as the other falsities from their variance and therefore by no means may plead a release from the one by shewing the other FINIS CONCERNING The OBLIGATION of not professing or acting against our JUDGMENT or CONSCIENCE AND Whether the obedience of Non-contradiction only or also of Assent be due to the Decrees OF COUNCILS CONTENTS IN what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own Judgment § 2. Concerning the Church'es lawful Authority to excommunicate dissenters in non-fundamentals § 4. As likewise to decide which Points are fundamental which not § 7. Several exceptions against obedience only of non-contradiction for Non-fundamentals And that at least all those not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in Non-fundamentals to an obedience of Assent and therefore the most are so bound § 11. Replies to several Objections § 12. The 1. First concerning an inferior Councils decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned 2d Concerning faith salvisical that it must be infallible 3d. Concerning union of Charity sufficient § 14. 4th Concerning trying of doctrines necessary § 15. 5th Concerning what Church'es determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to § 16. A Post-script 2d Paper Concerning infallible Certainty § 19. 1. Infallible Certainty excusing all submission of judgment to others 2. Infallible Certainty to be had in some points Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain 3. Infallible Certainty at least not pretendable against any General contrary judgment of the Church An instance in the Controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only § 27. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible Certainty not excusing our dissenting from the judgment of the Church An explication of Rom. 14. 23. Conference at Hampton-Court p. 72 73. Mr. Knewstub's 2d quest Lastly if the Church have that power also i. e. to ad significant Signs as the Cross in Baptism c. yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was How far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King in his Answer hath these words I will have one doctrine and one discipline one Religion in substance and in ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judgment or Conscience SIR YOU ask my Opinion 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Non-contradiction or also of assent to the Decrees of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Non-fundamentals wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable supposing that such Councils require our assent therein And 2ly Whether one is or can be bound to assent when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgment and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing Answ. I answer on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discours of Infallibility § That if you take judgment here for infallible certainty which see more largely explained below § 19. c. I can soon resolve it negatively That you are not nor cannot be so bound Of which see more below § 20. But if you mean by your private judgment opinion short of infallibility i. e. some reasons that you have either drawn from the natures of things on from the sence you make of divine revelation to think that a thing is thus or so contrary to that general judgment 1. First this question seems * decided on the affirmative part viz. that you may go against your private judgment in mens ordinary practice In secular affairs do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend both believe him to be in the right and do a thing contrary to our own judgment i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have not to do it Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own reason Rom. 4. 17 18. And so the man in the Gospel Mar. 9. 24 Yet I know you will not say that they went in this against their conscience What is the meaning of that ordinary saying These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit to the Church Is it only I submit my judgment in regard of the publishing of it So Dr. Fern comments upon it 2. Treat 1. c. numb 1◠But thus the phrase seems very improper for this is a submission of our speech or silence but not of our judgment at all and is a submission which may well be professed also in things wherein our judgment is utterly unchangeable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain 2. Again * decided by the concessions of several Protestants which seem to yeild the very same thing See Dr. Fern ib. n. 13. where he alloweth that in matters of opinion and credibility or of discipline and rites till we have sufficient evidence or demonstration of truth to the contrary our conformity i. e. of judgment which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our practice remains secure Secure saith he till we have sufficient evidence c. But sufficient evidence we have not in opposition to the Church in things where possibly we may be mistaken and we may be mistaken in any thing whereof we are not certain ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty Likewise Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit his assent alloweth a bare yeilding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve them Which he saith may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the governors of it without deeming them inerrable And in Schism 2. c. 10. s. he saith A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Where surely this submitting and depositing our own judgment implies something more than the concealment of it only since the concealment of our judgment being the least degree of obedience we can
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