things of great consequence as he says afterwards in our times are grown in number so many and in matter so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them Vvhat remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy Ones that Houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God vvhich is ihe Pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Iudgment Thus doctor Field who in his last words rest in her Iudgment speaks home enough and discouers the only efficacious way of curing Sects And see also vvhether this doth not confront the Doctors 29. Principle Church-Infallibility there being changed into Church-Auctority and the Principle being applyed to priuate mens Practise And what need is there of Bishops Presbyters or any Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants as to the Office of teaching or expounding these Writings if these in all necessaries are clear to all Persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them I mean exclusiuely to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of it And doth not the Doctor here to euacuate the infallibility of the Churches Gouernors introduce an infallibility or Inerrabillity of euery particular Christian in all points necessary if such Christians will that is if only he shall sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them And moreouer of the sincerity of this his endeauour also I suppose the Doctor will allow any one may be certain else how can the mind of a poore illiterate Countrey-man be at rest who can neyther trust to the Faith of his Guides nor the sufficiency of his own industry For surely this sincere is not all possible endeauour such as is learning the Languages perusing Commentators c. But as Mr Chillingworth who anchored his whole Religion vpon it states this Point namely such a measure thereof as humane Prudence and ordinary Discretion their abilities and opportunities and all other things considered shall aduise And thus such a clearness in necessaries must the Scriptures haue as suits with the very lowest capacities Such a Clearnesse I say euen to all Articles of the Athanasian Creed if these be esteemed Necessaries and euen as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father In which notwithstanding the whole Body of Socinians dares to oppose all Antiquity vpon pretence of cleare Scripture to the contrary But then the Doctor is desired to consider That if euery Christian may become thus Infallible in Necessaries from 1. a clear Rule 2. a due Industry vsed 3. and a certainty that it is so vsed May not the Church-Gouernors still much rather be allowed infallible and so retain still their infallible Guide-ship and the People also the more clear the Rule of Faith is proued to be the more securely be referred to their direction And haue we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church euen a General Councill of them or if it be but a major part of this Councill t is sufficient in their consults concerning a Point necessary to saluation deliuered in Scripture vse at least so much endeauour for more needs not as a plain Rustick doth to vnderstand the meaning of it and also the like sincerity For what they define for others they define for themselues also and their Saluation is as much concern'd as any other mans is in their mistakes And next Why may not these Gouernors vpon such certainty of a sincere endeauour and clearness of the Rule take vpon them to define these Points and enjoyn an assent to and belief of them to their Subjects especially since it is affirmed that all those from whom they require such Obedience if they please to vse a sincere endeauour may be certain thereof as well as they And are we not here again arriued at Church-Infallibility if not from extraordinary Diuine assistance yet from the clearness of the Rule Only we must suppose such sincere endeauour in the Church as the Doctor allows may be in euery priuat man And thus does not his conditionall Infallibility of particular persons in necessaries the condition being so easy necessarily inferr a Morall Impossibility of the Churches erring in them Which ought the rather to be admitted by them Since some of their Divines to make this their Problem the more iustifiable that the Scriptures in all necessaries are clear to all persons think it a safe way in the next place to contract these necessaries to the Apostles Creed But after all supposing these Gouernors in stating some Points fallible enough I cannot hence gather any just relaxation of their Subjects submission of their judgment to them vpon pretence of clearness because such Fallibility of their Superiors in some Points can reasonably be supposed to arise from nothing else but some obscurity in the Rule which must be greater still to their Subjects and then what more fitting and ordinary then in matters of consequence to follow a prudent and experienced though fallible persons Direction rather then our own Lastly suppose this granted That the Scriptures may be vnderstood by all persons in all things necessary and so an infallible Guide vselesse yet I see not what aduantage the Doctor can make of this Principle for the Protestant Religion For since the sence of Scripture is now de facto debated between Catholiks and Protestants about so many necessary Points of Faith the Doctor cannot with truth or charity affirm the sense of these Scriptures clear to be vnderstood on the Protestants side to all those who sincerely endeauour to know their meaning where the Major part of Christendom vnderstands their meaning contrary as he must grant they doe in all those hee accounts the common Errours both of the Greek and Roman Church a large Catalogue of which may be found in many Protestant Authours And will he charge all these as defectiue in a sincere endeauour But rather such sincere endeauour being indifferently allowd to all parties he ought to pronounce the sence of Scripture to be clear if on any on that side as the Major part doth apprehend it Which certainly is not the Protestant For Example How can the Doctor rationally maintain this Text Hoc est Corpus meum so often repeated with out any variation of the Terms to bear a sense clear on the Protestants side that is That the Eucharist is not in a litterall or Proper sence the Body of Christ when as they are vnderstood in a litterall sence by much the Major part of the Christian world not onely the Western but Eastern Churches also as Monsieur Claude concedes to his worthy Aduersary Monsieur Arnaud to which also may be added half the Body of the Protestants namely all the Lutherans Now all these haue vsed their senses and weighed the
