either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it viz. 1. either the Infallible Authority of the scriptures from that of the Church the Church testifying so much of the scriptures Or 2. that of the Church from the scriptures Or 3. Also the Infallibility of either of these may be rightly proued from its own testimony For whoeuer is proued or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without any Circle or Petitio Principii or identicall arguing that whateuer he doth witness of himselfe is true I say all these Consequences are naturall and necessary 1. The Testimony being granted euident that the one bears to the other or either to its selfe and 2. the infallibility of one of these either of the scripture or of the Church being first learnt not from its own or the others testimony but from Tradition 2. When a Catholick then first receiues an assurance of the Truth or Canon of scripture from the Infallibility of the Church or its Gouernors he may learne first this supernaturall Diuine assistance and Infallibility of these Gouernors which is made known by Diuine Reuelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner as the Protestant saith he learneth his Canon of scripture from Tradition To which tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whateuer is to scripture 3. Neither may we think that this Diuine Assistance or infallibility of these Guides of the Church in necessaries should either not haue been or not haue been a thing well known to or belieued in the Church by this to use the Doctors terms Deriuatiue and perpetuated sensation of Tradition if there had been no Diuine Writings for soe the Christian religion Without such writings would haue been no rationall and well grounded no stable and certain Religion which surely the Doctor will not affirme And this that is said here of the Churches Infallible Authority may be also of other necessary Articles of the Christian faith For as the Doctor saith It is euident from the Nature of the thing that the Writing of a Diuine Reuolation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Reuelation Because men may belieue a Diuine Reuelation without it as is euident in the Patriarchs and Christian Beleiuers before the Doctrine written 4. Such Infallibility in necessaries then being so settled in the Gouernors and Pastors of the Church the Apostles and those others ordained by them by whom the World was conuerted as that had there been no scriptures it should not haue failed for so the Church would haue failed too The successors cannot be imagined to become disenabled or depriued of it because the Apostles afterwards wrote what they taught but rather by such Writings more secured in it Because the Belief of this Infallibility of these successors receiues a second euidence from the Testimony thereof also found in these Writings Thus both written and vnwritten Tradition-Apostolicall attesting it 5. Now that these Gouernors of the Church who hauing an apparent succession their Testimony must haue been vnquestionably belieued by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no scripture alwayes reputed and held themselues Diuinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the Traditiue Faith of the Church grounded on our Lords Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fitt their Decisions in the Creeds and by their Anathematizing Dissenters the Churches stiling them Hereticks For no Authority if we belieue the Doctor but that wich proues it selfe Infallible and therefore which is Infallible can justly require our internall Assent or submission of Iudgment And Protestants allowing only an externall obedience or silence due to Councills Fallible inferrs that Councills Fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councills are Infallible as do justly require more as did the fowr first Councills with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an Authority assumed by them We find indeed subordinate Councills also stating sometimes matters of Faith censuring Heretiks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with Relation to the same Infallibility residing in the Generall Body of Church Gouernors and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Iudgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick see and a generall acceptation rendring their Decisions authentick and valid 2. For the latter part of this Principle Nothing is more absurd then to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility If the Doctor means here as in his Rationall Account that the sentence of a Body of men Infallible is he saith not in some things lyable to some Doubts but as lyable to Doubts and Disputes as the Infallible scriptures for there he maintains That the Decrees of Councills are as lyable to many Interpretations as any other Writings And again If the scriptures cannot put an End to Controuersies on that account how can Generall Councills do it when their Decrees are as lyable to a priuate sense and wrong Interpretation as the scriptures are Nay more c. I say if this be his sense then not to compare Absurdities here Is not this all one as if he said That a Preacher or Commentator can or doth speak or write nothing plainer then the Text Nor the Judge giue a sentence any more intelligible then the Law That Councills can or haue decided nothing clearer then the thing that is in Controuersy And so no Party is cast by them since it appears not for whom they declare And that the Decree of the Councill of Trent as to Transubstantiation remains still as disputable as the Text Hoc est Corpus meum But then how comes it to pass that Protestants when the Definitions of later Councills are urged against them do not contest them as dubious but reject them as erroneous From the same misarguing the Doctor elsewhere concludes That the argument of the Vnity in Opinion of the Roman Party because they are ready to submit their Iudgment to the Determination of the Church will hold as well or better for the Vnity of Protestants as theirs because all men are willing to submit their Iudgments to scriptures which is on all sides agreed to be Infallible Thus He. Now to consider it Moses his Law prescribed by God for an Infallible Rule yet had Iudges appointed when Doubts and Contentions hapned about the meaning of it to explain the sense Our sauiour accordingly in the Ghospell when any one had a Controuersy against another which Controuersy perhaps might be Heresy or his Brothers teaching something contrary to the Rule of Faith ordered vpon such Person his not being
which it proposeth Yet it signifies much for his hauing a right and sauing Faith in all those matters proposed by this Church which cannot misguide him see the Consideration on the nineteenth Principle which right and sauing Faith children and other illiterate country people in the Catholick Church haue without any such infallible assurance concerning the Proponent as is abundantly declared by Catholick writers In like manner the Protestants also affirme That the Holy scriptures may signify much to the begetting a true and sauing Faith euen in those who cannot from Vniuersall Tradition certainly proue them to be the word of God XXII PRINCIPLE 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our infallible assurance without an equall infallibility in our selues in the belief of it If no particular person be infallible in the Assent he giues to matters propos'd c. Here Matters is left indefinite If the Doctor means to any matters at all proposed the Proposition and Consequence thereto annexed are true and granted But on the contrary a particular person may be infallible in the assent he giues to some matter proposed viz. to this That the Church is infallible If he means to all matters proposed then it is faulty and denyed For though no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to all matters proposed by others to him yet may he be so in this the Churches Infallibility And so the Consequence also is voyd and the Churches Infallibility will signify as much as is expected to mens infallible assurance in those matters it proposeth