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
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
revelasse or se hanc fidem Deum revelasse habere ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti and this a motive morally infallible namely consensum Ecclesiae or Universal Tradition concerning which he thus goes on Verum in ordine ad nos revelatio divina credibilis acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva inter quae unum ex praecipuis merito censetur authoritas consensus Ecclesiae tot saeculis tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held always necessary neither for the humane inducement to divine faith For he goes on quamvis id non unicum neque simpliciter necessarium motivum est quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur His adde Non tantum variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri sed etiam alios aliis facilius partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem impulsionem sicuti not avit Valentia q. 1. p. 4. arg 18. partim propter animi sui simplicitatem quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt Qua ratione pueri apud Catholicos cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt acceptant sidei mysteria tanquam divinitus revelata quia natu majores prudentes quos ipsi norunt ita credere animadvertunt So then if all saving faith must be sides divina infallible that which can rightly be produced to advance sides humana into it is not the authority of Scriptures or of the Church for Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum vel simile motivum humanum is fide solum humana credit but only auxilium Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui c in the stating of this learned Casuist Thus you see by what is quoted here out of Estius Lugo and Layman that the moderate Catholick writers concede divine and salvifical faith where no infallibility of any outward evidence or motive And perhaps it might conduce much more to the prayed-for union of Christ's Church if so many Controvertists on all sides perhaps out of an opinion of necessary zeal to maintain their own cause to the uttermost did not embrace the extreamest opinions by which they give too much cause to their adversaries to remain unsatisfied and to make easie and specious replies being helped also by the more moderate writers of the other side As if they chiefly endeavoured to fright their enemies from any yeilding or hearkning to a peace whilst they hold it still upon higher terms than those the Church Catholick proposeth which hath redounded to the multiplication of many needles controversies From what hath bin said I think we may infer 1. First That it is not necessary to true and saving faith that all the mediums by which we attain to it be infallible That neither an infallible Judg nor a known-infallible argument from the Scriptures or writings of Fathers c. is absolutely necessary to it but that it is sufficient to believe the things revealed by God as revealed by him see § 1. holding whatever is his word to be infallible which is a principle to all men and needs no proof by what weak means soever we attain the knowledge of such revelations whether it be by Scriptures Catechisms read or Parents Pastors instructing yea tho these instructers did not know whether there were any Scriptures as the Eunuch believed without those of the New Testament and how unevident soever their confirmation thereof to us be only if we receive from them whether from the credit we give to their authority or to their argument so much light as together with the inward operation of the Spirit opening the heart to receive and accept of it of which Spirit yet we are not so certainly sensible as to know the proper movings thereof for then this were a motive all-sufficient without Scripture or Teacher doth sway and perswade the understanding and so produceth obedience Which faith tho it is not such for its immediate ground as cui non potest subesse falsum by reason of any humane evidence it hath yet many times it is such as cui non subest dubium of which we doubt no more than we do of a Demonstration by reason of the strong adherence we have to it either from the power of God's Spirit or probability of arguments c. See § 35. c. But neither is this actual non-doubting necessary for there is many times doubting in a true but weak faith see § 46. but this is enough if any thing be so far made probable as that it turns the ballance of our judgment so far as to win our assent nay nothing can be without sin disbelieved which seems generally including here also the argument from authority more probable than another thing tho it have no demonstration Which demonstration or also an infallible proponent that the faith of most men wants see the plain confession as it seems to me of Mr. Knot in his Answer to Mr. Chillingworth 4. cap p. 358. A man may exercise saith he an infallible act of faith tho his immediate instructer or proposer be not infallible because he believes upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infallible and is such indeed to wit the word of God who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every true act of divine faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons from whom God exacts no more but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities and use such diligence as men ought in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certain that every one of those thousands whom St. Peter converted did hear every sentence he spoke but might believe some by relation of others who stood near And 1. c. p. 64. the same Author saith that a Preacher or Pastor whose testimonies are humane and fallible when they declare to their hearers or subjects that some truth is witnessed by God's word are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith depending immediately upon divine Revelation applied by the said means And if you object saith he That perhaps that humane authority is false and proposes to my understanding Divine revelation when God doth not reveal therefore I cannot upon humane testimony representing or applying Divine revelation exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer it is one thing whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain that I exercise an infallible act of Faith and another whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an act Of the former I have said nothing neither makes it to our present purpose Of the latter I affirm that when indeed humane testimony is true tho not certainly known by me to be so and so
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
in things wherein he finds all or many of them unanimously agreeing or being established by some not contradicted or amended by any other succeeding but by the General practice of particular Churches conformed to these he may presume to be truths from their accord as the other falsities from their variance and therefore by no means may plead a release from the one by shewing the other FINIS CONCERNING The OBLIGATION of not professing or acting against our JUDGMENT or CONSCIENCE AND Whether the obedience of Non-contradiction only or also of Assent be due to the Decrees OF COUNCILS CONTENTS IN what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own Judgment § 2. Concerning the Church'es lawful Authority to excommunicate dissenters in non-fundamentals § 4. As likewise to decide which Points are fundamental which not § 7. Several exceptions against obedience only of non-contradiction for Non-fundamentals And that at least all those not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in Non-fundamentals to an obedience of Assent and therefore the most are so bound § 11. Replies to several Objections § 12. The 1. First concerning an inferior Councils decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned 2d Concerning faith salvisical that it must be infallible 3d. Concerning union of Charity sufficient § 14. 4th Concerning trying of doctrines necessary § 15. 5th Concerning what Church'es determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to § 16. A Post-script 2d Paper Concerning infallible Certainty § 19. 1. Infallible Certainty excusing all submission of judgment to others 2. Infallible Certainty to be had in some points Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain 3. Infallible Certainty at least not pretendable against any General contrary judgment of the Church An instance in the Controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only § 27. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible Certainty not excusing our dissenting from the judgment of the Church An explication of Rom. 14. 23. Conference at Hampton-Court p. 72 73. Mr. Knewstub's 2d quest Lastly if the Church have that power also i. e. to ad significant Signs as the Cross in Baptism c. yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was How far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King in his Answer hath these words I will have one doctrine and one discipline one Religion in substance and in ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judgment or Conscience SIR YOU ask my Opinion 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Non-contradiction or also of assent to the Decrees of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Non-fundamentals wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable supposing that such Councils require our assent therein And 2ly Whether one is or can be bound to assent when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgment and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing Answ. I answer on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discours of Infallibility § That if you take judgment here for infallible certainty which see more largely explained below § 19. c. I can soon resolve it negatively That you are not nor cannot be so bound Of which see more below § 20. But if you mean by your private judgment opinion short of infallibility i. e. some reasons that you have either drawn from the natures of things on from the sence you make of divine revelation to think that a thing is thus or so contrary to that general judgment 1. First this question seems * decided on the affirmative part viz. that you may go against your private judgment in mens ordinary practice In secular affairs do not we commonly upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend both believe him to be in the right and do a thing contrary to our own judgment i. e. contrary to those reasons which our selves have not to do it Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own reason Rom. 4. 17 18. And so the man in the Gospel Mar. 9. 24 Yet I know you will not say that they went in this against their conscience What is the meaning of that ordinary saying These and these reasons I have for my opinion but I submit to the Church Is it only I submit my judgment in regard of the publishing of it So Dr. Fern comments upon it 2. Treat 1. c. numb 1◠But thus the phrase seems very improper for this is a submission of our speech or silence but not of our judgment at all and is a submission which may well be professed also in things wherein our judgment is utterly unchangeable namely in things whereof we are infallibly certain 2. Again * decided by the concessions of several Protestants which seem to yeild the very same thing See Dr. Fern ib. n. 13. where he alloweth that in matters of opinion and credibility or of discipline and rites till we have sufficient evidence or demonstration of truth to the contrary our conformity i. e. of judgment which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our practice remains secure Secure saith he till we have sufficient evidence c. But sufficient evidence we have not in opposition to the Church in things where possibly we may be mistaken and we may be mistaken in any thing whereof we are not certain ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty Likewise Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds I add or not so competent as those to whose definition he is required to submit his assent alloweth a bare yeilding to the judgment of Superiors and a deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to his own judgment a believing so far as not to disbelieve them Which he saith may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the governors of it without deeming them inerrable And in Schism 2. c. 10. s. he saith A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions he will chearfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen Where surely this submitting and depositing our own judgment implies something more than the concealment of it only since the concealment of our judgment being the least degree of obedience we can
give to our Superiors will be due to them in some of those definitions made by them in fundamentals of faith and Christian practice which points he excepts here from submittance or deposition of our judgment See likewise which especially I recommend to your reading what Mr. Hooker as writing not against Catholicks but Puritans copiously saith in behalf of submission of judgment to the Church even when thwarting our private opinion in his Preface 6. § and in 2. l. 7. § near the end which you may find more fully set down and Mr. Chillingworth's Comment upon it in Answ. to Mr. Knot who pressed him with it discussed in the discours of Infallibility § 45 46. c. In the Preface speaking upon Deut. 17. 8. c he hath these words God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controvesie he ordained 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 and reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily unto some end And there he answers that 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 the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin yea tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence among 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 Thus judicious Hooker And see what Dr. Jackson saith to the same purpose below § 29 30. Thus the reformed seem to allow in some things a submission of private judgment to the Church a submission not only of concealing it but of renouncing and deserting it in believing and hearkning to the Church rather than to it Now the Church doth never exact that you should profess or subscribe * that your own reason or private judgment caused from some evidence in the thing suggests or assures to you such a thing to be truth but * that you believe her in such a thing more than your own reasons to the contrary or * that you confess her judgment better than your own and so are content to be swayed by it in such a thing For if you heartily believe that the Church'es judgment is likely to be better than yours or that she is authorized by her judgment to guide yours it necessarily follows that in obeying her you do according to your judgment one way tho contrary to it in another way For your final judgment upon the points is this that tho you see reasons ex parte rei most or all contrary to what she defines yet that her judgment is better than yours or ought to guide yours and upon this you against your own judgment or reasons assent unto hers Note here that by the Church'es judgment I mean the ultimatest judgment and the highest court thereof that we can have So that when your Pastor teacheth any thing which is contrary to your private judgment you are not obliged to assent to him if another Ecclesiastical judgment superior be contrary to his For the decision of the Superior to whom in any doubting you may repair voids that of an inferior unto you and so voids also his Excommunications and Ecclesiastical censures and if the superior man or Council tell you one thing and the inferior another you are to hear the Church in the superior not in the inferior Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin which text see further explained below § 31. be applied to any for so doing because who so doth thus submit doth this out of faith namely this faith that the Church is wiser than he or that he is obliged to obey her expositions of Scripture directions counsels c when contrary to his own It is not only possible then but usual for one to believe a thing against his own reason or judgment or conscience if you will take these in such a sence i. e. against the reasons drawn a parte rei which he hath for disbelieving it but it is not possible for one to believe a thing against his reason or judgment or conscience in general or against some other reason taken ab authoritate which he hath still for believing it For certainly * when a fool believes a wise man against some conceit he had of his own or * when Roman-Catholicks consent to the Church in something doubtles wherein some of them may see reasons for the contrary and no reason perhaps for it save that ab authoritate viz. the Church'es determination and command or * when an Israelite submitted to holding or doing a thing which the Judges decided Deut. 17. 