in which we may easily be deceived Ergo That it is true This for the Spirit In the next place to come to consider Whether all to have true and saving faith must be rationally assured thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition And here we will grant as t is said before 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary and that it is a medium for necessary points of faith free from error 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance and that any or most by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points from the traditionary doctrine and practice which they may see and hear dispersed thro the Church for doubtles our careful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full perswasion of faith in all sorts of men there where his Gospel is preached and this means all men for the ascertaining of their faith as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life according to their condition c. 3. That the Church-decrees may be certainly known and are easily understood and more easily in many things than the Scriptures namely where these happen to be doubtful to us and doubtful they are or should be where ever Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we and hence that this point being supposed that the Church is infallible those who believing her to be so do rely upon her judgment have for the most part a stronger perswasion and those knowing her to be so have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures because the former persons faith rests on a double ground the saying of Scripture and the sense of the Church interpreting it And thus one adhering to the tradition and doctrines of the Church hath more warrant for his Faith than a single Scripturist 4. That those who hold Church-tradition fallible can have no other way an infallible evidence whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith But all these granted yet such a degree and measure of certainty or assurance as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it and render it no true divine and acceptable faith but an humane opinion and perswasion as some contend But saving faith may be begotten where the proponent of the word of God or of divine revelation mediate or immediate is not or at least is not known to be which is all one with the former to the believer's certainty infallible and it sufficeth to it that what one believes is the word of God and that he believe it in some degree or other predominant to unbelief to be so And this I think may be shewn in many instances and by many reasons 1. For first some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles questionles endued with true faith yet believed before any certainty of the infallibity of their teachers or before or without seeing their miracles tho these also seen afforded to some no certainty who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1. meerly by the powerful operation of God's Spirit So the Eunuch to be a true believer needed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip So Cornelius and his friends some words of St. Peter The Jaylor and Lydia of S. Paul strangers and formerly altogether unknown to them the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts and finishing the work For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day supposing he at that time wraught miracles yet t is not probable that all these were spectators of them or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth but believed only the relations of others persons fallible who stood near him The Bereans why examined they the Apostles doctrines if they knew or esteemed him infallible The Believers at Antioch zealous of the law why contested they with St. Paul and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible Or the weaker brethren tho of the number of true Believers why doubted they long time of some meats unclean contrary to the Apostle's instruction T is true that whoever believes that which another relates must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived but yet he who in any other one thing doth not believe him doth not believe him to be infallible And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibility of the Hierosolymitan Council yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council but private Doctors whom I have shewed that some of them accounted not infallible nor yet was their faith nullified thereby 2. Believers no way heretical or schismatical but submitting unto the Church in all things and believing her and her traditions to be infallible c and consequently whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure yet if things be well examined all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means or motive or proponent of their faith I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures nor the Tradition of former times nor universal present Tradition nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church neither for other points nor yet for this That the Church or the Tradition they rely upon is infallible But being young as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians when children or illiterate necessitated to handy-labour quiescent in one place or perhaps inhabiting deserts and solitudes c do receive the doctrine of their faith believing and yeilding obedience thereto only from their Parents or the Curate of the place or from their bare reading or hearing read some portion of Scripture recommended to them for but not proved at all to them to be the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth and obeying it but having no more external argument or assurance thereof than another suppose educated in an erroneous Church and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical hath of his error Now private teachers even within the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant or rationally uncertain of what they teach and a Catholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion than the Protestant both inheriting their tenents from their next Ancestors For Error once begun is propagated afterward by Tradition as well as Truth Or 2ly being rationally certain of the truth yet may he wilfully for filthy lucre for fear for lasciviousnes c see 1 Thes. 2. 3 5 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14. misguide his disciples Or 3. lastly teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows yet is this his certainty tho something to the truth of the others faith nothing to their
having stronger adherence upon smaller evidence provided no evidence attainable be neglected 1 Pet 3. 15. See Jo. 20. 29. The reason of which is because faith is no way acceptable to God or saving so far as it is by true or by seeming demonstration forced upon the understanding with a reluctance mean-while of the will for then the faith of Devils would be so who doubtles have much more evidence of their faith than many Christians but only so far as it is embraced and accepted of by the will and affections and in some manner becomes our election and choice which election so contrary in many things to the flesh being never made without the power of the Spirit hence chiefly is faith such as is saving said to be its work See Ben. Spirit § 4. Again if men for the sufficiency of their faith depended on the infallibility of the Church or her traditions it follows none can have of any thing true faith which is not first determined by the Church or known from universal Tradition Therefore none can be said fide divina to believe or assent to any of those Theological verities which are ordinarily drawn by clear and necessary consequence from the Scriptures and tho not by the Church decided by the Schools which seems absurd 5. Lastly Let but a rational certainty from the infallibility of Tradition be necessarily required to faith for one point namely this That our Scriptures are God's word for which all sides are agreed in admitting it and I do not see how it can be denied that for many other points i. e. those wherein God's word is clear and which are by no side controverted one may be sufficiently certain from the Scriptures themselves independently on the Church or Tradition fave for the one point above-named For since God's word may be in some things I mean such as are uncontroverted as plain and consonant to it self as any Synod-Catechism if such a Catechism is thought a sufficient ground to one to assure his faith why may not the Scripture Now after all that I may not seem to you in this my judgment heterodox at least to other Catholic writers you may be pleased to view what Estius the famous Divinity-Professor at Doway and what Card. Lugo a Spanish Jesuit have delivered on this subject See Card. Lugo tom de virtute fidei dis 1. § 12. n. 247. c. where he brings reasons for this opinion not much differing from those above-mentioned As 1. Since the belief of Infallibility it self must be produced from some other motives if such motives be sufficient for the begetting the faith of this why may they not be sufficient for some point of faith besides it 2. New converts embrace and truly believe some other articles of faith before they are acquainted with that of Infallibility 3. Rusticks commonly resolve their faith into no further proof than their Parish-Priest and what he relates to them 4ly Under the law of nature before Moses most were believing only upon the authority of their Parents without any Church-proposal His words are these num 247. Probatur facile quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus Sancti creditur fide divina quae docet in Ecclesia esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere in Ecclesia hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus Sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem articulum authoritatis Ecclesiae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesia secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universa fidelium congregatione Again num 252. Probatur Conclusio 1. Quia in primis in lege naturae plures credebant ex sola doctrina parentum sine alia Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scripta plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur proponerentur quia soil vitae sanctitate rerum convenientia aliis de causis objectum reddebatur prudenter credibile praesertim cum viderent aliqua ex iis quae Prophetiae praedicebant quotidie impleri Denique in lege Evangelica Act 3. 4. c. Beatus Petrus miraculo facto testatus est se illud fecisse in nomine Christi nulla facta mentione authoritatis Ecclesiae vel suae convertit tria millia hominum qui sane prudenter moti sunt licet non conciperent Ecclesiae authoritatem And num 251. Non requiritur ex natura rei Ecclesiae propositio ad credendum In all which note that this Author speaks of sides divina salvifica as appeareth in the first instance naming fides divina in St. Peter's converts c. and all his discourse otherwise were besides the purpose See Estius to the same purpose in 3. sent 23. dist 13. sect where after many considerable arguments he goes on Fidei impertinens esse quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchisedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderunt cum nondum de infallibilitate Ecclesiae quicquam eis esset annunciatum Sic ergo sieri potest ut aliquis non inhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam regulae infallibili quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat quia vel nunc vel olim miraculis confirmata sunt vel etiam quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifeste videt vel alia quacunque ratione inductus licet alia quaedam credere recuset Again Haereticus potest quaedam tenere ea firmitate assensus promptitudine voluntatis qua ab aliis omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Again Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Where note that Estius also speaks of sides vera and fides donum Dei quo divinitus illustramur such as that was of Abraham Melchisedech and the Apostles converts And note again that tho this Fides vera divina is in no Heretick's integra as to all points of faith perfect because if one failed not in some point of faith he could be no Heretick yet many times it is