Here then Catholicks affirm That though euery person is not so any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or what euer Certainty that may be called which Vniuersall Tradition can afford assured of this Diuine Reuelation the Churches Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motiues of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally-infallible and certain means of belieuing the scriptures to be the word of God On which word of God or Diuine Reuelation the seuerall Articles deliuered by it in the sense their own priuate judgment apprehends the Protestant grounds his Faith Again on which word of God or Diuine Reuelation in the sense this Infallible Church interprets the same Articles the Catholick grounds his Faith But as the Protestants except here from being primarily grounded on or proued by the same scriptures this Fundamentall Point of Faith That the scriptures are the true Word of God so they must giue Catholiks also leaue to except here this their Point of Faith the infallibility of the Church from being primarily or as to the first means of Knowing it grounded on or learnt from the testimony of this Infallible Church For this Point may first come to the Belieuers Knowledge either from Tradition or from the Holy scriptures as is explained before in the Considerations on 17. Principle § 28. From the scriptures I say as the sense of them is now learnt not from this Infallible Church but either from their owne sufficient Clearness in this Point or from Tradition Nor are Catholicks necessited in arguing against Protestants who grant the scriptures to be Gods Word to vse any other Testimony then that of these scriptures for a sufficiently clear Proof of Church-Infallibility For I think I may call that a clear Proof euen according to the Doctors common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Yet whilst they deny a sufficient Euidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in scripture if they would allow a sufficient Euidence of Church-Authority established to decide Ecclesiasticall Controuersies with Obligation to Externall Obedience by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much Major Part may be admitted as it ought to giue Law to the Whole In the Belief and Profession of Which Church-Infallibility and submission of priuate mens judgments to her sentence passed in her synods the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controuersies and establishing Peace For he tells them That those Points which haue been determined or commanded synodically after a Legitimate way of Councills they are receiued by all Faithfull Christians as consonant to the Diuinely-Inspired scriptures And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith It is not lawfull for vs confiding in our own priuate Explication to vnderstand to obserue or interpret any saying of Diuine scripture any otherwayes then as hath seemed good to those Theologues who haue been approued and receiued by Holy synods directed by Gods spirit least that declining from the right Euangelicall Doctrin the Conceptions of our minds should be carried about hither and thither like a Proteus But some wilt aske How shall those things be reformed How Euen thus by Gods Assistance if we take not into our hands nor giue credit to any things besides those which haue been instituted and ordained by the Holy Apostles and Holy synods He who obserues this limit is our Companion in celebrating Diuine Mysteries he is of the same Communion and Faith with us Again in his Preface to the same answer he saith We will giue our Answer not alledging any thing of our own but from the seauen Oecumenicall synods the last of these is that so much persecuted and befoold by Doctor Stillingfleet in his last Book And from the sentence of Holy Doctors interpreters of Diuinely inspired scriptures whom the Catholick Church hath by an Vnanimous consent receiued since the Holy Ghost hath breathed forth by them and spoken in them such things as shall foreuer remain unmooued as being founded on the Word of God For the Church of Christ is the Pillar and ground of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail as God has promised Here we see in the East the same Zeale for Councills and for Fathers taken collectiuely as an Infallible Guide as is in the West and the like endeauour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgment and humble submission of Judgment XXIII PRINCIPLE 23. The Infallibility of euery particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other vseless for if euery person be infallible what needs any Representatiue Church be so too and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if euery Person be not infallible in the belief of it we are further to enquire what certainty men may haue in matters of Faith supposing no
sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be MORALL not in the later This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians haue or may haue a sufficiently certain and infallible Euidence of the Truth of their Christianity But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of seuerall necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that externall Infallible Guide therein And the perpetuall Diuine Assistance and so Infallibility in Necessaries of this Guide being declared in the scriptures a Catholick hauing once learnt this Point of Faith from it Definitions and Expositions becomes secure and setled in the belief of all those controuerted Articles of his Faith Wherein Others another whilst the scriptures in such Points at least to persons vnlearned or of weaker judgments which are which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sence and drawn with much art to seuerall interests XXVIII PRINCIPLE 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firm assent that the scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolued into the scriptures as into the rule and measure of what hee is to belieue as it is into the Veracity of God as the ground of belieuing what is therein contained Both Catholicks and Protestants profess to resolue their Faith into the Word of God and Diuine Reuelation or into the scriptures so as is said on Principle 14. and 29. and make Gods Veracity the Ground of their belief of the things therein contained But the former resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sense of it where disputed is deliuered by the Church whose Faith the Apostle commands vs to follow and to whom Christ himself giues testimony as S. Augustin saith As for Protestants they resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sence of it is ultimatly apprehended and vnderstood by their own judgments None here to vse the Doctors words elsewhere vsurping that Royall Prerogrtiue of Heauen in prescribing infallibly in matters question'd suppose in those Points the Doctor named before the Doctrine of the Deity of Iesus Christ or of the Trinity But leauing all to judge and so the Socinians according to the Pandects of the Diuine Lawes because each member of this society is bound to take care of his soul and all things that tend thereto But here the Doctor will permit vs to aske whether euery one is bound to take care of his soul so as vnder the pretence hereof to disobey their Resolutions and Instructions in Faith or Manners whom God hath appointed to take care of and to watch ouer their soules and will require an account of them for it Here therefore let euery one take the safest course and where there is no euident Certainty always make sure to side with the Church XXIX PRINCIPLE 29 No Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what was reuealed by God himselfe in that Book wherein he belieues his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offered to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no fundation in scripture or is contrary thereto Which rejection is no making NEGATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH but only applying the generall grounds of Faith to particular instances as I belieue nothing necessary to saluation but what is contained in scripeure Therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 1. Here first obserue That what no Christian is obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church Authority And that the Doctors freeing the Churches subjects here from the former doth so from the later It concerns therefore his superiors to look to it whether their Churches and their owne Authority suffers no detriment particularly from this Principle I mean so as it can be applied to priuate mens practice 2. Next obserue That the Expression What is reuealed by God c. as it is applicable to persons must either mean What such person only thinks belieues or is perswaded to be reuealed c. or what such person certainly knows to be reuealed And the same may be sayd of the later expressions what hath no foundation What is contrary Now as either of these two Additions are made a great alteration is made in the Principle and what in the one Addition is true in the other may be false As for example when a culpable Ignorance belieues something that is enjoyned by this Authority not to be reuealed in Gods Word which indeed is so and so rejects it here such act is not justifiable Very necessary therefore it seems here to make an exact distinction that if the Doctor means it here of the one viz. certain Knowledge it may not be misapplyed by any to the other namely a belief or full perswasion For so men set once vpon examining well in such high mysteries their owne Certainty will I conceiue neuer find just cause to reject what this Church-Authority to which they owe obedience recommends to them vpon Her Certainty But to take Expressions as they lye For the first Part of this Principle thus much is granted That no Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what is reuealed by God himselfe in his Word Written or Vnwritten both which the Doctor else where allowes to be of the same Value so it be euident they are his Word Where I adde vnwritten because though it is granted before on Principle 14. that the Word written or Book of scriptures contains all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary to be of all persons belieued for attaining saluation Yet some Articles of a Christians Faith there may be that are not there contained which may be also securely preserued in the Church by Ecclesiasticall Tradition both Written and Vnwritten deriued at first from the Apostolicall as for example this by Protestants confessed That these Bookes of scripture are the Word of God I say thus much is granted For no Church-Infallibility is now pretended but only in declaring what this Word of God deliuers requireth authorizeth and a Catholicks whole Faith is grounded on Diuine Reuelation And where such pretended Infallible Church-Authority enjoyns any thing to be belieued meerly as lawfull it grounds it selfe on this Word of God for the lawfulness of it The Consequence also is granted viz. That a Christian is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offred to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no foundation in scripture or Gods Word as before explained or is contrary thereto that is which is certainly known to such Christian to be so there being no matter of Faith enjoyned by such Authority but what is pretended to be so founded But then such Christian where not infallibly certain
against it ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the Knowing what things are reuealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to vse the Doctors Expression to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority Else a mistaken and culpably ignorant belief herein will no way justify his disobedience No more then the Socinians contrary belief justifies him against the Decrees of the Church in those Points which yet he belieues not to be founded in Gods word and rejects as contrary And the Doctor els-where to express and curb such extrauagant and capricious beliefs is glad to call in for the interpreting of Scripture to them the concurrant sense of the Primitiue Church the common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and learned men And on their side who disbelieue this Authority he calls for no less then Demonstration and this not some improbable Argument miscalled so but which being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent thereto that is that euery reasonable man vnderstanding the terms assents to But how this and seuerall other things which haue fallen some times from the Doctors pen do consist with these Principles and some other Tenēts of his Or how the true sense of Scripture in all Necessaries is so clear and intelligible to euery sincere endeauourer as that he hath such Demonstration for it as that no rationall man hearing it can dissent from it I cannot vndertake to giue a Satisfactory account Mean while such Protestants as perhaps may cast their eyes on these Papers may do well to consider whether vpon such a Demonstratiue Certainty in the Points controuerted as this it is that they oppose Church-Authority teaching them otherwise Likwise the Common Reason of MankindChristian the Common consent of Wise and learned men named by him before what are they indeed but where all are not vnited in the same judgment the most common Suffrage and testimony of the present Vniversall Church whom also we ought sooner to credit then any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitiue Church in case this suffers any debate And if as he says Particular persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they haue Demonstration that is their own certainty and Infallibility as to such Point to shew against it then we need not seek for our Lords Patent of the Churches Infallibility for their or our submission to it tell the Opposers of its judgment for the Points they dissent in produce theirs Here then we see the Doctor getts as near to an Internall Infallible or at least Authenticall Proponent as his cause and interest will permitt him Hoping by his requiring Demonstration and introducing Common Reason and Wise and learned men and Primitiue Church to shake his hands of so many Sectarists who molest his owne Churches peace vpon the account of this his Proposition or something like it viz. that no Christian is bound vnder what euer pretence of Church Authority to belieue that which is not reuealed in Gods Word and is bound to reject what euer is offred to be impos'd vpon his Faith that is contrary or hath no ground in Gods Word c. And you must lett them judg of both these For the last part of this 29. Principle That such Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith I grant that a rejecting of the imposition of a Belief of such a Positiue Point or the refusing to admitt it as an Article of their Faith which may be done whilst they eyther suspend their judgment concerning it or also acknowledg the truth of it supposed no Diuine Reuelation if this were all the Protestants do is not therefore making the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith But mean while the rejecting any such Positiue from their Faith as not only vntrue but contrary to the Scripture is making or declaring the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith because it makes this Negatiue a thing reuealed in Scripture and so a matter of Faith though I do not say an Article necessary to Saluation And therefore perhaps it was that the Doctor in the Reason he annexeth That they only apply the Generall grounds of Faith to particular instances c. mentions indeed such Positiues as are neyther in nor may be deduced from the Scripture but warily omitts such as are pretended contrary to Scripture Now that Protestants declare many of these Positiues they reject contrary to Scripture See for Purgatory Adoration of Images Inuocation of Saints Indulgences in the Article of the Church of England 22. For Works of Supererogation Art 14. For Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not vnderstood by the people Art 24. Sacrifice of the Mass. Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. And to this Belief of the Negatiues of them as contained in Scripture all the Members of the Church of England or at least the Clergy seem to be by their Canons as strictly obliged though some of their Diuines appear not well satisfied with it vnder these terms To allow and acknowledg all the Articles and so these fore-cited agreable to Gods Word To declare their vnfeigned assent to them and this for establishing Vnity of Opinion and consent as those of the Roman Church are obliged to the Positiues who are no such way obliged by that Church to such a necessary Belief of all her Positiues as that a Person nescient of them cannot be saued or that the explicit knowledg of them is necessary though always in some measure beneficiall it is to Saluation But this indeed is necessary to Saluation that any Subject of the Church knowing them to be determined by her obey her Definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such Disobedience being conceaued a breach of Gods Command And from this if I may be indulged to trangress a little an Answer may be giuen to that Quaere of the Doctors in his Book Roman Idolatry p. 52. which he says he could not hitherto procure from Catholiks though he hath often requested it viz. Why the belieuing of all the Ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Saluation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome Where if he will allow me here for auoyding by disputes to change these Words Communion of the Church of Rome into the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church and 2. will giue me leaue to vnderstand a good life here restrained to all other duties of a Christian saue those which respect this Communion else if a good life be generally taken the Doctors supposition must not be allowed Then I answer That such Belieuing and Leading such a life cannot be sufficient for Saluation to so many persons as persist without repentance eyther in a wilfull ignorance of their Obligation to
Rules of tryall the same Motiues by which the Infallibility of any Diuine reuelation is This Consequence couched only in generall terms is granted in the same manner as the 6. Principle is changing must here into may But then of many things examined and discouered by the same way or means some are much more easily by euery one examined and discouered then some others as the Euidence for them in this means are greater So Holy Scriptures belieued such from Vniuersall Tradition may be much clearer in some Articles of our Faith then in others And some Diuine Reuelations may be so obscurely expressed there or inuolued only in their Principles as that some weak capacities cannot discern them which yet in the same Scriptures may discouer the Authority of the Church and its promised Diuine Assistance and Infallibility in necessaries and so from thence learn those other Of which Church and its Infallibility clear in Scriptures for all necessaries and for deciding other Points more obscure therein thus writes S. Augustin in his Dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization Quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest c. Since the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs let whosoeuer is in fear of being deceiued by the obscurity of this Question consult the same Church about it which Church the Holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate And before Earumdem Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum c. That is The truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by vs in this matter or Point of Rebaptization when we do that which has pleased the Vniuersall Church that is which had been stated concerning that Point by the Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselues does commend that since c. Thus writes S. Augustin All which is false and sayd to no purpose if the Scripture be not clear in this That this Church can determine nothing in such important Contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures and that we ought to giue credit to what he decides for then it would not be true what he says The truth of the same Scriptures in this matter is held by vs and He who is in fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of this Question is no way relieued in following the sentence of the Church Now if it be further asked Amongst those seuerall Modern opposit Communions which do equally inuite men into their Society by the Name of the Church Which of them is so Diuinely attested there are beside the Description made of it in Scripture not applicable to other pretended Churches and frequently vrged by the same Father against the Donatists There are I say sufficiently certain rationall Euidences and Marks thereof left to Christians whereby the sober Enquirer after it cannot be mistaken I mean not here those Marks of the true Church though true Marks also the quest of which men are sett vpon by Protestants viz. True Doctrine and a right administration of the Sacraments A Quest or Tryall that can neuer be made an end of being a task to know all the Truths in Christianity first before we can know the Church When as the Enquirer seeks after the Church which as S. Augustin sayth the Scripture demonstrates that by it he may come to know the Truths But I mean those other Marks mention'd by S. Augustin in the Book he wrote of the Benefit of belieuing the Church viz. Sequentium multitudo c. The multitude of her followers the Consent of Nations her Antiquity c. Which Church hath descended visibly from Christ himself by his Apostles vnto vs and from vs will descend to posterity c. And which by the Confession of Mankind from the Apostolick See by succession of Bishops hath obtained the supreme top of Authority whilst Hereticks on all sides barked against her in vain and were still condemned partly by the judgment euen of the common people partly by the venerable grauity of Councills and partly also by the Majesty of Miracles that is by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times of seuerall of which S. Augustin himself was an eye-witness and of some an instrument The same Father repeats much-what the same in another Book of his De Vnitate Ecclesiae against the Donatists a Sect in Africk Non est obscura Quaestio c. It is no obscure Question says he viz. which is the true Church in which those may deceiue you who according to our Lords prediction shall come and say Behold here is Christ behold he is there behold he is in the Desart as in a place where the multitude is not great The time was when the Reformation were constrained to vse the like phrases and also to apply to themselues that Text Fear not little Flock But you haue a Church described in in the Scripture to be spredd through all Regions and to grow still in Conuersion of Nations till the haruest You haue a City concerning which he that was the Founder of it sayd A City built on a Hill cannot be hid This is the Church therefore not in some corner of the earth but euery where most known Now I hope none will think fitt to apply these Scriptures more to S. Augustins time then to any other or to the present For by the same reason the Donatists might here haue counter-applied them to some other and not to S. Augustins times Much what the same is iterated again by this Father and three Testimonies I hope will establish this matter where he tells the Manicheans what retained him in the bosome of that Church from which they stood separated Vt omittam Sapientiam c. that is That I may omitt that Wisdome viz. the Mark of true Doctrine which you do not belieue to be in the Catholick Church there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosome The consent of peoples and Nations keeps me there Authority begun by Miracles confirmed by Antiquity keeps me there The Succession of Pastors from the Seat it self of S. Peter to whom our Lord after his Resurrection recommended his Sheep to be fedd by him vnto the present Bishop keeps me there And lastly the very Name of Catholick heeps me there c. Here are S. Augustins Marks to find our the Church from which men were to learn the Truth whilst proposed to seuerall persons and Sects always the same And these are the Euidences in Tradition and in those other commonly call'd Motiues of Credibility which in themselues seeme not justly questionable that will afford a sufficient Certainty to euery Sober Enquirer whereby he may try and discern that present Church to which now also if in S. Augustins time Christ affords a testimony and which lyeth not in Corners nor starts vp after some Ages and vanishes again but is fixed ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum a City sett on