11 12. none of these may be said to do thus without or against reason because perhaps their private judgment is not convinced in the thing for they have that reason still for going against their other reason that the others whom they follow are wiser than they or also a 2d reason that the others are by God appointed to guide their judgment and opinion in such things and that they are commanded by God to consent to what ever those shall decide 3ly This thing seems decided by the allowed practice of the Church in excommunicating at least for such matters as she esteemeth necessary and fundamental those who dissent from her judgment For if in any thing at all if at least in fundamentals in which some say she cannot err the Church may excommunicate dissenters hence it follows both that it is possible and that a man ought in some things to consent to the Church even against his own judgment unless we will affirm that no man in such points as suppose in fundamentals can possibly have another judgment than hers But so there would never have bin any man erroneous or heretical in a point fundamental I say ought to consent For if God hath given power to the Church I mean the highest court thereof of punishing by excommunication all those who do not consent to some decision which she maketh then all ought to consent to such decision whether it be right or wrong to his seeming arguments or reasons whose consent is required for every one ought to do that for the not doing of which God appoints him to be punished besides that he who consents not to the Church'es judgment
applies a divine revelation which really exists in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith The reason of this seems clear because altho a truth which I know only by probable assent is not certain to me yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that time for which it is c. Thus he The sum of which is That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent but only from God's concourse See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36 37. de resol fid saying the like 2. Again in the 2d place it may be inferred * That receiving of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not necessary to true faith or * That one may truly believe some who doth not believe all the points of faith which the Church proposeth or any for or upon her proposal or lastly * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof I willingly grant here 1. first That he who believes aright any divine truth must believe that it is revealed by God or that God hath said it and That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God can believe no other thing at all as he ought that is as from divine revelation he must believe all such or none at all aright 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation as of the Scriptures or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition I accord that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God but such as he knows to be proposed to him by the Church or Tradition to be such either immediately in her exposition of obscure Scriptures or mediately in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture and therefore that who denies this authority in some points suppose in those points where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points according to the Schools Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae i. e. in omnibus quae proponit omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult quae non vult non tenet non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae sed propriae voluntati But note that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati because he may hold such tenents not quia vult but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point That Scripture is God's word So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture because containing something opposite to their opinions could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest because that Scripture they refused came recommended to them by as much and the same authority as that they accepted But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition because for the former concession it is one thing to believe such a truth to be divine revelation another to be rationally assured thereof the first we grant is the second I think we have proved not to be necessary to all true faith For the second tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit nor upon that principle can believe one thing unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe as I think is before-proved And hence it follows that one may truly believe some other points of faith who doth not believe this point in particular That the Church or Universal Tradition is infallible Thus much * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in every believer to render his faith true divine and salvifical * and of the erring in some one article it s not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest But to conclude this Discourse Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed 1. First that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense that is in rendring his faith in other points tho not false yet non-salvifical to him 2. Again he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church known to him to be so in some point not absolutely necessary I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation as some points there are so necessary tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife yet this opposition in that error is by the common doctrine of the Church accounted so great a crime as that unrepented of it renders his true faith being destitute of due obedience and charity unprofitable for his salvation which I thought fit here to mind you of that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries as long as he stands tho in some as he accounts smaller points after sufficient proposal in opposition and disobedience to the Church i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters See before § 50. 3. And lastly if this Article of Faith That the Church'es authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed or at least so supreme that none may in any wise dissent from her determination can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation to be by every Christian believed then since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article it must follow That every one that opposeth the Church is also from his disbelief of this Article excluded from salvation FINIS OF INFALLIBILITY CONTENTS PART 1. COncerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed § 1 2. 1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant writers § 3. Where How far points necessary are to be extended § 4. That the Church not private men is to define what points be necessary § 6. If these points be necessary at all to be defined and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals § 7. 2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all § 8. 3. Infallibility Universal in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth is not affirmed by the Roman writers §
4ly observe concerning these derivative articles that since the deductions which may be made from such as are express and tradititional are almost infinite tho we cannot deny that all of them even to the least are still de fide or matters pertaining to faith for how can the premises be so and not the conclusion yet all not necessary to be believed or matters pertaining to necessary and required Faith. For so neither is every thing that is plainly set down in the Scripture necessary to be believed tho it is all matter of faith being made known to us that it is there written as the Cardinal saith de verbo Dei 4. l. 12. c. Necessario creduntur quia scripta sunt yet not ideo scripta sunt quia necessario credenda erant such as are many things historical there A pure nescience or also a blamelesly-ignorant contradiction of such things hurts no man's faith so we deny them not to be truth when we happen to know they are Scripture but that we should also know them to be Scripture there lies no tye upon us So is it with these Deductions which if in themselves as some points are they were necessary to salvation to be believed they would have bin so always not only after the Church hath made them but before But so they are not for then former generations perhaps not knowing some of them at least would be deficient in requisite faith A pure nescience of them therefore in the simplicity of which they are neither affirmed nor denyed or also when denyed not knowing the contrary determination of Scripture or Church hurts none but only a peremptory denial of them or the asserting and maintaining of an error contrary unto them or destructive to that former express traditional Article of Faith from which they are drawn and this when we have a sufficient information from Scripture or the Church to know that it is so which we have always after t is known to us that a Council hath determined against it and many times may have so before And hence it is that also after the decision of the Church still to many not the pure nescience or contradiction of such a point but the opposing it and asserting the contrary when we know it to be proposed by her is pernicious In Dr. Holden's Phrase de Resolutione fid 1. l. 4. c. lectio 2. Cum quis sciens vidensque universam esse Ecclesiae sententiam illam tamen pertinaciter obstinate denegaverit aut etiam oppositum sustinuerit c. But concerning the unwittingly affirmers of the contrary to some decision of a Council thus Estius in 3. sent 23. dist 13. § Diligenter distinguendum est inter eos qui retenta generali promptitudine credendi quicquid Ecclesia Catholica credit per ignor antiam tamen in quibusdam fidei dogmatibus errant propterea quod nondum iis satis declaratum sit illa Ecclesiam credere eos qui post manifestatam sufficienter Ecclesiae doctrinam adhuc ab ea vel contrarium asserendo vel certe dubitando dissentire eligunt quod Hoereticorum est proprium Fidem illi in universali atque in habitu ut loquuntur totam atque integram retinent dum quicquid Ecclesia credendum tradit suscipere se ex animo profitentur De quorum numero fuit Cyprianus c. Where also we see that the Church doth not lay on all men an obligation of knowing whatever she defines in matters of faith but of not contradicting or doubting of them when made known to any 5ly Neither is it necessary for the Church to make or propose any such deductive Articles suppose such as those in the Nicene or Athanasian Creed nor perhaps ought she to charge the faith of Christians with them but only where some error ariseth contrary to and undermining some former received Article or practice whereby her Sons to the damage of their Christianity are in danger of infection But any such errors spreading the Church doth not her duty if she neglect to promulgate the truths opposite to them See before § 14. For tho the explicit knowledge of such truths is not necessary yet this is necessary to the believing such fundamental and prime Articles of faith as God requires that one together with them do not believe and affirm any thing contrary to and destructive of them after he may have sufficient assurance that it is so and this he may have so often as the Church states it so So I suppose the pure nescience of some deductive Article contained in the Athanasian Creed condemns none but the maintaining of the contradictory error thereto after such light given him by the Church which light she is bound continually to hold forth to her children so oft as any mists of false opinions begin to overcast the clearness of the former faith 6ly But in the last place note from what hath bin said that tho no points become de side because the Church defines them but are either so before or never can be so at all yet some of those points which were always de fide objects of faith or dogmata fidei so Scotus said Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei till the Lateran Council meaning by it dogmata credenda i. e. which men were then tied to assent to may become creditu necessaria for all points de fide or appertaining to faith are not necessaria creditu after the Church'es determining of them which were not so before Creditu necessaria not in themselves or affirmatively as if they ought to be explicitly known as some other points de side must with reference to attaining salvation but only so as not to be denied or opposed or the contradictory to them maintained whenever they are first known to us to be declared by the Church whom we are to presume never to divulge such truths but upon necessary occasions pressing Her to it and this out of the obedience and submission of judgment which we owe to her Decrees And of this submission due to Councils even when they determine points not of clear Tradition but some-way formerly dubious we have a pattern in the busines of Rebaptization which tho formerly not so evident before the decision of the Church Scripture seeming to favour one side and Ecclesiastical custom the other so that Provincial Councils varied in their judgment of it some pro some con nor they heretical that affirmed it yet decided once submission of judgment was unquestionably by St. Austin reckoned as due from all and they Hereticks who after this opposed See for this S. Austin de Baptism cont Don. 1. l. 7. c. Quaestionis hujus obscuritas he speaks concerning Rebaptization prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos Patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus
diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus sirmaretur Again 2. l. 4. c. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid he speaks of the same point auderemus asserere which argues some inevidence in the matter nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse Cyprianus sine dubio crederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Yet were the after-opposers anathematized as heretical Again cont Ep. Parmeniani 2. l. 13. c. Haec quidem alia quaestio est Utrum Baptismus ab iis qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani potest dari nec aliquid temere inde affirmandum est sine authoritate tanti Concilii quantum tantae rei sufficit De iis vero qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptisma dare possint Hoc enim in ipsa totius orbis unitate i. e. in the Council of Nice discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est So contr Crescon Gram. 1. l. 33. c. Quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli motuit obscuritate hujus quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat Obscuritate quaestionis for tho elsewhere de Baptismo cont Don. 5. l. 23. c. he supposeth it an Apostolical Tradition on one side Apostoli quidem nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sicut sunt multa quae tenet universa Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur and tho this custom was by the Bishop of Rome and his party much pressed against Cyprian and his adherents and Agrippinus St. Cyprian's Predecessor is said to be the first that introduced a contrary practice see Aust. de Bapt. 3. l. 12. c. non novam se rem statuisse Beatus Cyprianus ostendit quia sub Agrippino jam coeperat fieri yet it appears that St. Austin did not think all common customs and traditions tho pretended Apostolical before they were approved and warranted by the judgment of the Church in her Councils to be so simply obligatory as that they may not be disputed if seeming opposite to another surer Apostolical Tradition i. e. the Scriptures as St. Cyprian thought this custom was and so answered Steven see Cypr. Ep. ad Pomp. contra Steph. and in this answer is defended by St. Austin see de Bapt. 2. l. 8. c. quia tunc non extiterant c. Noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas etsi non veras quod eum latebat sed tamen non victas veraci quidem sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere Assertae i. e. by * any Council or cleared not to be * against the Scriptures urged but mistakenly by Cyprian And St. Austin also himself saith the same thing with Cyprian de Bapt. 3. l. 6. c. Quis dubitat veritati manifestatae debere consuetudinem cedere This I have set you down the more fully that you might see the power and authority of General Councils not only in declaring points traditional but in deciding questions some way obscure and doubtful and what submission was due to such points once determined in St. Austin's opinion who yet held former by latter Councils might be amended and consequently their in some things liability to error or doubting And so such points are to be believed in consequence only to another point of necessary faith namely That private men ought in all things at least not demonstrative on the contrary to submit their own to the Church'es judgment as many things written in God's word are necessary to be assented to when known to be there written which are not written there because they are necessarily to be known or believed in consequence to that necessary point of faith that whatever is written in God's word is true And hence also are there two sorts of Hereticks some are such before any Council condemning their Tenent if it happen to be against points de fide clear necessary and universally or eminently traditional so were there presently after the Apostles times many Hereticks before any Council assembling or condemning their opinions others only such after their error condemned by a Council if the points be of less evidence c. These latter rendred Hereticks not from the nature of their Tenent but their obstinacy and opposition to the obligation which the Church'es Authority lays upon them in her determinations Whose publick proposal of such doctrines as divine truths is sufficient for their belief and further embracing the same as such and therefore their further opposition of it is not error but heresy unles they can infallibly demonstrate the contrary In which case if ever any such can happen they are free from wilful opposition or heresie i. e. I mean in their denying their assent to the Church but in public contradicting even those infallibly certain c. may be still faulty else they stand guilty thereof and also of Schism if for such a decision they go on to forsake the Church'es communion So St. Cyprian's followers after a General Council were counted Hereticks tho the matter of this Heresy as also of many others so called from opposition to General Councils seem not to be in themselves of very great importance not so He before it In which opinion namely that the Baptism of Hereticks was ineffectual saith Dr. Potter sect 4. many good Catholick Bishops accorded with him and the Donatists as likewise with the Novatians in another viz. that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners before the Nicene Council So tho since the Decision of the Florentine Council 1439 those who hold animas justorum non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem are by the Church of Rome counted Hereticks from opposition c yet those who before that time maintained it amongst whom was Pope John the 22d they acknowledge were free from it See Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 4. l. 14. c. Respondeo Johannem hunc revera sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem caeterum hoc sensisse quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo haeresis nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesioe definitio In such sence Scotus saith Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council Thus you see tho all divine Revelation and necessary deduction from it is de fide and the object and matter of faith
plenary Tradition or undeniable deduction therefrom it being agreed that all her proposals or decrees are not such A Quaere very necessary to be resolved for those if any such there be who affix obedience of assent only to infallibility and this infallibility again only to such decrees but a Quaere for all others me-thinks not of so much concernment I find the marks of such distinction set down in Bell. de Conc. 2. l. 12. c. thus Quando autem decretum proponatur tanquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilii semper enim dicere solent 1. Se explicare fidem Catholicam 2. vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt Anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt What then what if it be only Anathema iis qui contrarium dicunt aut docent Quando autem nihil horum dicunt non est certum rem esse de side Thus Bellarmin But note here that Bellarmin tells us not plainly whether something in Councils is proposed tanquam de side without any Anathema set to it only he doubtingly saith non est certum and those others again who build the Church'es inerrability on Tradition and the evident Consequences thereof tel us not whether some of those Decisions that are enjoyned with Anathema's are not sometimes some of those secondary consequences more doubtful ad quas colligendas studium aliquod scientia requiritur or which are made by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors c. As indeed t is likely some of them are Anathema's being added so frequently even in smaller matters and in the newest controversies And perhaps it can hardly be shewn by these writers that every Proposition in a General Council that hath an Anathema affixed to it is traditional to such a degree of evidence since some Traditions are much more universal and evident than some others that it amounts to infallibility not from the assistance of the holy Spirit but from the clearnes of Tradition In this distinction therefore of points de fide or necessary credends wherein the Church is infallible exactly from others I think these Authors cannot speak out so clearly because tho some points are of much more certainty and also of much higher concernment than others yet Councils seem not so punctual in severing them by a diversity of expression unless in very few perhaps a thing not possible to be done by them see § 3. See Dr. Holden 1. l. 8. c. acknowledging some such thing In tradenda doctrina Christiana nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum divinarum institutionum catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse quo separatim cognosci possint hujusmodi sidei divinae dogmata ab omnibus aliis quae vel Ecclesiasticae sint institutionis vel quae centae revelationi divinae haud immediate innitantur atque ideo omnia simul confuse indistincte semper docuisse tradidisse Yet the same Councils may and do require subscription and obedience to all their definitions as they being the supreme and unappealable Judge * authorized by Christ for the peace and unity of the Church to give the law to all men * abundantly assisted by the Spirit of Truth for all Necessaries even the obscurest and most unacquainted doctrines if you can once prove them necessary and besides this if in some other matters of less concernment they be liable to error yet how much less they than private men And therefore their submission of judgment to these remains still most rational as well as obligatory The chief note which I find for the distinction of these points de fide wherein the Church is infallible from other determinations or proposals is the affixing of Anathema's which are the same with Excommunication But 1. first several of these Anathema's if we do rely on their form may require not internal assent as looking meerly at faith but non-contradiction as looking perhaps in some points more at peace many running only si quis dixerit c Anathema sit But if it be said that the Anathema's only that are set upon a Si quis sentiat or credat are the Index of such points de fide for necessary credends then will very few decrees of Councils pass for such for example not above four or five of all those made in the Council of Trent I mean as to this particular Index of Credends viz. Anathema and doubtles many more of the decisions of Councils are contended to be such credends than those that can shew this mark of Anathema fixed expresly to dissentients of which see more in Church-Government 4. Part. § 79. Again this injunction of Non-contradiction or of keeping silence tho it be * such as opposeth the saying that the contrary to the Church'es determination is a truth or that the Church erreth in any such decision much more an open departing for such unnecessary matter for the Church errs in no necessaries from her communion yet perhaps it is not * such as opposeth the making or humbly proposing of any doubt thereof at least in a second convening of the same Authority See I pray you in the denouncing of her Anathema's the great warines of the Council of Trent in 24. sess 7. c. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare cum docuit propter adulterium c Anathema sit noted by Soave in his History of it p. 755. Engl. Ed. to be done because she would not censure * some of the Greek Church who held the contrary opinion as likewise * some of the Fathers as S. Ambrose And surely this Council's affixing Anathema's sometimes to so many Lutheran errors some doubtles of smaller moment as they were gather'd here and there by some persons appointed to that purpose out of Luther's writings because they were opposite to the common doctrines of the Church shews that her Anathema sometimes eyed more the petulancy and contradicting spirit of the Author than the importance of the Tenet and was sent forth more to secure her peace than her faith What should hinder I pray since some questions possibly may arise in the Church undecidable clearly by Tradition and since no doubt of all questions now agitated among the Schoolmen or other Catholicks one side is not traditional for then how could so many Catholicks oppose a thing of such evidence again since it is the Church'es duty to provide for peace and unity among her children as well as faith and truth and lastly since sharp and vehement contests may arise in such new controversies to the great disturbance thereof what should hinder I say that the Church in such cases may not impose silence on both parties or secondly using her best search and going upon such Scriptures and reasons as perhaps some side urgeth declare her judgment and that under some penalty on the opposers and gainsayers
such a matter but to the judgment or directions of your father or master for your reason that is considering another argument of the prudence and experience of his father or master c or of the command which God hath given him to obey them teacheth you that you subject or you unskilled should yeild to their judgment Thus may not one truly say For this reason I think such a thing is so but for such a reason again I think it is not so Els how come any to doubt Now when one sort of these reasons is a natura rei such as his own brain suggests to him and the other ab authoritate and this ab authoritate sways and is the more powerful with him then may he be said to side with authority against his private opinion or judgment But then here by private opinion or judgment is meant not simply that which is so i. e. as he now assents to authority for two contrary judgments or opinions swaying him none can have but that which abstracting from authority c from other reasons his opinion or judgment would be professed to be should any one demand it But indeed whilst against such reasons he yeilds to authority and yeild he may where-ever such reasons are conjectural or less than certain his private judgment simply considered is the same with the publick judgment of that authority and such a one suppose a Catholic that is perswaded that he ought to assent to all the Church shall decree should he notwithstanding against this follow his own private reason or reasons which may be many times contrary to such decree as also they are sometimes to divine mysteries may rightly be said in this doing to go against his judgment or conscience But if a man cannot submit his judgment against his private opinion then cannot a Council justly oblige any to believe any thing tho never so necessary and clear a point unless they know first that his private reason is not against it for they may not oblige him to impossibilities But how often is this done by them even the four first generally allowed and that under Anathema And St. Austin also writ a Treatise De Utilitate Credendi he means of believing the Authority of that Church which was found first to be the Church Catholick from seeing the great benefit that came by this captivating our reason to authority by which act of believing he observed Epist. 48. men not unfrequently came at length to be assured also by true reason of those things which first they believed only from authority Quamdiu intelligere sincera non possumus authoritate quidem decipi miserum est sed certe miserius non moveri Si enim Dei Providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Sin vero c. non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione quam sinceram intelligere ut saepe diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine De Util. Cred. 16. c. This he writ to a Manichean endeavouring to perswade him in religione turpe non esse credere antequam scire Thus much of the possibility of thinking or believing a judicial determination right when it seems in our private opinion as explain'd above not so But note here that I do not extend our yeilding assent to authority against private reasons in all matters when-ever this assent is given to a necessary belief in all such things that what they say is absolutely just and right but this our assent is capable of less degrees as a belief that what they say is more likely or probable to be so or also that it is more safe for me to err with them as long as I am not by any private reason infallibly certain that they err but have reason to think they do not err than to oppose their authority perhaps with the retaining of a truth but to me uncertain Thus much of Mr. Hooker's testimony and the justification thereof against Mr. Chillingworth's exposition See also Dr. Potter speaking the same thing much-what with Mr. Hooker sect 4. p. 105. where after he hath said It is not lawful for a private man to oppose his judgment to the publick he adds He may offer his contrary opinion to be consider'd of c. but if he will factiously advance his own conceits conceits I suppose he means that which seems reason and the sence of Scripture to him yet of which he is not infallibly certain Advance i. e. against the contrary determinations of the Church and despise the Church so far as to cast off her communion he may be justly condemned for a Schismatic for casting off her communion yea and an Heretic also i. e. for advancing his own conceits in some degree and in foro exteriori tho his opinion were true and much more if it be false Heretick in some degree and in foro exteriori Sure Dr. Potter saith he is this because he allows him some-way faulty in factiously advancing his own conceits against the Church and then I ask why is he not an heretic or if that name may not be so used guilty of an equal crime in foro interiori too For what great difference is there between him that having no sufficient reason for it obstinately defends against the Church'es determination that which happens but is not to him certainly known or by him proved to be a truth and him that obstinately defends an error Those reasons which such a one hath but short of certainty I grant afford him some but not a sufficient excuse of his opposition This for Protestants Next for Catholicks that they also allow a submission of judgment to an Authority fallible See what Bellarmin who holds that particular Councils are fallible yet saith concerning submission of judgment to these errable de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Etsi hoc judicium non sit prorsus infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum And tamen debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio si secus egerint merito excommunicantur donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale Therefore if these have formerly decreed nothing contrary we are to submit to it until they shall Again There is no reason of non-acquiescing to such a sentence but only the contrary judgment of a superior Court therefore if the Court be supreme there is no reason at all Again Quod Concilium particulare facit argumentum adeo probabile ut temerarium sit ei non acquiescere planum est and before he saith ex communi sententia Catholicorum asserimus quia si aliquot sancti Patres casu in eandem sententiam convenientes faciunt argumentum probabile quanto magis 50 aut 60 Episcopi simul convenientes