controversies not discussed or heard-of in precedent ages which the Church decides by the judgment and learning of her Bishops considering * texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and * other doctrines of former and present times to which they seem to have some relation All which points I believe few Catholicks will agree * that they should be excluded from necessaries if not found to be of evident Tradition or * that in new controversies nothing ever is determined by the Church and that under Anathema but only what was formerly evident Tradition which new determinations if there were not sometimes then what need is there of the superassistance of the holy Spirit that the Church err not This * concerning the first Concession by both parties That the Church is infallible in her directions touching Necessaries and * concerning some consequents thereof 2. Secondly it must be and I think is granted by all that own Christianity That the Church is sufficiently infallible in all points that are of Universal Tradition or at least of Tradition so general as that is which we have of the Scriptures tho such points were not necessary at all els they must deny that we have certainty enough from Tradition that the Scriptures are God's word And this undeceivableness of general Tradition is the only or chief ground that some Catholick writers of late build the Church'es infallibility upon not that they deny her infallible in all necessaries too but that they make all Necessaries to be eminently and beyond all mistake traditional 3. Thirdly it is granted I think generally by those of the Catholick Church That the Church is not absolutely infallible in all things whatsoever that she shall say or propose but only in such things as she proposeth to her children tanquam de side or necessario credenda whether they concern speculatives or practicals and manners Concerning this matter I will give you the several limitations as I find them set down in some of their latest writers To begin with Bellarmin one who is thought sufficiently rigid in vindicating the Church'es infallibility Thus he de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Concilia Generalia non possunt errare nec in fide explicanda nec in tradendis praeceptis morum toti Ecclesiae communibus I may add out of another place de verbo Dei 4. l. 9. c. nec in ritu cultu divino for the present times of such Councils For saith he as Ecclesia universalis non potest errare in credendo so neither in operando recteque August Ep. 118. docet insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare non recte sieri quod ab universa Ecclesia sit tale est Baptisma parvulorm licet actu non credant c. But then he saith again in conciliis maxima pars actorum ad sidem non pertinent i. e. non proponitur ut necessario credatur non enim sunt de fide disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum illustrandum adferuntur nothing incidently spoken and without purpose to define it sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantum quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile Vide Concil Viennense parvulis in Baptismo conferri gratiam He grants ibid. That Concilia in Judiciis particularibus i. e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti Ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. quoad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora sed non quoad dogmata fidei i. e. such as are once proposed by an Universal Council tanquam creditu necessaria Emendari saith he therefore they may err He goes on quod confirmatur ex verbis Augustini qui dicit tunc emendari Concilia quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat clausum i. e. in the time of the former Council experimento enim aperiuntur saith the Cardinal quaestiones de facto vel de moribus non quaestiones Juris universalis And I suppose Bellarmin also will not deny the same of Speculative doctrines of which it appeareth not that in the former Councils they are peremptorily defined ut certa tanquam de fide necessaria for this well accords with what is but now recited out of him de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. According to which c. 8. in his answer to the 10th Objection concerning a difference between two Councils about the number of Canonical Books of Scripture and so pertinens ad fidem he writes thus Concilium Carthaginense esse majoris authoritatis quam Laodicenum quia posterius And Concilium Laodicenum posuit in Canone eos libros de quibus Episcopi ejus Concilii certi erant alios autem omisit non quidem negans eos esse Canonicos sed nolens rem dubiam definire Concilium autem Carthaginense re magis discussa definivit id quod prius Concilium reliquerat sub dubio Where we see that latter Councils may discover something even in rebus pertinentibus ad fidem which former have not and may define the others doubtings Again tho he numbers amongst points of faith in which the Church cannot err not only quae expresse continentur in but also quae evidenter deducuntur ex Scripturis Prophetarum Apostolorum and so makes it the business of a Council as declarare quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum so praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducere conclusiones which conclusions also he numbers amongst dogmata sidei yet he grants that in some deduction as he calls it and ratiocination the Council may err in saying neque rationes quae adduntur quoted before affixing the Church'es Inerrability only to those deductions quae deducuntur evidenter and to such deductions only as are her express decreta and as are proposed tanquam de fide See the former quotations out of him de Concil Authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Like things much-what you may read in our learned Country-man Stapleton See in his Principia fidei doctrinalia 4. controv and 2. quaest his septem notabilia where he saith first that Ecclesia non expectat doceri a Deo immediate solis Enthusiasmis novis afflatibus sreta sed utitur certis mediis ad dubii dogmatis determinationem quia docetur nunc non per Apostolos aut Prophetas quibus immediat a revelatio frequens erat sed per Pastores Doctores 2ly That Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilem peculiarem Spiritus sancti directionem quae necessaria erat Apostolis omnia de novo docentibus fundament a ponentibus sed non succedenti Ecclesiae sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti But 3ly That Ecclesia nihilominus
most firmly the principle and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation but are easily admitted to one anothers communion So the Roman or rather all the visible Church of God before Luther whether Eastern or Western in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour upon which ground they worship it to worship a meer Creature and so to commit idolatry and give God's honour to another yet this Church holding the contrary principle That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental nor are those unconvinced of their error dying in the Roman communion and in this practice by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 3. p. 78. sect 4. p. 123. But note That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points to regulate and guide our belief and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof because here contrary to the Supposition made before we have a sufficient proposal of the truth or an authorized proposer what in such doubtful points we are to hold For if we know or being impartial might know that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment we are convinced by this authority determining as well as by arguments proving Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place the set number of which varying so much according to several persons and conditions yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can tending any way to their Salvation can much less be prescribed than of the former The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility or Whether we cannot savingly and with such a faith as God requires believe some divine truth unless we be infallibly certain that it is a divine truth 1. First then concerning the object of Saving Faith It is true and granted that the object thereof is only God's Word and that this Word is infallible and that since God cannot lye fidei non potest subesse falsum Which saying refers not to the act but the matter of faith i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false because it is the Word of God which is apprehended by this Faith Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on or ultimately resolved into something which is infallible i. e. God's Word whether this be written or not written and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter tho we may unfeignedly for the act believe any thing but what is certainly true Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word and 2. that it be believed by us to be so So the Schools Fides non assentit alicui nisi quia est a Deo revelatum And 3ly that this word be believed to be utterly infallible From whence this therefore follows 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith 2ly That Faith believing any thing which is true yet not as divine revelation or God's word or this word not to be infallible is no divine or saving faith So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon But our Quaere goes further Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith that we not only believe what is God's infallible word but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty and assurance which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church and Tradition 1. First it seems that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these these again both the authority of the Scriptures and of the Church do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition By which I mean * a Tradition so universal as these things are rationally considering all circumstances capable of i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth and * a Tradition so full and sincere as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute 1. For first supposing the Church infallible yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition which universal Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof and not from the testimony of Scripture and so escapes a circular proof The series then of proof is this The Church is proved infallible at least in Necessaries from our Saviour's promise of assisting her c testified in Scripture These Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from universal Tradition and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible from the evidence and nature of it self because it is morally i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature impossible for so many men of so many ages so dis-interested to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter Or as some others express it such Tradition tho it were not so plenary as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church must be allowed to be infallible from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs amongst which are Miracles as it is contrary to the veracity of God supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship to permit that they should be fallacious The series of the probation runs thus The Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from the testimony of the Church which testimony of the Church or of so many people so qualified is proved to be infallible not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture for thus the proof would run in a circle tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid tho it be true also that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony but as being so universal a Tradition or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed as it is morally impossible especially considering God's veracity and providence that it should deceive us But as I said to prove the Church the other way to be infallible i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures which Scriptures to be divine we learn only from the Church Or more plainly thus to prove the Church to be infallible in
all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures our Saviour's promise c. delivered there and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible because this is one of her traditions or doctrines is granted even by some of the Roman writers to be a circle See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9. c. Non audentes fidem divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali i. e. in universal tradition and he gives the reason because they cannot be perswaded quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltant c. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it than this of Mahomet If he should first write a law which tells the people that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth and then prove to them that law to be or to say to them an infallible truth because he delivers it A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition that Scriptures are the word of God otherwise to men as to Protestants supposing the verity of Scriptures tho unproved by the Church t is no circle if any one suppose a Catholic from them being granted attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility tho the same Romanist also doth affirm that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church'es testimony or from tradition Only where both these Scripture and Church-infallibility are denied neither can be proved by the other till one is either supposed as true or proved by some other medium which medium is received to be tradition and if so then I say there can be no more certainty that the Church is infallible than that certainty which lies in universal Tradition 2. And secondly the same may be said for Scriptures which being supposed to be infallible because God's word yet if they are proved only by the same tradition to be God's word all the certainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradition For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath Again suppose I were without tradition infallibly certain that such Books are God's word yet can I not for all this quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith For my faith being grounded not on the bare words but sense of those books and the sense of the same words being divers especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary notwithstanding this clearnes become very ambiguous and that in some necessary points of faith as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and matters of faith to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity Grace and Free will Justification c. upon which first known I must ground my faith