a Hill in the most extended Vnity of an Externall Communion which no other Christian Society can equall a Candle on a Candlestick a Perpetuall erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Truth frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus Where also according to the disparity of seuerall mens capacities I suppose nothing more necessary then that this Euidence receiued eyther from all or only some of these Notes to those who haue not ability to examin others be such as that it out-weigh any arguments mouing him to the contrary and the like Euidence to which is thought sufficient to determin vs in other Elections And then this Church thus being found he may be resolued by it concerning the Sence of other Diuine Reuelations more dubious and generally all other Scrupules in Religion to witt so farr as this Church from time to time seeth a necessity of such Resolution and the Diuine Reuelation therein is to her sufficiently clear only if such person not spending so much of his own judgment will afford instead of it a little more of his Obedience III. CONSEQUENCE 3. The less conuincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the Marks the more obscure the Sence of eyther what is called the Catholick Church or declared by it the less reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of any who call themselues by the name of the Catholick Church All this is true vpon supposition that matters stand as the Doctor would pretend but such supposition being groundless he must giue me leaue to inuert his Consequence and say The more conuincing the Miracles if any credit for these may be giuen to Church-History the more euident the Marks euen now giuen by S. Augustin and modern Catholick Writers the more clear and manifest euen to simple persons who with much difficulty in seuerall places comprehend the Sense of controuerted Scripture is the Catholick Church whose Representatiue are the subordinate Councills and whose Gouernors the seuerall Degrees of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy ascending to the Prime See of S. Peter and the more clear also the Points declared by it viz. in these Councills whose Decrees suppose that of Trent if questioned for their Truth are not for their perspicuity and particularly in the Points of Controuersy they assembled to determin between Protestants and Catholicks the more reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of those who call themselues by the Name and challenge the High Priuiledges which no other Separated Socityes of Christians do of the Catholick Church IV. CONSEQUENCE 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men the greater reason men still haue to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture The Higher any Points of Faith be and the more remote from Sense and naturall Reason or not comprehensiue by them which such Church as is named before and in the highest capacity of it Generall Councils proposeth to the Faith of Christians the more noble exercise they haue of their Faith whilst they haue an abundant certainty also that such Leaders can misguide them in nothing necessary to Saluation And no reason haue they vpon such improbabilities or contradictions to Sense or naturall Reason to suspect or be jealous of the Churches Infallibility as an Imposture which Church they see through what euer obstacles faithfully adheres to the Diuine Oracles how incredible soeuer to Nature and may be thought because it seems not swayed or hindred by these at all to vse more integrity in her judgment and fidelity to the Diuine Reuelations Yet this is not sayd as if the judgment of our Sences appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conueying Faith and his Diuine Reuelations to vs affords not a sufficient Naturall Certainty or Infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our Senses wherein the Diuine Power doth not interpose But only 1. That where the Diuine Power worketh any thing Supernaturally that is contrary to our Senses as it may no doubt here we are not to belieue them And this I think none can deny 2. And next That we are to belieue this Diuine Power doth so so often as Certain Diuine Reuelation tells vs so Though by the same senses if tells us so we belieuing our Senses that it tells vs so when we do not belieue the same Senses for the thing which is contrary to what it tells vs The truth of which Diuine Reuelation we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith For otherwise Lot and his Daughters were not to credit the Diuine Reuelation supposing that Diuine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodome were Angells because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well who because Lots sight was actually deceiued vpon this Supernaturall accident in taking the Angells to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficiēt Certainty or ground from their seeing our Lord to belieue him risen from the Dead Or that no Belief could euer be certainly grounded vpon our Senses Nor that Christians haue any certain Foundation of their Faith For a Naturall or Morall Certainty though such as is per potentiam Diuinam fallible and errable and is to be belieued to err where euer we haue Diuine Reuelation for it not else I say a Certainty though not such an one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a Faith as God requires of vs in respect of that Certainty which can be deriued from humane Sense or Reason and which serues for an Introductiue to the relyance of this our Faith vpon such Reuelation as is belieued by vs Diuine and which if Diuine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Reuelation an infallible Object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the Subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Diuine Faith Now this Naturall or Morall Certainty is thought sufficient for the first Rationall Introductiue and security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Diuines in their Discourses of the Prudentiall Motiues V. CONSEQUENCE 5. To disown what is taught by such a Church is not to question the Veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of loue to their souls reject what is so taught To disown what is taught by such a Church as we have here represented it will be to desert what God hath reuealed in the Scriptures the true meaning of which Reuelations when controuerted we are to receiue from it And so men ought not
of it not rightly used that they do not discerne in these scriptures this Infallible Guide which saith S. Augustin the scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate and which repaired to may demonstrate to them what else is necessary The second Proposition is That there can be no such hazard to any person in belieuing a society of men to be infallible that are not if this society be at least more learned and studied in Diuine matters then himselfe and also ordained by our Lord to be his Instructors in them which Protestants I hope allow true of their own Clergy No such hazard I say as is comparable to that euery one incurrs in mistaking the meaning of scriptures though we suppose he vseth his best other means of vnderstanding them exclusiue to his obeying the Instructions of such a society Witness the vnhappy Socinians and all other grosser sects of late sprung out of Disobedience For whereas in following these Guides such persons may fall into some errours and perhaps some of them great ones in this later way of following their owne fancyes the vnlearned may fall into a thousand and some of these much greater and grosser then any such Christian society or Body of Clergy will euer maintain For God hath made no Promise to