errs therefore she cannot know or be sure but that she errs in every thing unles first it be shewed that she knows all things from an equal evidence But 3ly these two not hindring infallibility general in all things which the Church shall propose or decide unles it can be proved that all hitherto passed in the General Councils is only necessaries or that she can determin nothing unnecessary to salvation I see not that it is nor any need that it should be affirmed neither from our Saviour's promise which we have no reason to extend beyond necessaries neither from the force of those reasons which are well urged by some to prove General Councils infallible in necessaries but are faulty if any will apply them to an infallibility General The chief of which reasons I think are these The 1. A Generali Concilio appellari non potest which is granted unde apertissime sequitur non errare Nam alioquin iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo judicio quod erroneum esse potuit R. The argument is good for points de fide necessaria but no further for by this reason the same Councils could not err in judging particular causes and matters of fact for from a General Council in these also is no appeal unless in infinitum to the same court Again some points there are in Non-necessaries wherein General Councils are granted liable to error by those Authors who urge this argument for infallibility as is shewed before § 9. But yet there can no appeal be made from them and peremptory obedience is required to be yeilded to them in these Lastly supposing that no court were infallible yet unappealable some must be that contests and strifes may have an end As also it is no less in temporal courts for temporal causes tho these courts fallible Therefore from unappealablenes doth not follow infalliblenes 2. The Second Haeretici sunt excommunicandi omnes qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis haec Concilia dicunt Anathema contradicentibus but Anathema's and Excommunications for contrary opinions proceed only from the Council's infallibility R. Not always from infallibility for such things are done by Councils less than General and therefore fallible and lawfully see Bell. 2. l. 10. c. done by plenary Councils in cases wherein fallible Anathema's always where lawfully used argue in some authority in others a duty of submission to it and are lawfully used for any thing I know by particular as well as general Councils and against the Schismatical for smaller matters or opinions disturbing the peace of the Church after dubious things determined as well as against the Heretical for necessary and certain points of faith denied As for applying the word Heretick to those who oppose things established in General Councils it is granted that such Council is infallible in all fundamental or absolutely necessary truths If therefore it be affirmed that it never defines any points but such it is granted to be infallible in whatever it defines and this proof thereof taken from the opposers thereof their being called Hereticks may be spared But if we suppose that a General Council may define or determin some points which are not such then the word Heretic must be a little better examined before any thing for infallibility of Councils can be proved from it For either he is said to be an Heretic who knowingly opposeth any definition whatever of a Council proposed under Anathema c. tho it be not in a fundamental or necessary point of faith but if thus then we cannot argue the Council infallible in every thing because he that opposeth her in any thing is accounted an Heretic Or he is an heretic only who opposeth such a Council not in any but such definitions as are made in matters of necessary faith But if thus then we must know Conciliary Definitions exactly which are such which are not before we can know whether the opposer thereof be an heretic neither can we prove the Council Universally infallible because he who opposeth it thus in some points is heretical 3. The 3d. If the Church be not infallible in all that she proposeth none could have any certainty of his faith which faith he must receive and learn from the Church R. Yes he that believeth the Church in all she saith will still have a certainty I mean for the certitudo objecti and will be free from error in all necessary faith which is sufficient if the Church be in the proposal of all necessary points of faith infallible which is affirmed But as for certitudo subjecti i. e. his being certain that in all such points he is free from error which concerns not this place I refer you to those fuller Notes about it Concerning the necessary ground of Saving Faith. 4. But fourthly tho Universal infallibility c may perhaps not be made good by these or any other reasons yet I think by what I have said it appears That none may from this not proved or his proving the contrary think himself discharged of his obedience which is due upon other grounds sufficient without this namely 1. * upon her Supremacy and unappealablenes whom Christ hath commanded him to hear and repair to as his guide and governor under pain of being treated as a Heathen and Publican was amongst the Jews and 2. * upon her Infallibility in all necessaries by which there is no danger to him for any error or mis-practice wherein she may mislead him neither will God for such error call him to account but let him certainly expect this if deserting his guide he doth mislead himself and 3. * besides these upon the dictate of common and natural prudence according to which none may justly withdraw his belief and submission of judgment to those of the greatest skill and integrity in the things wherein he wants instruction meerly upon this pretence that every man may possibly err or lie to him Suppose he thinks that he is infallibly certain in some thing that that which she teacheth him is false yet thus will his obedience be still obliged and kept entire for †most points as with which at least he may not dispence for any lesser scruples and doubtings but apparent counter-demonstrations but perhaps for †all points if he please to examin his own knowledg who goes upon no evidence which the Church also hath not and be not willing to mistake seeming for true certainty from which commonly the most ignorant are appearingly most certain Again suppose he discover General Councils to contradict in any point which yet if it be must needs be in a point not necessary yet may he not therefore totally withdraw his obedience save only to those things wherein they contradict nor perhaps in these neither for according to St. Austin's rule of Councils differing the last obligeth him by which the former may be amended amended therefore also contradicted But then
carried away with every doctrine c. Eph. 4. 11 13 Her authority I say toward all such men is voided because these two the giving private men power thus to judge and then the punishing them if they do not consent or if they declare their dissent do contradict For t is saying to them I grant and teach you that when you shall judge any thing which I enjoyn you to be contrary to God's word as possibly it may be so often it is your duty not to obey me nevertheles for doing this your duty I may justly punish you by Excommunication Or 2ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points of the truth whereof she is actually certain For thus it is pleaded by some That a Church which confesseth that she may err and mislead others and upon this consideration alloweth that private men may lawfully dissent from her may yet be sure that she doth not in such and such definitions contradict Scripture and therefore may according to the power given her by God Matt. 18. excommunicate her children for preaching contrary to or dissenting from her definitions and for violating her truth and her peace and upon this ground may affirm that what she thus binds on earth is bound in heaven as a man that may sleep run mad c may yet be sure that now at this time he is awake and in his wits See much-what the same said by Dr. Hammond concerning General Councils affixing Anathema's to their Decrees Paraenes § 12. p. 158. But this plea seems to ground the Church'es power of excommunicating and consequently her subjects necessity of obeying at least so far as not to contradict her definitions not upon her authority tho she as those Judges Deut. 17. 8. may be in some things liable to error but only upon her certainty of the truth in those things which she enjoyns as it is willingly granted she or any else of some things may be certain enough But then if others obedience depends not upon her determining or commanding but upon her being certain what is said before returns again they must have some means to know not only what she commands but also when she is certain in what she commands or that she commands nothing wherein she is uncertain in which she may be still uncertain even when she saith nay even when she thinks she is certain But there being no means to know this all men again will be left to their liberty The Church of England see before § 3. hath excommunicated all that shall say any thing is erroneous either in her Liturgy or 39. Articles Was she sure that she could not possibly mistake in any of these things which she hath said there if not such her Excommunication of contradicters will be according to this opinion unlawful Deut. 17. 12. it is said The man that will do presumptuously and not hearken unto the Priest even that man shall dye Matt. 18. 17. it is said If he will not hear the Church let him be as an heathen Are these punishments lawfully inflicted only in case that such Priest and Church be certain and infallible in their judgment or that such Priest and Church do not seem to any to mis-interpret the divine law 3ly Is it only to those decisions which she maketh in points fundamental But here the same doubts arise still For I demand Whether are you to judge or she which these are or how many Surely this is very necessary to be known If you grant that she must judge this too for you which or how many be fundamentals as Mr. Chillingworth saith 3. c. 39. § in all reason she must if in fundamentals she be acknowledged your guide and therefore he denies her to be a guide at all then this thing To how many of her decided points you are to consent lies only in her judgment And then I ask Since some Non-fundamentals are plain in Scripture and since in these Non-fundamentals if a private man may be infallibly certain of somethings as they say he may and upon this infallibility of his seems to be grounded all his dissent from the Church for in things tho not fundamental wherein he is not infallibly certain of the contrary I suppose he is also to consent to the Church'es judgment then surely the Church may be so too why should you not be here also tied to take her sentence when she saith that she is infallibly certain of them too as you do take her sentence when she telleth you how many are fundamental And if you are to consent tho it be against your own judgment in the greatest matters what reason is there you should not do it in lesser You will answer because in these greatest matters she cannot err but she may in others My reply is and may not you in others also err much more Is she to guide your judgment in the main and not in less matters Is Scripture be plain in these smaller points for you to guide your self by it is it not so much more in fundamentals why therefore relinquish you your own and adhere to her judgment in these things most plain in Scripture and then take up your own and leave hers in the rest especially when being asked your reason for this your plea is because such points are plain in Scripture But then if our Saviour as this opinion makes him enjoyns only subscription to the Church in fundamentals who sees not that it is as necessary that our Saviour should have told us which points those were els we may assent too much to her in things wherein she may err or too little in the other wherein she cannot err I mean fundamentals and so be certainly damn'd But then since tho the General Church cannot yet a National Church may err in fundamentals also and may apostatize therefore you are here according to that opinion to assume to your self to judge what points are truth and what not even in pretended fundamentals before you yeild any consent to any thing at all call'd fundamental or other which a National Church proposeth and thus a self-opinioned man may easily throw off the yoke of obedience to all the proposals of all except General Councils a thing very unreasonable And as unreasonable is that which some say on the other side That we may not contradict or oppose our Pastor or Bishop in smaller matters but may in the greater when-as indeed in these greater matters there is more reason for our obedience and far more danger if we err in our contradicting Therefore neither in Non-fundamentals nor yet in Fundamentals may we properly contradict them i. e. in opposing our particular judgment upon Scripture to theirs What then must be done you will say since our Pastors and Bishops may err in fundamentals and particular Churches may apostatize Resp. Why both in fundamentals and non-fundamentals also where any considerable doubting ariseth we may repair from them to a