I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word Here therefore tho the Scripture for the Words should not yet my Faith for their Sense would have a dependance upon and repair unto universal Tradition and where-ever the Sense is doubtful to me as the Scriptures may be doubtful to one where perspicuous to another the chief certainty I can have for that Sense which my Faith ought to embrace will be from the universal Church-tradition Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore on which as the Final assurer of the Scriptures or of the Church'es Infallibility the act of Faith must rest let it be granted 1. First without disputing whether it be absolutely infallible because it is needles to the stating of our business That there is in it certainty or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon For tho t is willingly assented to that Tradition being in its nature a relation of a thing gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible for t is not absolutely impossible for all men in the world from the beginning thereof till this time to have lied in every thing they have said but yet he were no ordinary mad-man that upon this nonimpossibility would believe no relation at all only because t is not absolutely impossible that they may err and himself hit the right yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein or else that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures that they are God's word Which granting that some few learned and studied men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture yet for this the most of men especially as to some of the books thereof depend on the certainty of Tradition And indeed it were impious to affirm that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledg of good and evil upon which our eternal happi nes is to be acquired or misery sustained or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths whereby we are to direct our lives to that end for which he hath created us But this can be assigned no other at least to most men than Tradition Therefore it is the interest of all Christians as well those who submit themselves only to the Scripture as those who submit also to the Church unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty therein lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathematical or sensible demonstration they be made Scepticism and Quodlibets 2. But 2ly we must either hold certainty in Tradition or that we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent Yet transfer this discours to any other temporal matter and who can wish to be more sure of any thing than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them As for example that there is such a City as Paris or was such a man as Henry the 8th But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters that are of the same distance of time from us there seems to be much more certainty in that the providence of God hath appointed a selected company of men successively in all ages to be the Guardians Conservers Divulgers thereof to the world for ever 3. Lastly if this Tradition and the doctrines we acknowledge divine were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men not in all but some determinate time and place see Christ's Ben. p. 35. say how posterity can receive these from any other evidence unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven Christ's preaching miracles death to be presented before us and that before every one of us excluding all relations from others because these may be fallible But such a ground of our faith destroys the nature of faith and it
some there are and those as well within as without the Church much more doubtful obscure and questionable than others For 1. both truths committed to Tradition may fail in successive times vel per omnimodam cessationem vel ex eo quod oppositum introducatur viz. where Tradition is not come to a convenient and due pitch of universality as is granted by the strongest abettors of Tradition See Dr. Hold. Resol Fid. 1. lib. 8. cap. And 2. the unfailing Tradition of successive times may be defective in its first original's being false or els in its having many falsities in its current thro posterity superadded to and mingled with the truth as persons are interested or fanciful As Gentilism did superadd many things to the ground-work of religion received from the Jew and writings of the Old Testament For falsum poterit quodammodo caeteris paribus aeque certo ac verum per traditionem communicari els lies cannot be commonly believed But many such we know were credited amongst the Heathen concerning their Gods and are amongst the Mahometans concerning their Prophet and so it may happen that as undoubting an assent may be given to these as is to the truth for ignorance many times doubts less of a thing than knowledg doth But yet this we contend that it will never be so rational And indeed many disparities there are between the credibility of Heathenish or Mahometan and of Christian Tradition * Such as are in Heathenism these †1. that except some foundations of religion borrowed from the Jews and so free from error there is no constancy or agreeance in the tradition thereof but t is varying according to each city or country whereby any one of them much fails of universality and contradictory Tradition destroys it self And 2ly that †as we have said that falsities under the notion of falsities may be conveyed by Tradition so many of the absurd stories of Heathenism seem not to be believed even by the most or wisest of those who propagated them therefore are their Poets their Divines out of whom chiefly such tradition is learned And * Such as are in Mahometanism these †It s spreading 1. * by the force of the Sword contrary to the nature of Tradition and 2ly * by its plausibility and compliance with carnal lusts both great corrupters of the truth of Tradition whereas Christianity flowing down to all ages in opposition to both these by how much it was less pleasing or less protected seems to be strengthned in all times with so much greater evidence of truth and testimony irresistible †It s wanting that universality which Christianity possesseth never having had so large a circuit the Western part of the world having always bin a stranger to it and the growth of it now for many ages being stopped and it decreasing in the world and this great falshood by little and little giving place as is seen in the Eastern Countreys to its elder the Truth I say these and many other disparities there are but besides these the main thing whereby all such Traditions are convinced of falshood lies in this that they came into the world still later than that of the Truth and so are known to be false by their contradiction to it so that Truth against them may always plead prescription * So Heathenism was younger than the Tradition of God's word in the Old Testament and so indeed than the Gospel which also was contained in the Old Testament and taught from the beginning see Rom. 3. 21 23. So that I may say Heathenism was the Antichristianism of the former Ages springing up after the tradition of God's true worship Again * so Mahometanism was later than the tradition of the New Testament being the Antichristianism of the last times but lest the world I mean that part of it to whom it pleased God to divulge the truth by false traditions should be deceived God hath always provided true Tradition to pre-occupate Faith and to anticipate and antidate error Therefore tho we yeild to the truth also of Mahometan tradition in some things as that there was such a one as Mahomet a Law-giver a Conqueror c. yet we know that Tradition that he received his writings from the Angel Gabriel c. to be false because contrary to that divine Tradition which besides many other advantages ought from its antiquity to be preferred God having given to Truth the Eldership of Falshood And on the same grounds may we reject that Heathen-tradition in the Acts of the Image of Diana falling from God c. III. And thus much be granted concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the external motives or proponents the Scriptures Church and Tradition 3ly Concerning the illumination adherence certitude which this Faith that ordinarily first cometh by hearing receives from the inward operation of God's Spirit 1. First let it be granted that the interior working of the Holy Spirit opening the heart is always required besides the outward means for the conception of all saving Faith that we cannot exercise any act thereof without particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost that it is the infused Gift of God as well as other graces of hope and charity see Jo. 6. 29 44 45 64 65. Matt. 11. 25 26. 16. 17. Act. 13. 48. 16. 14 15. Rom. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 3 9. 2 Cor. 3. 3. Gal. 5. 22 23. Eph. 1. 17. c. 2. 8. 6. 23. See Ben. Spir. p. Whence Faith is said to be supernatural as in respect * of its object things above the comprehension of reason and * of it s ultimate ground it builds upon which is divine revelation so * of its act being caused by the Spirit All the acts of faith being in some kind supernatural for such a degree of adherence as they have both because the relater or proponent thereof is many times not at least known to be infallible and because the object thereof many times tho there be all certainty from the relater is capable of much doubt and vacillancy from its supernaturalness and seeming-repugnancy to reason Therefore we see our first Father or at least his wife see 1 Tim. 2. 14. failed in not believing the words spoken by God himself to him and the Disciples when rationally believing our Saviour to be the Son of God and all he said to be truth and seeing his miracles yet desired the increase of their faith and were in it many times not a little shaken thro the contrariety or transcendency which it had to sense or reason And it is reckoned to Abraham as strong faith that he believed the word of God himself in things contrary to nature See Rom. 4. 18 19 20. which Sarah his wife flagg'd in See Gen. 18. 12. 2 King. 7. 2. Thus Faith to make it vigorous and lively comes necessarily to be a work of the Spirit either in regard of the sublimity of its object or
also of the incertainty of the Proponent 2ly Again let it be granted as freely That that Faith which is the Gift of God and work of the Spirit must needs be infallible and exempt from all possibility of error because the supreme verity cannot inspire a falshood 3ly Let it be granted also That the Spirit produceth many times in the soul such a supernatural and undiscursive light and evidence to the understanding and following this such a strong inclination of the will and adherence of the affections to the matter believed as do far exceed all science sense experience demonstration Tho this intuitive rather than argumentative or probative of such truths either to other's or our own reason which this Spirit captivates and brings into obedience * moving us to the strongest faith upon very small evidence and the smaller the evidence the stronger the power of the Spirit against many temptations of infidelity and * opening the heart to such a degree of undoubtedness that we are willing to undergo any Martyrdom rather than quit and renounce our belief See for such certainty 2 Tim. 1. 12. Act. 2. 36. Jo. 6. 69. IV. All this therefore being granted namely That all true saving faith is grounded on God's word which is infallible That all true faith is wrought in us by the Spirit of God which Spirit is infallible That there is a certainty or assurance sufficient if not infallible to be had from universal Church-tradition of both the former namely both * that such writings on which our faith is grounded are God's word and such their meaning and consequently * that the belief of such things contained in them is the work of God's Spirit Yet our Query remains still uncleared Whether I say not some for I grant many have but every one that truly and savingly believes must have an infallible certainty of his faith or must have a known-to-him infallible teacher or motive external as Tradition or internal as the Spirit to ground his faith upon by which he is not fully perswaded but also rationally sure of the truth of that which he believes And this to me notwithstanding the former Concessions seems not at all necessary for the producing of a saving Faith. And first for the assurance we may have from the Scriptures by knowing either in general that they are the word of God or that in such places or points where their sense is doubtful this and no other is the certain meaning of them I have shewed § 23. and 35. That the knowing this must either be devolved upon Ecclestastical Tradition or upon the Spirit And first for the assurance of these Scriptures and so of our faith from the inward testimony of the Spirit to which many fly for succour and first taking this for granted that every believer must be infallibly certain of his faith and then that tradition tho the most full and much more any private instructer being some way liable to errour sufficeth not for to produce such an effect they labour to ground this certainty upon the assurance of God's Spirit None can plead this at all from our faith being caused by this Spirit for it follows not that if the Spirit begets faith infallible in our hearts or also the most unexpugnable adherence thereto therefore we know this faith to be begotten by the Spirit or if it move us that therefore we can certainly tell when it doth so so