preserue in Truth those who desert their Guides nor to reward their diligence who liue in disobedience XIX PRINCIPLE 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture then it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility 1. First obserue that whateuer Diuine assistance is aduanced here against the assurance that can be receiued from Church-Infallibility the same is more against any assurāce that may be had from Church-Authority Thus it happens more then once in these Principles that in too forward a Zeale in demolishing the one the other also is dangerously vndermined 2. The Doctor hath all reason here to suppose him that repairs to and is instructed by an Infallible Guide though not knowing him to be such as well as him who seeks for an assurance of his Faith without one sincerely to desire to know Gods will and vpon this to enjoy his promised Assistance so far as God engageth it And then if the Question be which of these two takes the more prudent course he that consults or he that lays aside this Guide for his assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture I should think the former Whilst the one relyes on the judgment of such Guide thought wise and learned though not infallible the other on his own On the judgment of which Guide the one hath much more reason to be confident then the other on his own who neglects the advice of the Wise man Ne innitaris prudentiae tuae Lean not on thy own Prudence At least the Doctor must grant the former of the two to be de facto in a much safer condition For it must be acknowledged a great benefit to haue an Infallible Guide to shew us our way though we doe not know him to be Infallible for so we keep still in the right way though belieuing only and not infallible certain that it is so so we walke in Humility and obedience And if God hath directed us for learning our right way to a Guide surely he will take no prudent course who committing himselfe to Gods immediate Assistance shall neglect it and break his commandement in hope of his fauour XX. PRINCIPLE 20. No mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend vpon the objectiue Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreable to the euidence we haue of it in our minds for Assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us This Proposition is granted viz. That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible vnless he also certainly know or haue an infallible evidence that he is infallible Only let it be here remembred That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we haue an infalliblé euidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Because if we are infallibly certain that he cannot ly in such matter who relates it to us we are also hence infallibly certain that what he says is truth XXI PRINCIPLE 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued so that the ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility vseless This Proposition That therefore it is necessary in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued is not well deduced from the precedent Proposition rightly vnderstood Neither is it true and so the Consequence also faileth viz. so that the Ground on which a necessity of some externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless Because as was now said for the yeilding an Infallible assent to the things proposed it is not necessary that the person haue an infallible euidence of the truth of the things proposed that is from the Internall Principles that proue or demonstrate them But it is enough though the things proposed remain still in themselues obscure to him that he haue an infallible or sufficiently certain Euidence only of the Infallibility of the Externall Proponent The Ground therefore vpon which the necessity of some externall infallible Proponent is asserted for begeting such infallible assent is because the Person hath by no other way any infallible euidence of the things proposed Which if he had then indeed the Proponents Infallibility for such Points is rendred vseless And by this I hope sufficiently appeareth that misarguing that seems to cause a great confusion in the Doctor 's Principles whilst vpon an infallible assent requiring an infallible Euidence layd down in the Twentieth Proposition and Conceded he concludes as necessary to our yielding an infallible assent to all that the Church proposeth an infallible Euidence of the things proposed and then hence inferres the vselessness of such infallible Proponent And here note that though the Churches Infallibility to such a person as is not infallibly assured of it signifies nothing as to his infallible assurance of that
arguments drawn from them as well as Protestants But if the Doctor put this Text so much controuerted among Obscure Scriptures which therefore not containing any Point necessary to saluation saluation is not endangered by it if a Christian should err or be mistaken in their sense then how comes this great Body of Christians meerly by the mistake of its sence in thinking that our Lord meaneth as the words sound that the Eucharist is his very proper Body and so in adoring as they ought should it be so how come they I say to committ such grosse Idolatry as the Doctor in his Book chargeth them with and so all without repentence miscarry in their Saluation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestants side neither will this relieue the Doctor because since this also on what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controuersy for deciding of it we are to presume here likewise that a sincere endeauour being allowd to all Parties to vnderstand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprehends it Now the present Catholick Church being a Major part professes to follow the sence of the Ancient in interpreting Scripture XIV PRINCIPLE 14. To suppose the bookes so written to be imperfect that is that any things necessary to be heleeued or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not deliuering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it downe and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in belieuing the fullnesse and perfection of the scriptures in order to saluation The two inferences made here by the Doctor are faulty For 1. Neither can the first Author of scripture be charged with fraud if he haue deliuered part of his mind only by writing and part some other way as the Doctour Prop. 7. 8. 9. acknowledges he might vnless it be manifest that he hath obliged himselfe by a Promise of delivering his whole mind by writing which is not shewed 2. Neither can the Writers of scripture be charged with insincerity if so much as they were inspired with to set downe and register there they haue done it Meanwhile as touching the Perfection of Holy scriptures Catholiks now as the Holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all Points of Faith which are simply necessary to be of all Persons belieued for attaining saluation And of this Doctor Field may be a Witness who saith For matters of Faith we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselues that there is nothing to be belieued which is not either expresly contained in scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things euident in the Light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded XV. PRINCIPLE 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober enquirer can misse of what is necessary for saluation there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible society of men either to attest and explain these Writings among Christians any more then there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iewes to attest and explain to them the Writings of Moses or the Prophets The Consequence here is good viz. That supposing the Will of God is so clearly reuealed in these Writings that no sober Enquirer can misse of knowing what is necessary to saluation there can be then no necessity of any Infallible society But the supposition of such a clearenesse fayles as the 13. Prosiosition on which it is grounded doth It failes I say in the sense the Doctor