further information from the Church General such as we can have and then we are to follow her judgment when evident and undisputable as many times it is and if we be Presbyters we are also to teach her Doctrines and that in not-fundamentals as well as in fundamentals tho contrary to the commands of some inferior Bishop or Council Nor is this properly our but the Church-Catholick's contradicting such a one and our obeying only her's rather than her inferior's injunctions This discours ariseth from that term Non-fundamentals put in the Quaere when-as mean-while you may observe that this curiosity of knowing precisely what are fundamentals what not presseth only one side namely that which will allow obligation of assent to the Church'es decrees only in some things not in others but it doth not concern the other side at all because they hold assent necessary to all points wherein the Church I mean the supream power in it requires it And so also 1. ancient Councils under pain of Anathema require as in some things non-contradiction so in other things consent with whom Siquis non confitetur c Anathema sit is ordinary without setting down that the point is fundamental as likewise Si quis dixerit only is used by them in other points of greatest consequence which shews that the Church expecting the same obedience to her also in the points we call not-fundamental took not such exact care to deliver them distinctly nor indeed perhaps knows how to sever all points under such a distinction To say therefore that all such points where assent and confession is required are fundamental is gratis said and as easily denied but that all such points are very profitable to salvation I doubt not 2. Again all practical points cannot be said to be fundamental but where ever the Church enjoyns any practical things under Anathema she requires more than Non-contradiction as hath bin noted already for I may not practise a thing when I do not first assent to the lawfulnes thereof In practical things therefore commanded by her to be done I either owe her no obedience at all or els more than Non-contradiction Now the ancient Councils are frequent in these but if God had given her subjects liberty not to practise such things as are enjoyned by her if against their judgment neither hath he given the Church liberty to anathematize them for thus following their conscience For I pray you consider these two Propositions how they can both agree to the Church I know God hath given order that in non-fundamentals no man shall owe me such so much duty as to yeild his assent to me or to practise what I bid him when his judgment is contrarily perswaded but only so much as not to contradict me yet I do require of those same men not only not to contradict but to consent c or els I anathematize them Certainly if in Non-fundamentals a man of a contrary judgment to the Church can be only faulty in contradicting the Church she can excommunicate none such upon any other terms but only if they shall contradict her 3. Again the Scriptures have appointed Pastors Teachers c have bidden us hear the Church he that heareth you heareth me c without limitation to fundamentals sure this obedience to teachers is not fulfilled in reserving my own opinions and in not openly contradicting or confuting theirs Sure that power of teaching exhorting reproving correcting the word of wisdom the word of knowledge given to our Spiritual Governors for the edification of the Church in truths and practices any way profitable to salvation as well as in fundamental are not sufficiently answered on our parts with the obedience of Non-contradiction of them when they shall speak any thing contrary to our sence except it be in fundamentals only i. e. perhaps in two or three points but these Scriptures oblige us to submission of Judgment either to our particular teacher or when he seems to guide us contrary to the word of God or contrary to the rest of the Pastors of the Church to his and our Ecclesiastical Superiors in whose judgment we must acquiesce and consent that we may not be tossed c Eph. 4. 14. compared with 11 as we see they are that take only their own sence of Scriptures See Heb. 13. 7. I Tim. 4. 11. I Tim. 6. 3 4. Where note that consent is not to Scriptures that were not then so common but to the doctrine of Godlines delivered by Timothy If therefore any dissent from an inferior Pastor or Council as he may upon any suspition that such goeth against the Scriptures or the Church'es doctrines he may not therefore acquiesce in his own judgment either concerning the sence of Scriptures or the sence of former times the Fathers but is to repair to his Superiors and to hear the Church then in being in all things wherein he clearly sees her opinion and in which she requires his subscription which Ch. is set for a guide to him on an hill to interpret to him the Scriptures in all controverted matters for if she be worthy to be heard in fundamentals as well agends as credends is she unworthy to be heard in smaller matters And such a Church eminent and conspicuous there always was even in the Arrian times to which Athanasius fled for succour also and with which he joyned himself and always such there will be nor will she ever be hid and who goes with her shall go with the Scriptures and with the Fathers too but whoso will go with them against her shall also lose them and vanish away in his own self-conceit If we now on the other side take into consideration the obedience of Non-contradiction much pressed by the Reformed as in many cases only due yet the limitations which they annex to it are such as leave not the matter clear to what points and from what persons such obedience-only is required as necessary For 1. it is not said by them that all men are bound even to this lesser obedience of Non-contradiction For if this were affirmed that all inferiors whether Pastors Bishops or Councils were obliged to such obedience in respect of their superior Councils it were something but as I think t is affirmed that a National Council may contradict a superior Council and so a Diocesan a National And 1. I ask Why may not then a Pastor contradict his Bishop or the Diocesan Council which the reformed will not so easily allow since this Pastor also is a teacher and an over-seer over God's flock Act. 20. 28 and if private men may so may he be infallibly certain that such a thing is in God's word and that thing too wherein he contradicteth may be very beneficial for salvation Neither is the peace of the Church disturbed more by him teaching contrary to a Diocesan than by a Bishop teaching contrary to a Provincial Synod and as other mens contrary doctrines may consist with their
charity to other Churches i. e. with not condemning them to be no Churches so may his Considering these things may not such a one say Whether it is better to obey God than men judge ye 2. Again I ask If the power in the Church of Excommunication of private men binds them not to contradict her why doth not the same power in superior Councils to excommunicate Bishops and to annul the acts of inferior Councils bind such inferior Councils also to Non-contradiction 3. Again the obligation of Non-contradiction of private men to their Bishop or to his Synod in not-fundamentals will signifie little because an Episcopal or a National Synod may err in fundamentals and the judgment of this Synods erring in a fundamental is by the reformed left not to It which will never judg such a thing to be but to its subjects and they may misjudge a point not-fundamental to be fundamental and so may break their due silence neither can there be of this any remedy For none hitherto have contradicted the Church-decisions but they have made that which occasioned their contradicting to be a thing of great consequence Here therefore again in the yeilding of our obedience of Non-contradiction to a Provincial or National Church the Queries concerning Fundamentals will return Who is to determin what are such both for agends and credends which it is extream necessary to know that in such we may be sure to vindicate God's truth against that particular Church wherein we live Is not idolatry an error against a fundamental truth and doth not the Roman Church then err in fundamentals in worshipping bread as the Protestants think they do for Christ So that tenet of the Greek Church à Patre per filium is said to destroy the Trinity and so the Lutheran's Consubstantiation is said by consequence to destroy Christ's Humanity the Trinity and Christ's Humanity fundamental truths In such points and the like therefore none must be tied in obedience to their Bishop or Church-National to a Non-contradiction 2ly In respect of the Church in general the obedience of sole-Non-contradiction is limited by the reformed as we have said before to Non-fundamentals wherein the Church may err whereas in fundamentals wherein this Church cannot err here they also allow an obedience of assent But I ask again Who shall determin both in credends agends which are fundamental And why in these fundamentals especially are we wished in our judgment to conform to the Church'es since these are the points most clear in Scripture and such as without the Church'es direction we cannot mistake And methinks those places of Scripture concerning Tryal of Doctrines which we have learnt to turn against the injunctions of the Church hold as well or more for trying her Doctrines in Fundamentals than in any thing els because the rule by which we try is the most plain in these points Again I ask Are all the necessary consequences of fundamentals to be accounted fundamental If so then who knows how far these points may extend in which we are to consent to and not only not-to-contradict the Church'es decisions 3ly This obedience not of yeilding assent but solely of Non-contradicting is allowed and secured by the reformed only to those persons who upon examination of Scripture and Tradition are certain of the contrary surely then it must extend to very few persons and in very few things for how few are there that are able to compare the Scriptures or search Traditions Therefore the Scripture seems to make rules of our obedience to our present Spiritual Governors as if we were void of writings and not according to the extraordinary skill and learning of some few that are not rulers but according to the general capacity and knowledg of the flock of Christ. 1. Therefore it were well if these men who would not have their own knowledge restrained by authority would yet let the people know That only those who by long studying the Scriptures and Fathers have arrived to infallible certainty are tied only-to Non-contradiction to the Church-decisions but that all the rest to assenting For doth it not make our hearts yet to bleed to see so many thousands of the common people amongst us upon this mistaken priviledge even to disbelieve and not to yeild consent to the Church in fundamentals 2. When this is done how few are there of the learned that can say they are certain without some doubt that what the Church proposeth is false Are not all the rest then who are not infallibly certain to be taught that they must in Non-fundamentals subscribe to the Church-decisions Why labour we then more to free then subjugate mens judgments 3. But then for a private man's being infallibly certain upon which the reformed opinion seems to build much methinks this concession of the Scriptures which he reads to be the infallible word of God is not enough for his certainty almost in any point because there must be a comparing of Scriptures and a not interpreting of some places so that other places contradict and because the sence of the words may be diversly taken tho he were to judge only of one place by it self Besides there are many degrees of seeming certainty and t is hard to know when it is a presumption only and when a true certainty That men are ordinarily deceived in making this judgment is plain because two contradicting one another will often both affirm that they are infallibly certain The thinking ones self infallibly certain mostwhat ariseth from knowing no objections of any difficulty to the contrary which objections as one afterward discovers so his former certainty by degrees abates Hence we see the greatest Scholars many times dubious when the ignorant are either certain or strongly confident Four texts of Scripture that seem plainly to say a thing make one sure as it were and then two texts suggested to him that seem to say the contrary reduce him to doubt and make him begin to deliberate of the sense of the former I speak not this to affirm we are certain in nothing at all but that we have almost always reason to doubt where the same certainty that we have appears not to others But then if private men may be infallibly certain much more may the Church and so many Doctors be so they also all agreeing in their certainty So that all proofs of certainty to be had in divine truths rather strengthen the argument for obedience to the Church And she deals but with us in our own kind if she plead infallibility to require our submission to her even in Non-fundamentals as we do plead infallibility to avoid it As for those objections which the Reformed opinion makes 1. That possibly a National or Provincial Synod may or also hath broached some new mischievous tenet the contrary to which tenet neither the Creeds expresly nor former Councils have decreed into which error therefore my too secure obedience may betray me
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
union of charity as this opinion limits it excludes not all separation from a superior authority but only requires non-condemning of such authority or those that adhere to it in our separation But here methinks the words of Cassander Consult Art. 7. are of some weight where granting that the reformers did not condemn the Church from which they separated yet Non video saith he quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem in observatione tam universalium quam particularium rituum violes condemnes institutis majorum pertinaciter repugnes quod certe est contra officium charitatis qua maxime internam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est Contra officium charitatis I say if we take charity not negatively for not hating cursing damning but positively for love and amity which sure the Apostle requires in all the members of Christ especially toward their Mother the Church which charity he describes 1 Cor. 13. 4. c to think no evil and well to interpret all things and we may judge this in private amity where our love ordinarily happens to be very cold toward the person whose ways customs conditions we once hate and condemn Certainly in the many sects now in this Church of England and in the division of the Protestant from the former Church tho it be supposed all these agree in fundamentals and have all such an union of charity to one another as is mentioned before yet there is a great fault somewhere for diversity of opinions that must be answered for by some side at the day of judgment nor doth the Church seem sufficiently in charity toward those superior Church-governors whose decisions and Canons she not only refuseth but also proceedeth so far as to reject their external communion and not to admit them or the Churches adhering to them to her communion because of the faultines wherewith she chargeth such their canons and decisions 6. Lastly let this be considered which you may find more prosecuted in Tryal of Doctr. § 42. c. that tho one follow the Church in fundamentals yet by departing from her judgment in other points he may lose many wholsom advices in things practical extremely profitable and advantageous to attaining salvation Our own judgment sways us to liberty and God knows how many souls have perisht in the reformed religion by throwing away the Church'es counsels and commands tho in to-them-seeming small matters as Fasting Confession c. And that text 2 Pet. 3. 16. methinks might a little affright us wherein the Apostle saith that there are things in Scripture that are hard to be understood sure these are not Fundamentals then which we contend are plain which are wrested by the unlearned and the unstable sure he means here men not adhering to the fixed doctrines of the Church to their own not harm but destruction 4ly It is urged that the H. Scriptures have commanded that all men lest they should perhaps be misguided should try and that by the same Scriptures their teachers doctrines that so if they find these doctrines not to agree with the H. Scriptures they may withdraw their belief from them See Jo. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Cor. 10. 15. Matt. 16. 6 12. 15. 14. Gal. 1. 8 9. Esay 8. 20. In answer to this for a stricter examination of some of the texts here urged I must refer you to Succession of Clergy § c. and to Trial of Doctrines § 3. 11. c Only here this I say to them in general Trial of Doctrines by Scripture is 1. either of the doctrines of private teachers by the Church-governors of which no question is made or 2. of the doctrines of private teachers by private men and these they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves left their trial be mistaken in the sence of these Scriptures according to the exposition thereof by the Church i. e. * in her General Councils or * in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures and if thus searching we find the doctrines of the teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to withdraw our belief from them Or 3ly this trial by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i. e. of those doctrines which are delivered not by a private teacher but * by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest which we can discover or * by General or other Superior Councils or * by the Apostles or by our Saviour Himself Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two sences 1. Either in this sence Search and try my or our doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my doctrine agreeing thereto if you search aright and as you ought And in this sence the tryal by the Scriptures of the doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles St. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of Him is both allowed and recommended For since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my doctrines by the Scriptures and if you in your search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or S. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private men's searching or gave any such priviledge to it unles you put in this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostle's or the Church'es doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend searching in such a sence or upon such conditions 1. Because such a searcher or tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest ormis-education or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogation of Circumcision under the Gospel Neither can any be easily secure of his dis-ingagement from all such Letts of using a right judgment in searching 2ly Because however the search or searcher prove there are other means and mediums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witnes to a falsity one may discover
that those Judges were absolutely infallible Now after all let Non-contradiction be all the obedience we when otherwise perswaded ow to the Church and this Non-contradiction be due only from the subjects of a Diocese in respect of the Bishop or Diocesan Synod not from the Bishop or Diocese to superior Synods yet hence it will follow 1. First that the Reformation abroad was unlawful which we followed and that no Minister might then preach against Popish doctrines unles these things had bin first decided by his Bishop which I think is more than many of the reformed will defend 2. Again from this distinguishing of our obedience to the Church according to several things commanded by her methinks this may reasonably be demanded since neither King nor Church can justly punish or anathematize any for not yeilding that obedience to them which God hath not bound men to yeild them Therefore if they are bound to yeild obedience of consent in some points as in fundamentals and only obedience of Non-contradiction in others as in Nonfundamentals when our private judgment therein happeneth to be contrary to the publick methinks I say this may reasonably be demanded That there should be some certain way how both the Church may know when to enjoyn the one and when only the other and how the subject may know also when the one and when the other is due for none can be justly punished in an invincible ignorance of his duty And if this be the rule of their non-obligation to consent namely when the point is not fundamental and when they are also infallibly certain of the contrary there must also be some way for men to know when they are infallibly certain and when they think only that they are so For I should have thought any one might know when he is sure but that I see so many that say they are sure when mistaken and but that I have also found my self afterward mistaken in things of which I once thought my self infallibly sure Another thing methinks Non-contradiction sounds well in speculatives but in practicals what must be done For unles the Church in practicals may bind men tho of a contrary perswasion to consent to what she defines she cannot enjoyn them to do what she commands or to forbear what she forbids because this doing or forbearing necessarily presupposeth consent first to the lawfulnes thereof els the action will be sin Now the Church many times commands and forbids several practices doubtles not-fundamental under Anathema's And indeed might not people in matters practical be tied beyond their own inclinations and opinion to conformity in these the church that is founded by the God of holines and order what a disorderly Society would it be and how full of several impieties To conclude the whole matter since in this division of Christendom one party in general seems many ways to crush the Church'es authority and the other to crush private judgment and since there seem to be some inconveniences on all hands a wise man will chuse that way which seems the more safe which I think is to adhere not to our own but the common judgment of the Church In which there seems to be much humility also and mortification of our rationale in which we are all very strong and also the not hazarding the breach of the great duty of our obedience to the Church which I think had far better be yeilded too much than too little And besides these motives we have seen more evidently the effects of both these tenets upon men in our days and there seems to be no comparison between the mischiefs which too much obedience to the Church hath wrought and those which the following of private judgment hath produced A Postscript IN the former Discours § 2. it is said That our Judgment if it be taken for any degree of private opinion short of infallible certainty ought to be submitted to the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Superiors Where infallible certainty a thing so ordinarily mistaken seems to stand in need of some further explication By infallible certainty therefore I mean either * that which ariseth from demonstrative arguments drawn from the nature of the thing but this is a certainty which consists not with faith for faith walks not by sight or which most concerns our busines * that certainty which ariseth ab authoritate dicentis when we know infallibly both that he saith it who cannot lie and that such is the meaning of what he said els the former of these without the later breeds no certainty 1. Now if you make your proposal thus Supposing that I am infallibly certain of a thing that is contrary to the Church'es judgment whether am I obliged to consent to that judgment c I must answer No by no means For indeed if we speak of interior assent such a thing as this assent cannot be at all unles one can hold two contradictories to be true And 2ly for exterior assent that is professing an assent when you do not assent this you may not do neither for this is hypocrisy and lying which the God of truth always hates and forbids neither hath he tied any man to forsake or renounce tho in profession only an infallibly known truth great or small And therefore from hence as long as you cannot believe that the Church hath any authority to guide you or that her judgment is so good as your own or fit to be followed so long you cannot profess a consent unto her judgment against your own without sinning but whilst you may not do this without sinning you sin again in not believing otherwise For no man may do what he thinks he ought not to do and yet he doth sin in not so doing because he ought to think otherwise When I shew you that you may without sin obey the Church contrary to what your judgment is in the thing which you assent to I do not tell you that you may without sinning obey the Church contrary to this your judgment that you ought not to obey her or when your judgment is that you ought not to obey her Where ever the mouth or hand goes contrary to the heart t is hypocrisie and lying contrary to Christian simplicity and unlawful But if the mouth and hand go with the heart and the heart go not right here also will be sin tho not the same sin 2. Now in the 2d place if you ask me Whether hoc dato that such a book is the word of God rightly translated c you may be infallibly certain of the sence of it in some things This I also grant you may be for hoc dato that the New Testament which we have is the word of God and that God in this word meant to speak so that it should be intelligible to us els it were no revelation of any thing a private man that hears or reads it may be as certain of something
acknowledge totum Christum to be contained in and exhibited to us by any one species and by the least particle thereof See Confessio Wirtenberg Chamier de Eucharist 9. t. 8. c. our Saviour's boby and blood and soul and Deity suffering now no separation See a further proof of the things said above in the discours on this subject And lastly if he hath considered a case not much unlike i. e. the communicating of Infants wherein if the Protestants had retained a contrary custom to the rest of the present Church perhaps they might have accused the Church for changing it not with less evidence than they do in this For first the Scripture saith plainly as of Baptism he that is not born again of water so of the Eucharist he that eateth not my flesh c shall not inherit eternal life 2ly And then the Primitive times according to these precepts practised it 3ly No more knowledge and preparation is required to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism for examining ones self and repenting is required to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist therefore if such things are not required of children for the one so neither are they for the other And I could press the like in Extream Unction which suppose that we had retained and the Roman Church left off as it is contrary how easily could we have charged them for abrogating a plain Apostolical precept Jam. 5. 14 And the same may be urged concerning the great act of humility washing one anothers feet before the Communion for which after that our Saviour himself had first begun the practice thereof there seems to be a plain precept Jo. 13. 14. And so the Church'es changing the celebration of the Lord's Supper into a morning exercise and that it should be received fasting was not done without some mens scrupling it See Januarius his consulting S. Austin about this Epist. 118. c. But if we can alledge in this matter the desuetude of former Church to be a sufficient rule and warrant to us for omitting of it then why may not the same plea of the Church'es desuetude be as well by some others enlarged to some other points wherein Scripture is urged against them I say therefore if such cases as these be well considered together with the understanding and the holines of these men who after our reasons given them are not convinced by such an evidence as we pretend methinks for one to say notwithstanding all this not that he is much perswaded but that he is absolutely infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice would not consist with that Christian humility which we ought to have and to which only God gives true knowledge nor with that charge of the Apostle not to be wise in our own conceits Whereas it is noted that the more eminent in sanctity any one hath bin the more eminent obeyer and defender not opposer hath he bin of the Church'es authority A like instance might be made in that mainly opposed doctrine of Transubstantiation where as long as a possibility thereof is granted as it is by many of the Reformed and such a declaration is found in Scripture as this Hoc est Corpus meum the most literal and proper sence whereof that can be tho the most heightning this mystery is Transubstantiation of the Elements See Treat of Euchar. § 28. n. 2. and as long as this Scripture is not found contradicted by any other Scriptures but that with less force the literal expression of them may be brought to comply with it than the literal expression of it to comply with them we also adding to these the final determination of the Church long before Protestancy thought on after so long and subtle disputes for about 300 years from the 2d Nicene Council till the days of Berengarius and after so curious an examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius Bertram and others 800 years ago I do not see where a man can ground an absolute infallible certainty against it T is a dangerous case to disobey where we see others of great judgment and integrity yeilding obedience with alacrity saith Dr. Jackson And indeed I cannot but approve of that constitution of Ignatius and think him a too much self-conceited man who when he hath I say not to the Church but suppose only to three or four whom he knew wise and learned and uninterested men shewed his reasons and they have weighed them and concluded against his former opinion would not quietly acquiesce in their contrary judgments supposing no superior judgment to have prejudiced them and this especially in a point not fundamental Tho I know not how it is that when we plead our security in our dissent from the Church'es judgment we presently say that the point we differ from her in is not fundamental and that unity of faith in those fundamentals is sufficient but again when we plead the necessity of using our own judgment and not trusting or relying on any other mans we presently represent the same Not-fundamental truths as of great consequence and say the blind meaning the Church which may perhaps err in such things leading the blind both may fall into the ditch and that that ditch also is damnation I cannot conceive therefore how any man can assure himself in any thing that is not of fact or sence but that is only a deduction from Scripture and Tradition contrary to the judgment I say not of his private Pastor but of the supremest Court of the present Church that he is infallibly certain of any thing small or great Small I say as well as great for from the Church'es being liable in some things to error doth not follow any likelihood of his being infallibly certain in those things of the contrary truth but rather otherwise because t is a sign that such things are not clearly revealed and that they being dark to her will be so much more to him To confirm which add these two 1. That in Fundamentals this thing is granted That none can be certain of the contrary to what the Church defines and then that how many points are fundamental is to him uncertain 2. That amongst many tenets of the Church this is one That private men are bound in all things to yeild their consent to the Church'es decisions where they are required so to do This tenet is plain in the practice of General Councils which Councils as well for Non-fundamentals as Fundamentals and for things of practice as well as of belief have anathematized the not only contradicters but Dissenters and Non-conformists Now then unles any one be infallibly certain of the contrary to what the Church determins and that this is no fundamental point also his judgment against hers cannot be infallible in any point whatsoever where she requires submission of his judgment In prosecution of which submission of our judgment in Non-fundamentals also it is to be noted that if our submission