that we can say to this God's Spirit moveth me to assent to this not For we may have from the Spirit the greatest perswasion or internal evidence if you will of a truth that may be imagined and yet not have any rational or discursive evidence thereof from it neither by other proofs nor by this which is sufficient that we clearly discern the good Spirit to produce it since the like assurance or confidence to some degree is frequently begotten by an impetuous lust or by the evil Spirit for most pernicious errors so nearly imitating the Spirit of illumination as not to be discernable from it by this sign of strong perswasion since many have had it so strong as to dye for them The assurance therefore or full perswasion of a Divine truth by the Spirit is one thing the assurance that this assurance cometh from the Spirit is another And indeed tho in some general things as of the Bible being the Word of God and of some universally-believed points of faith all men are confident of their assurance in them that it is from God's Spirit because indeed all Christians are in these agreed yet in descending to particulars as whether such or such a Book of Scripture be God's Word or be written by an heavenly-inspired author whether such a particular point of faith be to be stated thus or so whether such be certainly the meaning of some particular place of Scripture here I say where there is contradiction and doubt between parties few there are who will offer to plead such assurance from the Spirit as that they cannot be mistaken but labour to inform themselves as well as others the best they can from other reasons And indeed did the Spirit thus always bear witness to it self had we any such internal assurance ordinarily for extraordinary assurances of it happening to some greater Saints of God in very many things I deny not I mean not of the belief of the thing but that such belief of the thing cometh from the Spirit there needed no more confirmation of any point either from Church or universal Tradition or collation of other Scriptures or any other way but this For thus tho some men might profess an error against conscience yet err in very deed in matter of Divine faith none could for knowing that the Spirits operation is necessary to all true faith and knowing again when it operates he may be sure that that which it operates not is no true faith But this sufficiently argues that there is no such ordinary effect thereof in that the pretenders of the Spirit so frequently by this Spirit contradict one another and indeed this arrogant perswasion and ultimate refuge of singularity hath bin the great Source of all Heresie and Schism by reason of mens departing from Tradition and from the Church upon confidence of this Therefore we conclude a man may believe by the efficiency of the Spirit and yet not certainly know its efficiency and may know that by it he believes all which he truly believes in divine matters and yet not know that by it he believes such or such a particular thing So that tho this be laid for a ground That all true Faith is the work of the Spirit yet we must by Scripture or in things doubtful by the Church'es traditionary exposition thereof first know our faith to be true and thence by consequence gather that it is the work of the Spirit not è contra argue that it is the work of the Spirit
9. But only †in those points which she proposeth tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria § 10. Where Concerning the several senses wherein Points are affirmed or denied to be de Fide. § 11. That as only so all divine Revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide i. e. the objects and matter of Faith. 12 13. And That the Church can make nothing to be de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c which was not so always from the Apostolick times § 12. That all divine Revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de fide i. e. creditu necessaria § 15. That the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such Points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so § 16 17. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express it only †in Points clearly traditional § 18. Whether and by what marks those Points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other Proposals § 27. Anathema no certain Index thereof § 29. PART 2. Concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment whether due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible § 30. 1. That no submission of our judgment is due to the Proposal of the Church where we are infallibly certain of the contrary § 33. 2. That no submission is due to an inferiour Person or Court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superiour to repair to for resolution § 34. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever that is short of infallible certainty § 35. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture § 37. 2. From Reason § 38. Where Several Objections and Scruples are resolved § 39. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 44. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks § 51. Conclusion § 54. OF INFALLIBILITY PART 1. IT remains that I give you an account touching the other two Queries proposed The First concerning the Infallibilty of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Second concerning Obedience and Submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible Two Points as they are stated on the one side or the other either leaving us in much anxiety and doubt or in the moveal of this swelled with much pride and self-conceit or leaving us in much tranquillity and peace accompanied with much humility and self-denial Points as they are stated one way seeming much to advance the tender care of the divine Providence over his Church and to plant obedience and unanimity among Christians or as stated another way seeming to proclaim great danger in discovering truth to call for humane wit prudence sagacity and caution and to bequeath Christianity to perpetual strife wars and dissentions And therefore it concerns you to be the more vigilant that affection carry you not on more than reason to the assenting to any Conclusions made in this Discours To take in hand the former of these Concerning the true measure of the extent of the infallibity of the Church by Church I mean the lawful General Representative thereof of which see Church-Government 2. Part § 4. and 24. in the beginning I must confess that I know nothing expresly determined by Councils except what is said Conc. Trident. 4. Sess. Praeterea ad câ—ercenda petulantia ingenia decernit ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei morum ad aedisicationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia cujus est judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Scripturarum S. aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat Neither is there any mention found of the word Infallibility in the Decrees of Trent or any other received Council or yet in the Fathers as F. Veron in his Rule of Faith 4. c. hath observed and therefore saith he let us leave this term to the Schoolmen who know how to use it soberly and content our selves with the terms of the Councils The best is as the exact limits of this Church-infallibility seem no where by the Church to be punctually fixed so they do not in respect of yeilding obedience to the Church seem necessary at all to be known except to such a one as will not submit his judgment to any authority less than infallible of which more anon 1. First it is granted as by all the Catholicks so by the most learned of the Protestants see them quoted in Church-Government 2. Part. § 29. That the Church or the lawful General Representative thereof is infallible in its directions concerning necessaries to Salvation whether in points of pure faith or of practice and manners tho I yeild Mr. Chillingworth denies this see the discussing of his opinion in Church-Government 2. Part. § 26 -3 Part. § 76. without which doing I think he could not have made a thorow Answer to Mr. Knot nor could he have denied those other points which seem to be consequents of this as namely That we must know from the Church also the distinction of Necessaries from others Or must assent to Her in all she proposeth as Necessary That the Defence of any Doctrine the contrary whereof is proposed as necessary against the determination of the Church or lawful General Council is Heresy as being always after such sufficient proposal obstinate That any separation from the external communion of all the visible Church is Schism as being always in her professing and practising all necessaries causless Which Propositions the defence of his cause seems to me to have forced him to disclaim and so also this ground of them That the Church is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals or Necessaries And this infallibility the Church is said to have either from the constant assistance of God's Spirit according to our Saviour's promise at least for such points or also from the Evidence of Tradition much pleaded by some later Catholick Writers But since here by Necessaries may be understood either Doctrines c absolutely necessary to be known explicitely for salvation and that to every one that shall attain salvation for to some perhaps more are required than to others according to their several capacity and means of revelation see Necessary Faith § 10. 11. 16. which may be perhaps only some part of the Creed or else by Necessaries may be understood all other doctrines and rules that are very profitable and conducing thereto The Church being granted by both sides an infallible Guide and Director in Necessaries 1. First it seems most
reasonable that the Church'es infallibility in Necessaries should be taken in the latter sense there being nothing in our Saviour's promise that appears to restrain his assistance or in the conveyance of Tradition that appears to restrain its certainty to the former sense See Church-Government 2. part § 31. In which former sense if it be only allowed the Church'es insallibility in guiding Christians will be confined only to two or three points and those scarce by any at all doubted-of or disputed In this latter sense therefore both because of our Saviour's promise and the evidence of Tradition it must be said that the Church cannot be mistaken in defect but only if at all in the excess not in substracting from Christians any part of such necessary faith or duty but perhaps in superadding thereto something as necessary which is not 2. And here also secondly concerning such excess I think you will grant me That it will be hard for a private man to judge that any particular point decided by the Church is not some way or other necessary to be stated known and believed by reason of some ill influence which the contradictory thereof may by some consequence at least have upon our other faith or manners necessarily required and formerly established Nay farther that it will be hard to say that any point decided c is not necessary either directly and immediately or by connexion with some other points that are so to the actual exercise of Christian Religion and the practice of a completely holy life to which the most contemplative points of faith are very much conducing tho they mistakenly seem to many in this respect useless and therefore that they ought not to be so rigidly vindicated 3. And thirdly yet further if the Church be granted infallible in Necessaries however we take them it seems also most reasonable that from her we should learn if this be at all requisite to be known which or how many amongst many other decrees of hers if she makes any besides those concerning Necessaries which I say or how many are necessary For to what other Judgment can we repair for this unless to our own But how unreasonable this That whilst she is appointed to guide us with her infallibility in some points we are to state to her in what points only she can infalliby guide us This Mr. Chillingworth well discerned when he said 2. c. § 139. We utterly deny the Church to be an infallible Guide in Fundamentals for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals it follows nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not and consequently to make any Church we may say or Representative of the Church i. e. a General Council an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all things which she proposeth and requireth to be believed i. e. In as many things as she saith are fundamental and she may say all are fundamentals or necessary if she will. Thus he So 3. c. § 59 60. to that objection since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe Her in fundamentals and cannot precisely know what be those fundamentals we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point He answers by granting the consequence and denying the supposition I mean the former part thereof That we are obliged to believe her in fundamentals in delivering of which he saith she may err As for that Objection ordinarily made against the Church'es defining what points they are that are necessary and wherein by consequence she is infallible viz. that then Ecclesia non errabit quando vult because she may as she pleaseth nominate the points fundamental c. We answer that it being supposed necessary that the Council or the people must know not only the fundamental points but an exact distinction of such from the rest of which presently the same divine hand that will not suffer the Council appointed for the peoples guide to erre in any fundamental neither will permit them to say or to define any point to be fundamental that is not because this latter thing is supposed as necessary as the former i. e. God will never permit them to say they do not or cannot err in any point wherein they may err 4. But fourthly after all this it seems to me not to follow necessarily that if our Saviour by his Spirit preserve the Church an infallible Guide in necessary points of Faith 1. Therefore she must be infallible in distinguishing them from all other points which perhaps are not the same if we speak of those whereof men are to have an explicit knowledge to all persons and from whence if it be true it will follow that the Church shall travel in vain to prescribe any set number of such points See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. 