deliuers it who referrs his sober enquirer only to the Writings themselues for information in all Necessaries Without consulting his spirituall Pastours for the right explication of them Nor doth the Doctors Language any where run thus That the will of God is so plainly revealed in these Writings for then he should say so obscurely rather that no sober man not who repairs to the Writings but who enquires of and learns from his spirituall Pastours the right sence of them shall miss c. But if the supposition in the Doctors sence be allowed for true there seems to follow something more then the Doctor deduceth and which perhaps he would not admit viz. the non-necessity of any society at all fallible or infallible to explain these Writings as to Necessaries all Christians being herein clearly taught from God in these scriptures or this their Rule vnless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord for others to supersede their endeauours or for instructing them in non-necessaries As touching that which the Doctor in the clause of this Princ. speaks of Moses and the Prophets certain it is that Moses his Writings and the Law were not penned with such Clarity But that Doubts and Controuersies might arise concerning the sence of it so we find mention made of doubts between Law and Commandement statutes and Iudgments And 2. such Doubts arising their address was to be made to the supreme Iudges appointed for deciding them 3. Whateuer their sentence was according to the sentence of the Law that these should teach them and according to the judgment that they should tell and inform them they were to do and that vpon pain of death To do I say according to such sentence not only when they were to vndergo some mulct or punishment imposed by these Judges for a fault but when they were enjoyned the obseruance of some Law formerly misunderstood by them and so broken and disobeyed This seems clear enough from the words of the Text for who can reasonably interpret them thus Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left vers 11. that is Thou shalt not decline in not paying the mulct in which they shall fine thee or not vndergoing the corporall punishment they shall inflict on thee Thou shalt obserue to do according to all that they shall informe thee and according to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee vers 10. that is thou shalt suffer what they impose but not obey what they enjoyn Again they were to do according to such sentence vpon pain of death not then only when the Litigants do aknowledge their sentence to be juxta Legem Dei conformable to Gods Law for then what sentence of the Iudge would stand good but so often as the Judge should declare it to be conformable to Gods Law And when will a Judge declare his sentence to bee otherwise Lastly not to debate here the Infallibility of these supreme Judges as to all necessaries in the Law
of Moses Let the like absolute Obedience be now yielded to the supreme Ecclesiasticall Courts Let their sentence be so conformed to so assented to among Christians for none is obliged to do a thing as the Jewes were by those Judges but is by the same decree obliged to assent and beleeue the doing it lawfull and more is not required XVI PRINCIPLE 16. There can be no more intollerable Vsurpation vpon the Faith of Christians then for any Person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giuing an equall degree of euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by Miracles as great publick and conuincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the conuiction of those who do not belieue it Notwithstanding the Doctors Assertion in this Proposition That a society pretending to Infallibility is obliged to confirm such a pretention by Miracles as great as Christ and his Apostles did yet himself and the Archbishop whom he defends do hold that there is after the Apostles times a body or society Infallible in Fundamentalls viz. such Oecumenicall Councills as are vniuersally accepted by the Catholick Church which Church they say from our Lord's Promise can neuer err in Fundamentalls Now it is certain this society is not equally assisted with miracles as our Lord or his Apostles were Therefore the Doctor may do well to reuiew this Principle 1. But its failings being of no difficult discouery I shall not let it pass vnexamined First then I see no reason that those equally assisted by God in deliuering a Truth must also be enabled by him to giue an equall euidence of such Assistāce where there is not the same necessity of it as there is not when the later deliuer no new thing from the former 2. Again Though none can pretend to be Infallible or actually not erring in what he proposeth but that he must be as infallible as to the truth of that wherein he erreth not as our Lord or his Apostles for one or one persons truth is no more true then any others yet in many other respects the Churches Infallibility is much inferiour to that of the Apostles in that it is 1. Neither for its matter so farr extended the Apostles being affirmed infallible in all they deliuered as well in their Arguments as Conclusions both in their relating things heard from our Lord and things anew inspired by the Holy Ghost whereas the Church-Gouernours are acknowledged infallible only in their Definitions in matters of necessary Faith and not in their receiuing any new matters inspired by God but in faithfully deliuering the Inspirations of the former 2. Neither for the manner are the Church-Gouernours so highly assisted by reason of the other knowledge and euidence they haue of that Doctrine first deliuered by the Apostles and so from them receiued which vnchanged they conuey vnto Posterity Of which degrees of infallibility see Archbishop Lawd pag. 254. and 140. 3. And in the third place hence it follows that Miracles hauing been wrought by the first in confirmation of that Doctrine which both deliuer are not now alike necessary to or reasonably demanded of the second 4. Yet since our Lord and his Apostles time Miracles haue been and are continued in the Church of which see irrefragable testimonies giuen by S. Augustin In that Church I say that pretends Infallibility and only in that Church not any other departed from it pretending thereto And vniuersally to deny the truth of them is to ouerthrow the faith of the most credible Histories But these are done in these later as in former times only when and for what ends God and not man his Instrument pleaseth and many times without such persons precedent knowledge in making his Requests what the Diuine Majesty will effect Neither are the Apostles themselues to be imagined to haue had the Operation of Miracles so in their power as as to do these in any kind when and upon what Persons they pleased or others demanded For such a thing would be of such a force vpon mens wills to compell them into Christianity or to reduce unto the Catholick Church Christians strayed from it as the Diuine Prouidence perhaps for the greater tryall of mens hearts and merit of their Faith hath not ordinarily vsed 5. Lastly Miracles remaining still in this Church though they be not professedly done for conuincing a Dissenter in this or that particular Truth yet do sufficiently testifie in generall a security of saluation in the Communion and Faith of this Church if God only honours with them the Members of this Communion and no others that liue out of it as we see no other Christian society diuided from it that layes claim to them or shews any Records of them or euer did at least such as may be any way equalled either for frequency variety or eminency with those of this Church I mean although so many of these be rejected and layd aside where appears any rationall ground of suspicion That the Doctor and the Archbishop do hold such Generall Councills as haue an vniuersall Acceptation from the Church Catholik diffusiue to be Infallible seems to me clear from the places forecited in them For in those both the Doctor and Archbishop admitt That the Church diffufiue is for euer preserued Infallible in all Fundamentalls or Points absolutely necessary to