to the Church in fundamentals were performed from any such obedience as we confess is by the command of God's word due to her determinations then the texts which may be urged to oblige us to obedience in these points would oblige us also in others for these texts are without any limitation of our obedience to fundamentals only But indeed our not so much assenting to her as consenting with her in fundamentals seems to proceed from other motives than obedience as from this that our Saviour hath promised that the Church for fundamentals at least shall not err and from a second that all fundamentals are most plain in Scripture and therefore as they cannot be hid to us so neither can they to her and therefore in fundamentals we must necessarily both agree in which agreeing we obey not her but together with her the Scriptures Mr. Chillingworth well saw this And hence those who withdraw one of these motives as those amongst the reformed who say Christ's promise before-mentioned is only conditional i. e. if the Clergy shall do their duty or who say that Christ's promise is more general i. e. made to Christianity but not to the Clergy thereof or to any General Council those I say make nothing to dissent from any Council or any Church that can authoritatively declare her opinion To conclude this Query I do not see then how any man can be or at least can know that he is infallibly certain of any point wherein the Church'es judgment is contrary to his 4. Now next if you be not infallibly certain then tho you have never so great probability that is short of certainty for your private opinion yet I think and I think the Reformed Divines conclude that you are notwithstanding to consent to the contrary determination of the Church or Council Els if only probabilities may serve to counterpoise the Church'es or Council's authority when or where will these be wanting You have seen Mr. Hookers and Bishop Laud's and Bishop White 's opinion in Church-gov 2. part § 36. Infallib § 45. And Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. I find saying thus Our disobedience is unwarrantable unles we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors and express law of the most high And elsewhere he saith Every doubt or scruple that the Church'es edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's law is not sufficient to deny obedience And again In doubts saith he and I say all is but more or less doubt until we be certain it will abundantly suffice to make sincere protestation in the sight of God or before the Magistrate if need require that we undertake not such actions upon any private liking of the things enjoyned but only upon sincere respect of performing obedience to Superiors c. And elsewhere We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands but he is to be obeyed till we can prove the contrary Again We can no more obey than love God whom we have not seen but by obeying our Superiors whom we have seen True Spiritual obedience will bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for Authorities sake than to disobey Authority for the private dislike of the things commanded Again If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture what obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whomsoever for whosoever shews the express undoubted command of God it must be obeyed of all If we thus only bound to obey then I am not more bound to obey any other man than he bound to obey or believe me the flock no more bound to obey the Pastor than the Pastor them and so the donation of Spiritual Authority when Christ ascended on high were a donation of meer titles You see how we plead for obedience against our own Non-conformists yet for the former Church we support our selves against her authority with having infallible certainty But the Non-conformists cease not to plead this certainty also against us But indeed this he saith here is most reasonable For if you do not submit to the Church'es judgment when you have greater probability to the contrary you never submit to her judgment at all for when ever you have not greater probability to the contrary you have either greater probability of what she saith or are in a pure equilibration and in either of these you do nothing with or for which you would not and may not also do without her Well then we may not exact of the Church that she should prove nor may not only then yeild obedience i. e consent and conformity when she doth prove to us that that is truth which she commands us to believe and that that is lawful which she commands us to do But it is our duty to obey if our selves have not infallible certainty and proof that such things are untrue or unlawful It is not enough to license us to withdraw our obedience or assent to her that she may possibly err in what she commands us unless also we know that we cannot err our selves for the power of giving our assent requires not infallible knowledge that the thing we assent to first is true but only a not knowing infallibly that it is false It is not enough that we are not certain that she erreth not not enough that we have some scruples some reasons and arguments whereby it seems to us that she erreth but only certain infallibility that she doth err this indeed excuseth our non-obedience Els our Spiritual Superiors are in the place of God and of Christ to us and we are to shew to them whom we do see and hear the humble obedience we are ready in all things to render to God whom we do not see nor hear and as we are to shew our love to God in our Neighbour so are we to shew our obedience to him in his Substitutes 1 Thes. 4. 8. compared with 2. And it is not only lawful but a great virtue in us since the contrary is most-what an effect of self-conceit and arrogancy of wisdom and knowledge as to suppress the seeming suggestions of reason and sence about natural things which suggestions are against the revelations of God and divine truths so to captivate our understandings also and crush the suggestions of any singular interpretations and sences about these divine revelations which are against I say not every private teacher but the common exposition of the Church Were then all those which are the Church's decrees acknowledged and 2ly our infallible certainty so much pretended by us so strictly examined that weak probabilities be not accepted by us in stead thereof how few would the points be in which upon our concessions we could oppose the H. Church But again were all those people that had not in these few points that infallible certainty which the others learned have as one may be certain of a thing
in obliging them to that of the Church 3ly It is granted that as our judgment is taken in this 2d sence namely for the private reasons and evidences we have of a subject in it self secluding from authority in some things we are allowed to use and follow it or to follow such reasons But we cannot collect from hence that we are permitted by God or have equal reason to follow it I mean our private opinion or reason in every thing unless it be proved 1. That all things are equally easie to be discovered by it and 2ly That there is no divine command for our yeilding obedience in some things to anothers judgment If any one should advise one to find out some reputed wise and experienced person in such affairs to consult with about something wherein himself knoweth little and such a one found wholly to rely on his directions and judgment therein answered he well that should say If I may rely on my own judgment in seeking out such a person why may I not as well rely on it for the matter about which I seek to him which only is well answered if these two be equally easie or difficult So the Reformed granting that we are to use our own private reason for discovering what books are the true word of God yet will not allow us having found such books to be his word to use our own private reason to examin by it whether what we find delivered to us therein be truth or no or when ever any thing therein seems I say not is against our reason as a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of Essence then to follow our reason in expounding it otherwise then it appears but now we are to lay aside the arguing of our reason and to believe all these Scriptures proposed after that by our reason we have found them to have divine authority So supposing that some Church were infallible it will not follow that if one may use his judgment in finding her he may afterward also use his judgment against her or any her decrees 4ly If you ask therefore in what things we may use and follow our private reason and opinion I answer in all things wherein God or right reason hath not submitted us to the judgment of another We may use it therefore in the discovery and search whether there be any such Judge at all appointed by God over us in Spiritual matters and what person or court it is to whose judgment he hath subjected us And in order to this we may use it in the finding out which of the several religions that are in the world is the true and which in the several divisions and sects that are in the true i. e. where some truth is by all retained is the Catholick and whether that particular Church wherein we were bred hath any way departed from it So in the finding out which Councils in some doubt concerning them are legitimate and truly General to whose acts we are to render up the submission of our judgment and which is the right and genuine sence where any ambiguity of their decrees in finding them out I say by the judgment and testimony which we find the present Church of our own days or that part thereof which seems to our private reason the Catholick to give thereof In this search that Proposition of Dr. La is very true Intellectus cujusque practicus judicare debet utrum is qui pro Judice haberi velit sit utique verus legitimus an media quae adducuntur ad hoc probandum fidei faciende sufficiant But such a Judge by our private reason being found to be and found who it is we may not for the things once judged and decided by him use or follow our own private reason any further but are now to quit it and our judgment having once discovered that such is appointed our Judge in such matters in this excludes it self and this Resignation we make of our judgment is also an act of our judgment In this manner the Apostle exhorts elsewhere not to trust every teacher but to try their doctrines whether agreeing with those of the Apostles i. e. with those of the appointed Governors of the Church and elsewhere that doctrine which they find the Church-governors to have delivered to them to stand constant and stedfast in it See Col. 2. 7 8. 2 Thes. 2 15. compared with 1. 1. Tit. 1. 9. Eph. 4. 11. compared with 14. Jude 3. 4. But you will say What if upon using my private reason I find not that there is any Judge or Law-giver in Spiritual matters cannot I then in all such matters use my private reason and follow the dictates thereof without sinning No if your reason in such search was faulty for as I said vitiously contracted ignorance never excuseth omission of duty 5ly As it is our duty where any cause of doubt diligently with our best reason to seek out the true Spiritual Guides and then having found to submit our judgment and reason as readily unto them so it seems much more easie to find out the Church which is to be our guide and to decide things to us than to find out the truth of all those things she decides more easie to find out who are those Spiritual Magistrates and Substitutes of our Saviour left to govern and guide his Church until his second coming lights not put under a bushel but set on high upon a candlestick to give light to all and a corporation and city set on an hill to be seen of all or amongst several sects and divisions to find out which is the Catholick communion from which all the rest in their several times have gone forth at the first very few in number v. Trial of Doctrines § 32. than by our own guidance and steering entring every one as a rasa tabula upon search of truth amongst the many subtleties of contrary pretences of contrary traditions in Antiquity to find out what is orthodox in all those points which points wean-while after so many hot contentions and wavering of opinion and mis-quoted Authors the Guide we neglect in her several Councils hath prudently fixed that we might no more like children be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive What wise work have the Socinians made and what strange truths have they discovered by waving the authority of Councils and laying hold of private reason to conduct them and be their judge assisted with plain Scripture after that they had made quest after some other Judge and could find none sufficiently infallible for their turn Who have bin so much so dangerously deceived as these wise and wary men who would trust none but the infallible 6ly Against that which is usually said that the words of Scripture are as plain and intelligible as the decrees of a Council and therefore our private
which himself deviseth put in the place of that which God requireth So not only mens traditions but divine commands from a mistaken end and use of them become will-worship too as * Sacrifice See Psal. 50. 8. Isa. 1. 12 13. compared with 16. and see Jer. 7. 21 22. compared with 23. the chief service not consisting in the offering but in the devotion of the offerer And * Fasting Is. 58. 3 4 5. compared with the 6th Zech. 7. 5. compared with the 9th See the like Matt. 23. 23. Therefore God calleth those lower duties himself hath commanded when done with an omission of the higher duty and service of him to which they were ordained will-worship See Isa. 1. 12. compared with 11 13. who hath required c because tho he commanded the thing done yet the doing of it was not according to his command 3ly Were therefore any one certain that something not commanded in the Scriptures or by God were enjoyned by the Church to be obeyed as commanded by God or also were preferred to something commanded by God he ought to refuse to obey what the Church commands in such a manner or with such an intention as she is here supposed to command it But 4ly there may be an obedience performed to such ordinances so long as we think them not also contrary to the Scriptures but if we think them contrary then see the course we are to take § 13. without being guilty of the Superstition for we may do them tho not in that way as they are commanded when we certainly know the contrary concerning them yet as things in themselves indifferent and commanded by the Church As doubtles the Disciples upon an injunction from the consistory might have washed their hands before meat in obedience to such order so that they had no opinion that they were defiled in not washing them So the Feast of Dedication kept by our Saviour of Lots Esther 9. 20. their Fasts mentioned in the Prophets Zech. 7. 5. Joel 2. 15. c. Zech. 8. 19. and ceremonies in burial of the dead in which the Priests were dispensed with Lev. 21. 