1. l. 4. c. Solutio Quaestionis hujus i. e. of absolute necessaries inanis impossibilis Nor 2ly doth it follow that therefore the Church should certainly know in what particular points she is infallible and in what not Certainly know I mean not for some but for every point to the uttermost extremity of Infallibility For who can doubt that she is both certain and may profess her certainty and infallibility and the absolute necessity that lies on all to believe some of them for many of those points she delivers namely for those at least which are of clear revelation of universal Tradition and also for the immediate manifest and natural consequentials thereof Nay who denies that private men also from the abundant clearnes of Scripture only may attain sufficient certainty of many doctrines of Christianity But I say certainly know that she is inerrable for every point in which she is so For as to one ground of her infallibility the assistance of the Spirit leading her into all truth necessary since men may be and all regenerate men are guided by the Spirit of God and yet without extraordinary revelation cannot certainly discern and distinguish the particulars wherein they are guided by it nor sensibly perceive the motions thereof why may not the Church also be ignorant in what particular points she is so far assisted by God's Spirit as never to give an erroneous judgment in them And as to the other ground evidence of Tradition tho I grant sufficient assurance or infallibility in it if plenary yet 1. Tradition of some points being greater and of some other lesser and more obscure this Tradition seems not always in all points to be such as to amount to that certainty some of late pretend 2ly By this the Church can only know her infallibility in points traditionary But then some determinations of Councils and that under an Anathema will be found to be not of doctrines clearly traditional and such as have bin the common tenents of the former Church but of new emergent
and tho the Church can make nothing de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation which was not so always from our Saviour's and the Apostles times yet all divine Revelation is not de fide in another sence i. e. proposed by the Church to Christians as necessary to be believed and thus a proposition may be de fide to day which yesterday was not And those who affirm the Church to be unerrable in all points de fide mean not in all points absolutely which may possibly be derived from some traditional principle of Faith but only in so many of them as she proposeth to Christians tanquam de fide or necessary to be believed whilst very many theological propositions probably deducible from the delivered principles and even mentioned affirmatively in Councils yet are no part of these necessarily injoyned credends To return now to our matter whence we digressed § 11. and to pass from Bellarmin to some other late writers of the Roman Church of the moderatest sort These seeing that some deductions and consequences from revealed and traditional doctrines are neither so immediate and clear nor yet so necessary to be known and the contradictory of them to be confuted as others do assert and derive the Churches inerrability chiefly or only from evidence of Tradition not certainty of reason or extraordinary illumination of the Spirit Whence these also holding the Church'es infallibility in all things which she determineth tanquam de fide do likewise maintain all things determined by her tanquam de fide to be only doctrines traditional or those so evidently deductive as that in substance they are coincident with that which is traditional See Dr. Holden de resol Fid. 1. l. 9. c. I will transcribe you some part Quaedam consecutiones adeo evidenter constant primo intuitu ut nemo sanoe mentis supposita praemissarum veritate possit ullatenus de rei veritate ambigere as there he names this Duas esse in Christo voluntates proved ex duplici natura Christi against the Monothelites Quoecunque autem sub hac ratione conditione declarantur denunciantur ab Ecclesia universa seu a Concilio Generali veram habent divinae fidei seu veritatum revelatarum Catholice traditarum certitudinem c. Aliae sunt consecutiones sequelae quae non adeo manifeste evidenter emicant effulgent quin studium aliquod scientia requiratur c. Hujusmodi autem veritates quarum aliquas vidimus in Conciliis Generalibus definitas supremam illam Catholicam certitudinem quam vi traditionis universae attribuimus articulis fidei habere nequeunt Nullos etenim agnovit Ecclesia divini luminis radios sibi de novo affulgentes quibus veritatibus recenter detectâ—s particularium hominum ratiocinatione quodammodo develatis possit certitudo ab omni prorsus periculo erroris immunis atque fidei revelatis catholice traditis articulis par aequalis succrescere Thus Dr. Holden to whom I may add Mr. Cressy in his Motives approved by several Sorbon-Doctors 33. c. Besides the certain Traditional doctrine of which he speaks before other points of doctrine there are sometimes decided in Councils rather by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and weighing together the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors now such doctrines or decisions many Catholicks conceive are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith c. Then after If in such Decisions as these latter are there should happen to be any error which yet we may piously believe the assistance of God's H. Spirit promised to the Church will prevent but if this should happen c. And c. 41. And many Catholick writers there are who upon the same grounds with Mr. Chillingworth extend the promise of the holy Spirits assistance to the Church not to all inconsiderable circumstantial doctrines but to substantial and traditionary only Thus he See like things in F. Sancta Clara syst fid 12 13 14. c. -12 c. p. 110. Singula quae in Conciliis tractantur non sunt ejusdem considerationis Illa quae a Theologis hinc inde agitantur ante definitiones examinantur tandem non nisi magno labore rerum consequentiarum subtili trutinatione ex discursu longo perplexo ad Conclusiones statuendas devenitur hujusmodi omnia si tanquam non necessaria errabilia putantur nihil est contra Ecclesiae infallibilitatem And 13. c. p. 147. Cum hac tamen doctrina bene stat proloquium illud Scholasticorum Ecclesiam simpliciter non posse errare in fide licet bene circa fidem seu in appendicibus fidei hoc est ut alii loqui malunt in non-fundamentalibus seu non-necessariis And one such point which he instanceth in tho not as a determination of any Council yet see Concil Lateran 3. Can. which seems somewhat to favour this opinion yet as a common received tenent in some former times is this Papam ex Christi institutione plenissimam habere in universum orbem jurisdictionem temporalem eamque in Imperatores Reges transfudisse adeo ut habeat toti mundo dominari omnia regna disponere 12. c. p. 124. where he quotes many Authors Quod tamen saith he hoc saeculum in Scholis non fert ut satis colligitur ex Suaresio Bellarmino aliis See likewise the Authors quoted in Bellarmin de Roman Pont. 5. l. 5. c. § Argumentum postremum and § Sanctus quoque Bonavent where he names Hugo de S. Victore about 1130. who was one of the first qui temporalem potestatem summâ— Pontisici ex Christi institutione tribuit And is not Stapleton quoted before of the same opinion with these when he saith It is sufficient that the Church be infallible in the substance of faith in public doctrines and things necessary to Salvation as Bellarmin grants some points de fide are not being the end of infallibility given God and Nature as they are not defective in necessaries so neither being superabundant in superfluities c. And doth not St. Austin's Saying so much noted shew him too of the same opinion I will transcribe it somewhat more fully than usual as being very considerable Answering to St. Cyprian's Authority urged against him by the Donatists for rebaptization of such as had bin only baptized by Hereticks amongst other things he goes on de Baptism 2. l. 3. c. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam c posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem scribuntur c. per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid c. ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones
thereof or require submission of their judgment also to her not as she declares her judgment infallible but only as it is definitive and unappealable else her orders are no more than good counsel On the gainsayers c. not as subverters of some necessary faith but as troublers for an unnecessary if truth of the Church'es peace and rebels to her authority whom Christ hath commanded to hear not only how far they list or in their private judgment see cause And if she may impose some penalty then why not anathematize or excommunicate This Anathematizing even Protestants do not so far charge as a trespass of charity or a sign of rigor upon the Church of Rome or her Councils but that they allow that those who turbulently or pertinaciously speak against the Doctrines of the Church in smaller points may be anathematized for it See Dr. Fern in his Preface to Consider of present Concernment c. We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously turbulently speak and teach against the doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one tho he denies not the faith yet makes a breach of charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus he of pertinacious and turbulent contradiction but then modest contradiction he allows Was Luther's and Calvin's modest Are not Anathema's used by her against Schismatical as well as Heretical spirits May not she excommunicate as well disturbers of her peace as subverters of her faith How come Schismaticks then thrown out of the Church Doth she not use Anathema's or Excommunications in matters of Fact wherein she is confest to be liable to error If in decisions not traditional c we are bound to yeild obedience as I shall shew anon what reason have we why the Church may not anathematize for these points those who contradict and disobey But if she may then Anathema for any thing we know is joyned to some point not traditional nor in which the Church is infallible 2. To put this matter more out of doubt why have Provincial Councils granted fallible used anathematizing than which nothing more frequent toward those under their Jurisdiction If any say they use Anathema's indeed but not to be in force I say not after they be contradicted which we grant but till they be confirmed by a General Council then why may they and have they bin put in practice before they were by any such Council confirmed Nay to what purpose such Council convened since it hath no power of excommunicating the resisters and since when a General Council sits that sufficiently obligeth before it sits the other obligeth not 3. Again many Heresies as the Pelagian c. by Provincial Councils have bin censured and supprest but who may judg heresies i. e. errors against points of faith may pronounce Anathema's Judicium non infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodijudicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale si secus egerint merito excommunicantur saith Bell. de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Judicio in points of Doctrine too for as for matter of fact he will allow the same liability to error may be in particular which in General Councils Thus much touching your first Quaere concerning the Infallibility of the Church Now I come to your second concerning Obedience due to the Church and submission of private judgment Where I think this will be made clear unto you That to what point soever the Church'es infallibility be enlarged yet this the Universal-Infallibility of this Supreme Judge of Controversies is not a necessary ground or the only rule of the duty of obedience thereto neither of the obedience of Non-contradiction nor yet that of Assent but that there may be and is just obligation of obedience I mean that of submission of judgment i. e. to believe what it delivereth to a fallible Authority i. e. one that may command us perhaps to believe sometimes what is an untruth And if this be a truth I conceive it may be of some good consequence For first so those also may be rationally induced to yeild obedience to the Church who now think themselves to be clearly freed from it unles it can first be shewed them that the Church is infallible in all her Propositions neither will they then suppose themselves so easily discharged by shewing the contradictions of General Councils in some few matters perhaps from their obedience in all other points wherein these agree or which some defining none other have reversed and the Church hath