saluation and this by vertue of the Diuine Promise that the Gates of Hell shall not preuail against her and other Texts And therefore such Councills whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusiue must be so too I say as to Fundamentalls though as to other Points not fundamentall they affirme these Councills also lyable to errour and fallible because the Church Catholick diffusiue say they is so also Among the Conditions also that render any Generall Councill obligatory they require this for one that they be vniuersally accepted or haue the generall consent of the Christian World such Councills then there may be And then such Lawfull Generall Councils and so approued and consequently obliging the Christian World they confess the first four Generall Councils to haue been To which Councills therefore they profess all Obedience Now wee see what kind of Obedience it was these Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed accepted by the Church of England which contains the summ of their Decrees viz. no less then assent and belief and submission of judgement and all this vpon penalty of eternall damnation And this if justly required by them inferrs vpon the Doctors arguing their Infallibility For saith he where Councills challenge an internall Assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their Decrees are in themselues infallible there must be first proued an Impossibility of error in them
otherwise reclaimed that in the last place the matter should be brought to the Hearing of the Church and such Person if not hearing the Church to be excommunicated Now I ask to what end either of these if such persons be no nearer to Vnity of Opinion or conuiction and ending their Disputes by submitting their judgments to the sentence of these Iudges or this Church then before they were in the same submission of theirs to the Rule Infallibility alone ends not Controuersies but clearness Clearness in the Point controuerted Which if the scripture hath how comes Controuersy about it and Controuersies between so great Parties Churches Nations In this sense of scripture Catholiks dissenting repair to the Decision of the Church w ch if any way obscure is capable of being made by it afterward more intelligible submit to its Iudgment and so become vnited in Opinion in all those Points the Church decides wherein Protestants rejoyce in their Liberty still to disagree Vnited in Opinion I say true or false here matters not We speak here of Vnion not of Truth But now when the sense of scripture is the like matter of Controuersy between two sects of Protestants as frequently it is What Course do they take for Vnity of Opinion Repair they again to the scriptures they controvert But these can neuer decide which of the seuerall senses they take them in is the true Repair they to synods So the Arminians and Antiarminians did Then surely this they do because that Vnity prouided there be a submission of Iudgment to both is attainable by the sentence of the synod or Church which is not by that of the scripture Which is the thing here denyed by the Doctor And hence it proceeds that Catholicks must be much more vnited in Opinion or Iudgment then Protestants in as much as they all owne submission of Iudgment to so many Councills which the other reject These not accepting the Decrees of aboue fowr or siue of those Councills whilst the Catholiks admit of fowr or suppose three times so many and namely of one the Councill of Trent of which Soaue affirms That in all the Councills held in the Church from the Apostles times vntill then there were neuer so many Articles decided as in only one session of it And Protestants aggrauate the Tyranny of the Church of Rome in tying all her subjects vnanimously to belieue and that as necessary to saluation so many Points of Faith wherein the Protestants leaue to all men liberty of Opinion And moreouer as for those Differences that remain still or shall arise hereafter they are also conclusiue among them by the same way of Councills vpon the acknowledged obligation of a common submission of their judgments I say not all their differences whatsoeuer are conclusiue which causeth some wonder in the Doctor that this thing is not done in an Infallible Church but so many of them wherein the Church finds on any side sufficient euidence of Tradition or for the grauity of the matter a Necessity of Decision The same Diuine Prouidence that preserues his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined disposing also that for all such necessaries there shall be a sufficient euidence of Tradition either of the Conclusion it selfe or its Principles But as for seuerall other matters of Diuine Reuclation where what is to be held as de fide is not sufficiently yet cleared either by reason of the sense of scripture or of the sense of some Conciliary Decree still disputed among Catholicks in matters that are called indeed by the one or other Party de fide as they variously apprehend this sense of scripture or Councill No such agreement I say in matters of Faith thus taken is at all pretended And their accord in the rest sufficiently transcends that of Protestants But euen these also are capable of the same settlement when the Church shall pass a new sentence concerning them Here then may be resumed that Expression selected by Doctor Tillotson to make sport with viz. That in this their Faith namely as to Points thereof determined by the Church it is impossible that Catholiks should differ one from another and that there should be any Schism among them The Reason is plain because in all such Points they vnanimously Submit their judgment to their Mother the Church or if any doth not he ceaseth to be a Catholick Whereas Protestants not acknowledging any necessary Obligation of such Submission to any Superiours among them it is impossible that debates and Schisms should be auoyded by them XVIII PRINCIPLE 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those Bookes supposing he use the best means for understanding them comparable to that which euery one runs who belieues any person or society of men to be infallible who are not For in this later he runs vnauoydably into one great errour and by that may be led into a thousand but in the former God hath promised either he shall not erre or he shall not be damned for it God hath made no such Promise concerning any one who vseth his best endeanours for vnderstanding scripture that either he shall not erre or not be damned for it if such endeauour be vnderstood exclusiuely to his consulting and embracing the expositions of the Church which if the Doctor includes then Catholicks also affirme that in necessaries such persons cannot mistake Neither can such Promise be pretended necessary since God hath referred all in the dubious sense of his scriptures to the Directions and Doctrine of his Ministers their spirituall Guides whom he hath set ouer them to bring them in the Vnity of the Faith to a perfect man and that they may not be tossed to and fro and carryed about with euery wind of Doctrine by the sleight of those that lye in wait to deceiue And without which Guide S. Peter obserues that in his time some persons for any thing we know diligent enough yet through want of learning and the instability of adhering to their Guides being unlearned saith he and vnstable wrested some places of scripture hard to be vnderstood to their own destruction Therefore these scriptures are also in some great and important Points hard to be vnderstood Now therefore let the Doctor giue me leaue to put these two other Propositions in the other scale to counterpoise his The first That a Person in belieuing any society of men to be Infallible that are so hath a security incomparably beyond that of another Person who is supposed to use the best other means his condition is capable of to understand the scriptures and so follows his own judgment the capacity of most Christians being very little abstracting from the Directions of a Guide their mean condition voyd of learning or leasure and it being a thing vncertain also when they haue vsed a due endeauour And this a prejudice