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
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
before they can look on themselues as obliged to giue it And therefore He and the Archbishop so farr as any such Councills are fallible allow only an Externall Obedience or silence to them Now for Obedience to these first four Generall Councills in a submission of judgment to them vpon such an Vniuersall Acceptation of them the Doctor in another place thus writes The Church of England looks vpon the keeping the Decrees of the fower first Generall Councills as her Duty and professeth to be guided by the sence of scripture as interpreted by the vnanimous consent of the Fathers and the fowr fist Generall Councills that is shee professeth to take that which such Counciils deliuer for the sence of scripture Not then to admit their Definitions if first they accord with the scripture taken in our own sence So also else where he saith The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be deliuered as the sense of scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick sense of the fowr first Ages that is in their Oecumenicall Councills as he expresseth it in the preceding page And here also he giues the Ground of such submission viz. a strong presumption that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should be held by the Catholick Church whose very being depends vpon the belief of those things that are necessary to saluation And when saith he those correspondencies were maintained between the seuerall parts of it that what was refused by one was so by all In another place also speaking in generall of Councills vniuersally accepted he saith That both the Truth of Gods Promises the Goodness of God to his People and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned that such a Councill should not be guilty of any notorious errour Here you see he saith that the Truth of Gods Promises is concerned that these Councills should not fall into any notorious Errour Therefore such Promises are made absolute to some Church-Gouernors after the Apostles And then where the Errour is not intollerable saith the Archbishop at least Obedience of Non-contradiction will be due to all such Councills Now a notorious Errour it must needs be if an Errour in Fundamentalls And such notorious Errour in particular would this be If they should hold themselues when they are not infallible in their Decrees and so should require a Generall Assent such as that in the Athanasian Creed from Christians to them as to Diuine Reuelations and make them DE FIDE thereby in case any Decree be not true obliging all the Members of the Church to an Vnity in errour Thus farr then as to Fundamentall Errours it seems Gods Prouidence secures both such Councills and their subjects And then also for their erring in Non-fundamentalls both He and the Archbishop put this among the RARO CONTINGENTIA The Archbishop also is much in justifying the Catholick Church infallible not only in its Being but Teaching and that must be by its Councills Doctor White saith he had reason to say That the Visible Church had in all Ages taught that vnchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Fundamentall And again It is not possible the Catholick Church that is of any one Age should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to saluation Where the word teach shews that he intends the Gouernors of the Church in euery Age. Likewise in another place If we speak saith he of plain and easy scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it And If A. C. meane no more then that the whole Vniuersall Church of Christ cannot vniuersally erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to mens saluation be fights against no Aduersary that I know but his own fiction Where it follows But if he mean that the whole Church cannot erre in any one point of Diuine Truth in generall if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide the scripture then perhaps it may be said that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point Here then the first of the whole Church not erring in Fundamentalls as well as the second are spoken of the Church determining And so is that saying of his viz. That though the Mother-Church Prouinciall or National may erre Yet if the Grand mother the whole Vniuersall Church that is in her Generall Councills vniuersally accepted controlling the other Prouincial or National cannot erre in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience that is to the Grand-mothers commands taken from the possibility of the Churches erring namely as to all necessaries are quite taken away Thus he But safe c. it could not be if the Catholick Church the Grand mother as she held so could not also witness all the necessary Truths against such inferiour Councills But how these things will te reconciled with what the Doctor saith else where I know not Let him take care of it as name ly where he writes thus You much mistake when you think we resolue our faith of fundamentalls into the Church as the infallible witness of them For though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fundamentall for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not belieue them it doth not follow thence necessarily that the Church must infallibly witness what is fundamentall and what not And again That all infallible assistance makes not an infallible Testimony or makes not the Testimony of those that haue it infallible surely Teaching declaring its consent condemning Doctrins contrary to Fundamentalls is Witnessing or giuing Testimony XVII PRINCIPLE 17. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the Truth of these Writings and to interpret them and at the same time to proue that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an assistance not being supposed or to pretend that infallibility in a Body of men is not lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility I. For the former part of this Principle viz. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of c. If the Doctor in the words at the same time to proue that Commission from these Writings means here to proue such Commission or Assistance only or in the first place from these Writings the truth of Which Writings are first or onely proued from such Commission c. the Absurdity vrged by him I grant 1. As all Articles of Faith are not by all Persons learnt at once so neither by all exactly in the same order as is frequently obserued by Catholick Writers A Christians Faith therefore may begin either at the Infallible Authoriry of scriptures or of the Church and this Infallible Authority of