received in her general practice or also wherein they find even a later Council contradicting a former For if as St. Austin saith later Synods may amend and correct the former they ought also in what they amend them to be submitted-to non obstante the contradiction of the former Secondly so those who have not opportunity of consulting the highest Tribunal may not think their duty cancell'd excepting where they are certain to other their Superiors and Spiritual Guides because fallible or suborordinate nor will oppose so frequently to them not the Dictates of an higher Court but of their private judgment When-as certainly this submission of our judgment and reason to a Superior tho fallible authority is a duty most acceptable to God and which tho much unpractised by and I am afraid quite unknown to many Sectaries amongst Protestants yet hath bin always most religiously observed elsewhere in the Church of God by those who have bin most eminent in piety nothing conducing more to the preservation of truth unity of minds peace security and serenity of a man's conscience and lastly to true humility mortification and self-denial there being no mortification nor self-denial like this and therefore perhaps so many refuse it because there is nothing so much our self as our judgment And again the contrary thereof as it is the fruit of pride and self-conceit so having bin always the promoter of error and mother of distraction and confusion I cannot here but set down two or three words of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. sect This opinion saith he which T. Cartwright maintain'd against Councils c that an argument of authority of Man is in matters divine nothing worth being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort what it may grow into * God knoweth I may add * we have seen Now to shew this Truth 1. first I must grant to you That God hath obliged no man to believe a known-to-him error or to believe an error quatenus error for this I think is a contradiction in terminis to believe that to be a truth which he knows I do not say which he thinks or doubts is not a truth the same may be said of obligation to the doing or practice of any thing certainly known to one to be
but only on the word of God you say something if that word could never be mistaken in the sence nor alledged amiss See Mr. Hooker's Answer to Cartwright on this point Eccles. Pol. 2. l. 7. sect The force of Arguments drawn from Scripture c. So that now and then they ground themselves on humane authority even when they most pretend divine Even such as are readiest to cite for one thing 500 sentences of H. Scripture what warrant have they that any one of them doth mean the thing for which alledged c. But 4ly here you will reply That surely God's wisdom in matters concerning Salvation hath provided some way or other whereby we may certainly know the truth R. What truth mean we If necessary so he hath in this General Councils err not If all truths whatsoever there are many truths not only Natural but Theological for which all grant that there is no infallible Judge to be had If the truth of all those things which shall be proposed by a General Council Why so Why may not God order them in their fallibility in such things to use the same prudence for ending troublesom and violent contests that any other temporal Courts do And since in these from God as in the other from the King the people have an injunction unlimited in all things to hear them why may not they punish the rebellious 5. But yet lastly if such be fallible in any thing you may say there will be some error of which there can be no remedy because they are unappealable R. Not so For in such things as former Councils may err in none denies but that latter Councils may correct them Only such will be errors indeed that private men cannot remedy and what matters all this I pray if these errors be not committed in things necessary as t is shewed before they never can be Again why are such Councils willingly granted by all to be unappealable in other things wherein they may err i. e. in maters of fact Nay why if some make them infallible in judging all truths so may not some others think it fit they should be so in all causes that come before them all which are afterward remediles But also in those doctrinals where because no Anathema's are affixed Bellarmin saith Non est certum si sint de fide and so neither is it certain whether the Church in them may not err yet is not in these submission of judgment required For if we withdraw this how if it should happen that they are de fide The same may be said in general That if the Church being infallible only in things de fide hath made no clear distinction of these points from the rest t is plain she obligeth us to the same submission in points where she may be fallible 3. This having bin said from § 39. to remove such scruples and demurs as we ordinarily use to make for the not yeilding up and resigning in any thing of our own private judgment 3ly to shew you That the duty of submission of judgment to an Authority fallible in all things wherein we are not certain that it errs is no Paradox I will produce you therein the consentient doctrine both of Catholick and Protestant writers of no mean note 1. For Protestants see the quotations out of Bishop White Archbishop Laud Dr. Jackson in Church-Government 2. Part. § 36. Oblig of Judgment § 29. 30. t is too tedious to repete them here To which I will here add that eminent testimony of Mr. Hooker in his Preface the 6th Sect. throughout who writing against Puritans there speaks much of submission of private opinion to the determinations of Ecclesiastical Authority The place is well worth your reading as likewise the 2. l. 7. sect which Mr. Chillingworth produceth as a qualification of this passage in Hooker pressed by F. Knot But I can see no such matter in that Section which proves against Cartwright the validity of Humane Authority where is no infallible demonstration against it see especially the latter end of that Section To return to the former Mr. Hooker there quotes Deut. 17. 8. c. where he hath these words God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordain'd should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment Howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same Authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily to some end And there he answers the Objection That men must do nothing against conscience saying Neither wish we that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality that is as I conceive where they have no infallible certainty but only probability see the end of 2. l. 7. sect the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and final Decision shall determin Now they are to do nothing but what they are perswaded in their hearts that they may do when the Judge in some cases determines the lawfulnes of a thing tho they may do many things which they may think still that they are unjustly obliged by the Judge to do as when the Judge determines something to be their duty which is not yea tho it seem in their private opinion i. e. according to their own reason and arguments drawn ex parte rei to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the law did disallow For if God be not the Author of confusion but of peace c. Where note that whatever Mr. Hooker means by that limitation controverted causes of such quality yet the Commission Deut. 17. extends to the Priests interpreting to the people and giving the sence of the law in whatever matters should be controverted as also it is more clearly expounded afterward in 2 Chron. 19. 5 8 10 11. where it runs What causes soever shall come to you of your Brethren between blood and blood between law and commandement statutes and judgments ye shall c. And Thou shalt do or practise according to whatever they shew thee requires not only a passive willingly paying the mulcts or undergoing the punishments but active obedience Again an active obedience not only in doing of something to which I think I am not in duty obliged as paying 100l to one upon their sentence to whom I never owed any thing which I may do without believing
I answer That from this judgment of such a Church so often as it is suspected by me I will not retreat to my private judgment but I will appeal to a more general judgment of the present Church which judgment I can either have conjunctim or divisim as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time and by the reformed opinion I shall be secure if I part not from the present Church for in fundamentals she shall in no age err but hold forth to me visibly the truth and if this error be in Non-fundamentals it amounts not as the reformed say to a heresy therefore will I still cleave to her i. e. the present Church and the supremest Authority I can find therein neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures or Fathers against her because she cannot be at least in points of great consequence opposit to them And if that religion as it might have bin had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2 and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures nor writings of Fathers then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church neither needed she for this to have bin made more infallible than now she is and doubtles my faith should have bin nevertheles sufficiently grounded i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her neither could any have made an argument that my faith was not salvifical for this reason because fidei non potest subesse falsum for she must then in defect of all writings have bin confess'd the pillar and ground of truth and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. the same then must she be still and Nations now as at the first before writings are still converted by her by her preaching before they come to peruse those Scriptures And so are we all also taught our faith first by her neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers But yet besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority any help that is from these writings enjoyed by any other is also by her that no body may boast over her in these advantages 2. It is objected That our faith to be salvifical must be grounded on something that is infallible and therefore only on God's word See this answered at large in the Treatise of Necessary faith § 43. c. Surely the Church groundeth her faith which she recommendeth to us on the Scriptures as well as private men think they do theirs when they leave hers to follow their own judgment And if the Church'es judgment is not neither is their own infallible for which they desert the Church'es But tho it is most true that true faith is always grounded on the word of God which word of God is infallible yet is it not necessary that every one who hath true faith do know that it is infallible or be infallibly certain of it For many have saving faith doubtles that learn this word of God only from a fallible man suppose from their Father or from their Pastor Neither is it necessary that this faith should be received from another person infallible besides God nor that it should be received from a writing at all There may be a strong adherence beyond evidence neither can it be unsufficient if it be so strong as to produce obedience to God's commands 3. T is said That one is for his salvation secure enough where ever these two are Unity of faith with the Church in fundamentals and then Charity toward the Church in the points not-fundamental wherein I disagree from her Charity i. e. not condemning her for them to be no Church c. I answer 1. First such a one must know well what are Fundamentals that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations Heb. 6. 2. if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth I know not how many other points may be brought in And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism Bishops Ordination c. 2ly Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith than only in fundamentals unles all points of faith be fundamental and if so then Churches that differ in any point of faith differ in fundamentals 3ly If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides doubtles are set over us to build us up in the unity also of this faith and not only of fundamentals See Heb. 5. 11. c. 6. 1. And therefore why Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13. should be restrained only to fundamentals as it is by some it seems to me strange I cannot think that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals see 1 Cor. 1. 4. c and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions and exhorts them to be all of one judgment which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment each one of their private reason but of the Apostle and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 18. Rom. 15. 5 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where speaking the same thing and being joyned in the same judgment contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind glorifying God with one mind and one mouth c. argue an unity required not only of charity but of opinion and judgment and that not only in fundamentals in which as I said all the factious Corinthians or most of them accorded but other beneficial truths which union how could so many judgments undependent of one another attain but by all of them retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor or Pastors 4ly If these points wherein the reformed recede from the authority of superior Councils be not very necessary tho not fundamental how can a separation for them be justified but if necessary why should we say that God requires not an unity of faith in them 5ly Again as faith and charity secure not our salvation if we be guilty of some other vice adultery c so they do not secure it if there be any denial of obedience where t is due especially to the Church disobedience towards whom is in a more special manner disobedience to Christ and to God himself and why may not this then endanger us if God hath provided teachers to keep us in the same judgment and we to the great hurt both of the Church and of our selves too by these divisions will every one follow his own judgment especially since
therein clearly delivered as for example that Jesus is the Lord or that he died in some sence or other as hoc dato that he is the Lord he may be certain that he is the Lord or as he may be certain of identicals And as I think one may be certain of this so I do not think that ever there was any heretick that allowed the Scriptures i. e. as we have them that ever denied any such thing in general terms for this would be to affirm contradictories both true Again since the Ch. may be infallibly certain of something in the Scriptures from the evidence of revelation why a private man may not be so too I see no reason since the Church consisteth only of so many particular men and the reasons appearing to the Church may also be clear to him Tho here I must put some difference because as there is a certainty arising from clearnes of revelation so there is another from illumination of the H. Spirit see Jo. 16. 13. which illumination is promised to the Councils of the Church but not so to particulars and for this it is I think well said that the conclusions of such Councils may from the superintendence of God's Spirit over them be orthodox when the reasons upon which they are grounded may be fallible or not proving such conclusions A private man then in some things may be infallibly certain but since he also may be mistaken not only in * very plain Scriptures by †not comparing them with other places that say something contrary to the sence which they seem to him to bear †by education in such mis-interpretations and many other thousand ways as we have much experienced of late in the Socinians and our English Sectarists both great Scripturists but also * in thinking himself infallibly certain of something there when he is not which conceit many times ariseth not from the places incapability of any doubt but from his not being then acquainted with any objections against his sence of it The chiefest signs that I know by which any one may gather that he is infallibly certain indeed when it is in any point that is controverted are these two and they are such as will litle nurse him in his opinion of infallible certainty 1. The first is that no other man or at least not the major part of men having the use of reason understanding our terms and granting all the suppositions which we do doth contradict or frame any objections against our tenet The 2d That all having use of reason c or the most that were formerly of another perswasion to whom we propose all our grounds become certain of the same thing also I say the most because it is not here altogether as it is in Mathematicks the demonstrations whereof never any that see them contradict Now that you may not think these marks of certainty too rigid see the same proposed by the Reformed against the Puritans whom they think too rashly to pretend certainty in heterodox opinions See Hook. Eccl. Pol. preface 6. sect and Bishop Laud § 33. Consid. 5. n. 1. Therefore thinking one's self certain and his not having any doubt at all of the truth of the thing he holds is no sure note of certainty For potest non subesse dubium where yet subest falsum from the ignorance of those texts or arguments which prove the contrary of what he holds And tho there may be no doubt from contrary arguments yet is the greatest reason that can be to doubt from a publick contrary judgment where the much major part of such as I have opportunity to know their opinion these having all the same evidences as my self dissent from me Now against these indications of certainty proposed by us it may be and is said That passion self-conceit pride love of contention and especially contrary education and custom in error may blind some mens judgment so as not to discern the plainest things But mark first that this is said ordinarily by a man that is singular against the contrary judgment of the Church of God. Thou that judgest another judgest thou not thy self What can be a better argument for the Church than her former customs which thou accusest to mislead her present judgment Who are liker to be clear of passion those that submit to anothers judgment or those that adhere to their own Lastly from this it will follow that we also to be infallibly certain of a truth must be infallibly certain we are not misled by passion or education in an error as well as that others may be so and this surely is very hard to know In dissent from our Pastors saith Dr. Jackson we cannot but doubt whether we have learnt as we should the precepts of Christian modesty whether learnt to deny our selves and our affections to reverence him as God's Minister taking no offence at his person whether we have abandoned all such delights and desires as are the usual grounds of false perswasion And in another place he grants that to the disobedient and those who hate the light even plain Scriptures are difficult If we cannot be resolved in these then must we doubt whether we will or no whether our doubt and scruple be of faith and conscience or of humor What Dr. Jackson saith here of doubt I may say of certainty since many also are deceived in thinking themselves certain when they are not that till we are certain that we are void of such passion we cannot be certain that we are certain c. Again t is said That in points which we must needs grant to be most certainly plain to any rational man yet some hereticks have bin of a contrary judgment as t is instanced in the Manichees and in some frantick people of late acknowledging no obligation to the practice of Christian vertues c. I answer this comes about for the most part at least by their denying some principles which others argue upon The Manichees acknowledged divine Scriptures but not such as we have them but said that our Scriptures were miserably corrupted Our Sectarists of late acknowledge our Scriptures but say they were writ for and belong only to new beginners in Christianity not to the perfect c. So likewise those that vary in their conclusions t is notable to see how much they vary also in their suppositions Some in Scripture hold those to be counsels only which others take for absolute commands some suppose those precepts temporary as I think we must needs confess that Act. 15. to be which others will needs have to be eternal some will have the practices set down in Scripture to oblige as well as peremptory precepts others not c. And upon these various grounds which others grant not every one builds from those grounds most infallible conclusions which all the world if they yeilded to his principles would also with him assert Mean-while he looking at the plainnes
and Timothy might also commit these things again to other faithful men for them again to teach others and not perhaps write them or not all See 2. Tim. 2. 2. So when he was sent to Corinth 1 Cor. 4. 17. he might acquaint them with more of S. Paul's doctrines and ways in Christ than St. Paul writ to them See 1 Cor. 11. 34. where the Apostle possibly might order somewhat more concerning the receiving of the Sacrament which is not mentioned in the Scripture As S. August thinks he ordered receiving of it fasting See Epist. 118. ad Januarium near the end See 2 Thess. 2. 15. 2ly As we may not argue things unlawful in themselves or untrue so neither useles or superstitious and will-worship because we do not find them in the Scriptures For there are many things which may be enjoyned by Ecclesiastical authority which are not only not unlawful or which are required only for the preservation of order and unity in the Church for God's publick Service but which are very useful and much helping us for our Salvation for the advancing of holines suppressing of lusts c and granted to be so even by those who think them not all commanded in Scripture As Confession of sins to the Priest observing certain times of Fast frequent hours of Prayer several Penances See Common-prayer-book Preface to Commination c. And there are also many other customs received from a constant tradition which those who think them not to be set down in Scripture yet do not therefore deny them to be true and Apostolical or affirm them unlawful to be observed as Episcopacy Baptizing of Infants the Eucharist administred only by the Priest the observation of the Lord's day c. Nay some precepts in Scripture there are quietly acknowledged to be temporary and antiquated as that of observing that day of the week on which God rested and that Act. 15. 29. and some other things not in precept willingly admitted to oblige for no reason but only because the first were anciently laid aside and the second practised by our Mother the Church And by the same reason as some admit these tho not contained in Scripture they must admit many more 3ly But were some of these things enjoyned needless yet as long as they are not by God's word forbidden and are by the Church commanded if S. Paul would abstain from flesh whilst he lived not to offend his brother how much more should we obey in these not to offend our governors or rather to perform the divine command of yeilding obedience to our Governors which submission to them is due I suppose in all things not contrary to the Scriptures In which our Superiors may offend many times in their injunctions when we do not in our obedience the preservation of so reverend an authority which cannot in all things be menaged for the best and of the unity of the Church being more benefit to any member thereof than the observance of a command which is fruitles yet no way contrary to the Scriptures can be inconvenience Our Superiors may offend I say in enjoyning when not others in obeying Because injunctions and laws become unjust and unlawful not one but many ways as in respect of the matter when contrary to God's word so where the matter is not a thing evil in respect of the end author or other circumstances As when such injunctions are no way conducing to the publick good when enjoyned as God's command or as to be preferred before something that is so or as something necessary to Salvation when not enjoyned by a lawful authority c. Now the matter of the command being not faulty the thing may be done provided that no unlawful end be expressed in the injunctions for thus it becomes part of the matter and substance of the command because the end by them that obey may be changed and as concerning the Legislator t is no fault to obey another who ever he be in that which we may impose upon our selves Lastly for the matter tho it is everlastingly granted that I may do nothing that is contrary to God's commands yet I have no reason to refuse obedience to my Superiors unles it be a thing which not I think but I am sure is so as the Apostles were sure in their refusing Act. 4. 19. for where there is reason to doubt concerning the matter whether it be contrary to God's command or no and so I think there is always where the Church's judgment is opposed to mine there t is a duty to obey my Superiors But here what if that which is not commanded in the Scripture be enjoyned by the Church to be obeyed as a thing commanded there or as commanded by God Which thing our Saviour blamed in the Pharisees and justified his Disciples in not observing their commands In which if we may conform to authority it seems that there will scarce be any superstition or will-worship at all but only in the imposers of laws Answ. 1. T is to be noted that the Pharisees traditions in which the instance is made were many of them other than those here supposed some being contrary to the Scripture as that tradition mentioned Matt. 15. 5. some recommended before the commands in Scripture and whilst those done these omitted in which respect such service became most odious see Mark 7. 8. Matt. 23. 23. 15. 9. others required to be done as necessary which were not only needles but upon a false ground recommended as that of washing hands because they held that unwashen hands defiled But 2ly this shall be granted that that which is commanded tho it be not contrary to Scripture yet when it is pretended by the imposers to be in it self necessary as when it is pretended either to be Scripture or to be reverenced and equalled to the Scriptures and God to be as much worshipped in it when as men only and not God require it as in what himself hath commanded and that rather to be omitted than it and when it is by others obeyed and reverenced as such is superstition and will-worship both in him that commands and in him who obeys whenever he hath sufficient evidence for conviction And this I suppose was the fault of those who sat in Moses's chair not that they required obedience to their decrees such as were not contrary to God's word but an equal reverence and belief of them in this obedience as of the written law nay placed the substance of holines and of God's honor in these wherein it did not consist more than in the other and so required the omitting of the other rather than of these as should one now impute the power of prayer to the posture or place he makes it in or to the number of times he doth it and not to the devotion and purity of the Suppliant the mercy and promises of God c this would be Superstition and will-worship i. e. a worship
God hath visited the people that sat in darkness in China in the East and West Indies we cannot be ignorant One Religion granted muchwhat the same as at the present for the last 1000 years in its Liturgies and Publick Service in its Altars and quotidian Sacrifice in its high veneration of the celestial Favorites and daily communication by a commemoration of the Saints in glory with the Church triumphant as likewise in its unbounded charity even to the Souls of its supposed-necessitous brethren of the next world in its variety of Religious Orders Fraternities and Votaries in its holy love to chastity silence solitudes and poverty in its unarguing and miscalled blind obedience to the laws of its Superiors in its glorying thro all the past ages of miracles and prophecy One religion I say appearing in all these for so many ages much-what the same and very reverend for its antiquity yet still going on resistless flourishing and spreading its armes abroad further and further toward the East and toward the West with continued and unwearied missions And another religion every day varying from its self and subdividing into smaller Sects after the 70th or 80th year of its age beginning to decline and wither and loose ground in many places where it was formerly well rooted and whilst it promiseth its self still to destroy Antichrist growing each day feebler and He that it names so stronger To summe up all the surest trial of the doctrines of any Church after that by Scripture which is pretended for all sides is First by their conformity with Antiquity i. e. by the doctrines of the former Church 2. By the holines which these doctrines produce in the members of such a Church For the first we are to search the Fathers or some of them or if it be but one of those who are more voluminous concerning such points as are now controverted not as such Fathers are quoted by others but in their own writings For the 2d to read the books of Devotion and the Lives of Holy men of either party Which two who carefully examines notwithstanding the commonly used objections of disagreement ambiguity or impertinency in the first the Fathers of forgery in the second the Lives of Saints he shall be abundantly satisfied concerning truth and error And the grand causes of the continued distractions of opinions I conceive are either the not perusing of the Fathers writings themselves but quotations of them in others where many times a sentence taken by it self may be without any forcing capable of a sence contradictory to the context or the not casting of the search upon the Fathers but Scriptures only or the searching of the Scriptures also not only in an affirmative but negative way taking all that for false or unlawful or unuseful not only what is against them but what is not in them Again in the searching of the Fathers Councils c the reasons why we assent not to them when found contrary to our former opinions are 1. The being bred-up in doctrines repugnant unto their decrees and in places persecuting such tenets which makes us averse from truth that will destroy us averse not by denying it when we know it but by preventing to our power the apprehension of arguments perswasive to it and by a willing entertaining reasons which are never wanting against it Now that this conformity to opinions happens by education and interest rather than argument is plain in that all other things remaining the like i. e. as much judgment and diligence and books c and our education or interest being only changed contrary opinions are as readily the one as the other entertained See before § 14. 2. A general inclination in our nature to opinions that give more liberty and that more throw off yokes 3. A conceit false that Antichrist is to be a Christian in profession and a ruler in the Church Which with the texts of S. John 1 Ep. 2. 18. 4. 3. at one blow cuts off the head of all Church-authority Tradition Fathers Councils how ancient soever farther than we find them to agree with Scripture and that is with our fancies upon Scripture or sometimes upon one uncompared text thereof According to what hath bin considered in this Treatise methinks some of those passages urged long since by Sr. Edwin Sandys in his Relation of the Western relig p. 30. c. as the ordinary plea of the Ch. of Rome and her adherent Churches have something in them not easily to be answered if we joyn with them the notion of Catholick Ch. as explained by Mr. Thorndyke in his printed letter to his brother and the experiences of our times since Sr. Ed. Sandys's decease Mr. Thorndyke's words are these Christians when they profess to believe i. e. in the Creed the Catholick Ch. do not believe that there is in the world a number of men that profess to be Christians c but that there is a Corporation of true Christians founded by our Lord and his Apostles which hereticks and schismaticks cannot have communion with and this is that which the stile Catholick and Apostolick Church signifies as distinguishing the body of true Christians to wit so far as profession goeth from the conventicles of hereticks and schismaticks For this title of Catholick would signifie nothing if hereticks and schismaticks were not barred the communion of the Ch. Thus far he Where his interpreting the believing of the Catholick Ch. to be the believing of a distinction of the profession of Catholicks from the conventicles of Hereticks must needs infer that the Church Catholick which soever it is is a Church or Churches distinguished not only in its internal communion with Christ its head but in its external profession and communion of its members amongst themselves from the external communion and profession of hereticks Sr. Edw. Sandys's discourse by way of objection is this If all other Churches besides the Roman and those united with her have had either their end and decay long since or their beginning but of late if this being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ that hell-gates should not prevail against it but that himself will be assisting to it till the consummation of the world hath continued on now till the end of 1600 years with an honourable and certain line of near 240 Popes Successors of Peter both tyrants and traitors pagans and hereticks in vain wresting raging and undermining If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world have from time to time approved and honoured it if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings such armies of Saints with their holines of Martyrs with their blood of Virgins with their purity should sanctify and embellish it If even at this day in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children yet she stretcheth out her armes
controversy even tho their condition be not that of a Scholar delayed and mature considerations long prayer lest if in such change they should happen to light on what is worse and to forsake truth and embrace error they should besides the hurt which may come to their soul otherwise be in a far worse condition than any others of the same erroneous communion are by reason of the disobedience they have shewed to their mother from whom they sucked the true milk of the Gospel and of the ungratitude to God by whose providence they were placed in such a light Especially men ought to have a greater jealousy of their mistaking if they perhaps find themselves invited to the change of their Religion from any worldly advantages or contentments of the flesh profits honour pleasure for our affections ordinarily yet very insensibly corrupt our judgments But for what is said here by me that it ought to be done after full conviction of a communion Schismatical I think all men as taking every one their own to be the orthodox and others to be sectaries are but too ready to maintain this point That all factious communions once discovered are to be forsaken and the true understanding by it their own once found out to be adhered to not only by internal affection but external profession And this counsel constantly shall a tottering Romanist receive from a Protestant and so è contra 5. The 5th sort are those who being educated in a Church Schismatical and prejudiced with many formerly received opinions are not yet fully convinced that it is so but yet are already in a great jealousie thereof and in a serious quest of a further discovery of truth c Or again who being fully convinced of and being in perfect charity with the Church and having also already in voto the external communion thereof yet whilst wanting and rationally expecting a better opportunity for their reconciliation to the Church Catholick defer it for some time till this may happen As many cases for such delation may be supposed As if one have reasonable hopes shortly of a Toleration and upon a present reconcilement is likely to be plundered c. Or if one have some treatment with kindred or friends about the same matter and is in hopes by a further discours to carry them with him which intercourse by his sudden separation he probably foresees will be stopped and his admonitions rendred fruitless Or if one happen to be in a Service and cannot till such a time leave his Master or in an imployment which such a declaring of himself requires that he should and yet which he cannot but with much temporal inconvenience immediatly quit as that of S. Austen's was Conf. 9. l. 2. c. Or if one be in a place where declaring presently his restraint or life is endangered and therefore he stays till he may remove himself to a place of more security as doubtles t is lawful to seek our safety by flight Or if he have a design of publishing something tending to the advancement of Truth which opportunity in appearance will be for ever lost in such a place if he suddenly discovers his intentions Many such cases may be put and if none of these be reasonable to produce any delay yet it follows not but that there may be some others that are so Now for such men as these 1. First those seem not to sin in suspending their reconcilement and in continuing their former communion who are not as yet fully convinced But yet concerning full conviction note that after such diligence delay inquisition used as is mentioned before § 16. it seems not necessary to it that every objection and difficulty that can be made against any practice or tenet of the Church we conform to be first fully satisfied which perhaps will never be and so neither will be any ones deserting his native Sect however erroneous but only that for the most part of things in contest full satisfaction is received For if in all other things we are swayed by the over-ballancing of reason any way notwithstanding that some weight also remain still on the other side why should we neglect it in this Since t is as much nay more ordinary to be born in a wrong than in a right religion we may justly I conceive relinquish our former profession for that which if we were of no profession we should sooner make choice of especially since we may be more confident of our reason rightly used in such a matter if our new perswasions procure to us no secular honor or advantage but rather the contrary loss and disgrace as also if the principles thereof produce in us any singular reformation of life See Trial of Doct. § 45. 2ly For the fully convinced tho it seems prohibited by God's word that such any longer abide in their former communion see 9. § 1. n. yet 1. first they seem not to sin or do ill in not reconciling themselves outwardly to the Church upon the very first possibility they have to do it if that they have a reasonable cause of delay and especially if some Spiritual advantage be considered in it and if that they have probability of health and likelihood to attain to the time and opportunity they wait for I do not say that they may not do better sometimes in a suddenner return but that they sin not always in the delay Which if they did the same will hold for Baptism and for many other Christian duties which often are deferred and we think not unlawfully for some time after possibility of doing them for the want of some conveniency Yet I cannot conceive that there can be a reasonable cause to the fully convinced of any long delay see before § 8. c. no more than there can be such of long delaying Baptism because initiation or reconciliation to the Church are things of the highest concernment But 2ly Suppose they sin in such dilation and procrastination yet I see no ground why any one should affirm tho we grant none dying a Schismatick in the sence § 5. can be saved that such dying without or before actual reconciliation are certainly damned which since it cannot be justly said of such others tho remaining perpetually within a Schismatical Church as are named § 7. much less can it of these that are in their way and progress homewards Again by the same reason must all those be damned named in the 2d § if they had any possibility of sooner performing that of which they are by death prevented because also these as well as those have a votum of what they want and heartily repent of their delay if it were any way offensive to God. As for the motives of delay mentioned above 1. First if this once be granted That upon a full conviction we are presently to abandon such schismatical communion many of them seem to be voided because such a retreat from our former