1. c and many other practices mentioned in the Old Testament were no where commanded in the Law but acts passed by the Consistory which yet were not neglected to be observed Which doing of them avoids offence and sufficiently preserves the peace of the Church and doing them not as God's commands satisfies our own conscience All this is said supposing that we certainly know these things not to be God's commands which the Church enjoyns as such But 5ly we being secure upon our Saviour's promise that the Supreme Guides of the Church cannot mis-guide us in necessaries to Salvation and again not being infallibly certain that that is not commanded by the Scriptures or by God which they say is so so long we ought to yeild obedience to such injunctions in the same manner as it is required and if we err herein we are excusable tho the Church-Guides should therein be faulty For it is not so easie a matter with the same infallibility to discover the Superstition of the traditions of the Church as our Saviour did of the Pharisees especially since all sides in some things besides Scripture must and do allow of useful Traditions And therefore let it be well considered by every private man when the Church pretends Scripture or Tradition for their Articles whether he or they are more likely to be mistaken and then whether he should not yeild obedience to this command of theirs of which it is doubted whether it be God's also as well as he doth to their commands in matters which are of themselves indifferent Thus much of the trial of Commands the contrary of which is not contained in Scripture 2. Next of the trial of our Superiors doctrines or commands whether the contrary of such commands be contained in the Scripture Where 1. first if it be contained there as fact only and not precept here also seems no opposition ought to be made to the Church's authority For we find * both the Apostles themselves according to change of times and circumstances to have changed something also of their former institutions and practices See 1 Tim. 5. 9. compared with Act. 6. 1. Widows being formerly admitted without limitation of age 1 Cor. 8. 7. c. and 1 Cor. 10. 25 29. compared with Act. 15. 29 -16 3. and-18 18. and-21 24. and 1 Cor. 9. 20. comp with Act. 15. 1 -and Gal. 4. 9 10 -5 2. and Gal. 2. 3 4 14. circumstances altering the practice And the Church to have changed others since with general approbation as abrogating Love-feasts receiving the Lord's Supper in the morning and by the same reasons that these have bin altered others may be 2. In the Second place then to come to the trial and search by Scripture Whether the contrary to what the Church commands be not contained therein by way of precept And here this is certain that we are to obey no commands whatsoever that we are certain to be contrary to the precepts of Holy Scriptures But it happens that in many controversies the Scriptures are not clear for we may not call that a clear truth in Scripture that some one that reads it is confident of whilst others as intelligent think contrary for so that is many times clear to the ignorant not comparing places diligently together for qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat which remains doubtful to the more learned and there we must either look after some other trial of such controversies or leave them undecided Now to say here with some that Scriptures are clear to all in all necessary credends and for all things not necessary that we need not be inquisitive of truth satisfies not for tho Scripture be so perspicuous in things absolutely necessary to salvation which are very few yet that it is not so in many truths very useful and of great importance to be known the differences between the Reformed and the Roman Churches plainly shew the Scriptures being so ambiguous that whole Nations both using them are of contrary opinions and the points of difference so considerable that both doubt of or deny one anothers salvation in a mis-credence of them In this case therefore 1. First where our spiritual Guides determin a thing on one side wherein the Scripture seems to us doubtful and this doubt is in aequilibrio and as I may so say on both sides equal and indifferent as much Scripture seeming for as against it here the authority of such Guides pro or con ought to sway us as it doth in things in their own nature indifferent 2. But if the Scripture seem clear to us on one side and the determination of authority be on the other that is the contrary seems clear from Scripture to others then we are to use the 2d trial by the rest of the Doctors and
better to inform his conscience not only or chiefly in the confutation of the reasons he hath for his opinion which confutation cannot always be had or when had perhaps is by him not well understood but in the reasonablenes and many times duty of the submission of his private and singular judgment and opinion to those more wise more religious than himself or to those authorized to direct him 2ly Where the Doctors of the Church are not all of a mind but divided in their opinions it seems better to follow any party of them rather than our own judgment opposit to both because they having the same light of Scripture as we a calling to teach and interpret it being those to whom Christ hath promised more assistance using perhaps more means to understand it having more understandings agreeing in such a sence of it tho they may possibly err yet we are the more likely to mistake And experience daily shews that they who renounce fallible authority and stand to their own judgment to avoid one error incur twenty and those by God's desertions sometimes in the most plain points of practice * far grosser than ever any Church-authority or Synod hath lapsed into Neither are the diversities of opinion between Churches any thing in comparison of those millions of private mens singularities and as in sight we say many eyes see more than one so in blindnes or dimnes of sight many eyes are never so blind as one Let us avoid self-conceit and put on humility and then we * shall be glad rather to use the judgment for our way of another eye which if it hath motes in it we have reason to think that ours hath a beam and * will be ready to say if the Church be not infallible how much less I rather than the whole Church is not infallible therefore let me trust to my single judgment an illation not more unreasonable than usual 3. In following one party of the divided Clergy we are to avoid those rather who acknowledge the former practice of the Church against them and appeal to Scripture as long as the practice also pretends the same Scripture either for it or not at all against it For tho Scripture is a more sure foundation than the Church's practice yet since the practice also pretends as well as those who oppose it to be guided by the Scriptures so that Scripture and Practice is pretended on one side and Scripture only on the other side and since there is so great odds in number of those judgments concerning the Scripture that have ever so practised and also a succession of truth promised to be continued in the Church t is more probable I say that the practice is not mistaken in the sence of Scripture and of two we are to chuse the more probable 4. But if besides Scripture there be practice or tradition of some times of the Church the more ancient pretended against the practice of other later times here search is to be made by us and if such an opposition of the present and former Church seems to be discovered which indeed can never be by reason of our Saviour's promise in any matter of necessary faith the contrary course to heady Rehoboam is to be held the old mens counsel is to be taken and the former times are to be preferred except it be in matters not prescribed by God's word wherein the Church of all times hath power to constitute what she thinks fit Where therefore the Scriptures tho pretended by both sides plain yet are not so plain that both sides agree there let all the trial rest not * upon reading arguments pro and con in controversie-writers where wit and continual agitations of the question make any side tenable as men are biassed by interest and education but * upon this search of the Fathers and history of the Church and I am perswaded most controversies will quickly end For who tries them 1. First he will find in those voluminous writings many things more express and full and positive than they are in Scripture especially most of the practices of the Church put out of all dispute so that tho several men read those writings with a several interest as they do the Scriptures yet they shall find too much clearnes there to be corrupted by such interest For example those who dispute Episcopacy to be against the Scriptures yet are clearly convinced in the Fathers writings that it was practised in the primitive Churches and thought consonant to the Scriptures 2. Again he will find a most unanimous consent among them in most things and in many of those of present debate contrary to the opinion of many who seeing them quoted constantly by both sides almost in all controversies and that not only one Father against another but the same against himself seeing likewise books written of their many disagreeings which books are silent of the many more things wherein they accord do in this prejudice condemn them of the same ambiguity as the Scriptures and of much opposition besides and lastly of impertinency to modern controversie and so forbear to consult them and laugh at Vinc. Lirinensis his Rule Quod omnibus c as tho most true yet utterly useles But here some cautions must be given to the searcher which it were most unreasonable that he should not observe 1. * That in a search of the antiquity of opinions and not of the reputation of authors he would not reject writings which are evidently very ancient and likewise then approved since they are quoted by latter Fathers and Councils suppose those of the 3d 4th and 5th age after Christ. Because tho granted by all very ancient for the time they are uncertain for the author and bear a false title Such are for example the Apostolical Canons Clement's Apostolical Constitutions Dionys. Areop works of which it being disputed so early as A. D. 420. whether these were the genuine works of St. Dionysius shews that they were very ancient Again * that from discovering some corruption in some of the Fathers writings he would not argue there not to remain so much purity and incorruption in the rest as that in any thing controverted their true opinion can be known neither argue from his discovering their erring perhaps every one in something and that many times in a thing very inconsiderable that therefore in nothing they can be fit witnesses of truth and lastly from his finding them obscure or ambiguous in some places that they cannot be clear upon such subject in any other place or also in that place cleared by the context Yet such we find are most of the arguments that are urged for weakening their authority 2. That for the primitive times of the Church he would not only take those wherein she lived in persecution and left few records of her doctrines or customs as the first and second age but extend them to the end
strangers And tho there shall be Antichrists and falling away from the faith as there was even in the Apostle's times yet that falling away from the faith shall be also from the Church but the Church it self i. e. that whole external communion which was in times before the Church of Christ for I speak not of any one particular place from any of which I conceive one time or other Christianity may be banished or if you will the visible body of the Clergy openly cohering in that external communion shall never go into Apostacy Nor shall the Apostates fall away in but out of the external communion of the former Church and so always be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in respect of their opinion but decession not in respect of the truth of but their dissent from the Church in what they maintain and shall for ever be known * either by their going out of the former and setting up new communions Jud. 19. Heb. 10. 25. 1 Jo. 2. 19. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Jude 11. opposing those in authority and so Tertullian Praejudicatum est adversus omnes haereses id esse verum quodcunque primum id esse adulteratum quodcunque posterius * or by the former Church thrusting them out which shall never joyn with them But t is to be noted that most of those divisions of the Church if not all which have separated from a former communion are such as have not bin first expelled by the Church and then set up a new communion upon necessity but such as have left it always pretending that there be some tenets or practices in the former Church for which tho she permitting to them all their own opinions they could not communicate with her Now that communion which they tho indulged their own tenets will not return to t is plain that at first they did reject whatever they pretend to the contrary and tho the other Ch. also ejected them for both these well consist And such Apostates also may be known always at their first going out tho not so well afterwards by the smallnes of their number As Arrianism which was the greatest division that ever happened in the Church for 1500 years never prevailed upon all parts of the Church's communion the Western continuing for a major part untainted with it touching which see Ch. Gov. 2. part 40. § c. and in both the Eastern and Western it ever had an external communion of the Catholicks opposit to it and in its first rise was easily discerned by the paucity of that Sect as the beginnings of all heresies are easily known neither are they tho some of them of very speedy growth yet of long continuance See 2 Tim. 3. 1 8 9. Jude 11. Act. 5. 38. Neither had the contrary conceit to wit of the external visible body of the Church her falling away from Christ by which the sheep are to seek for a right shepherd ever got so much strength amongst Christians but from a supposing of Anti-Christ to be in profession a Christian and one of that Church in which it is said he shall sit notwithstanding that others of whom the same thing was said viz. that they shall sit in the Holy place see Matt. 24. 15. Dan. 11. 41. were not in their outward profession members of the Church But this is an opinion as is elsewhere shewed groundless and the going out of Babylon Rev. 18. 4. which is there spoken of place not of former communion as suppose it were said to the Christian Churches that are now in Turky to remove from thence interpreted in this sence is a dangerous principle to breed Schisms and ruin souls in causing mens forsaking of the external communion of the Catholick Church of Christ that is in present being Which Church many think shall be always so conspicuous and set on an hill that it shall in all times out-number any separating Sect both for the multitude of people and extent of Nations And we have found it so till Luther's time the fore-mentioned Arrianism never ruling in the most of Christians who adhered still to the Nicene Creed but in some of the chiefest of the Clergy the Bishops such as were intruded by the Emperor the orthodox Bishops being thrust out and carried away with his inclinations and these chiefly in the Eastern Churches As for the objection of Antichrist's times those who think the Supposition that he shall be a professor of Christianity false will easily grant that the Church then shall be a smaller number in respect of Infidels but not in respect of Hereticks And for that objection Matt. 24. 11 12 13 Luk. 18. 8. we have seen our Saviour's words fulfilled in Mahomet and those seduced by him and in many heretical Sects also and in a more general corruption of manners even amongst the orthodox without any infringement of what is here affirmed See more of this in Success of Clergy § 1. First therefore those within the bounds of the Church that follow blind leaders without all trial are void of excuse Not because they do not quit all leaders absolutely and guide themselves by the Scriptures but because the Church of God i. e. the Pastors and Teachers thereof having our Saviour's promise never so to be blind but that salvation and escaping the pit should be always had in her as it in all times hath bin both in the Jewish and since in the Christian Church there are at all times other leaders who are illuminated with God's Spirit and whose light not put under a bushel but set on a candlestick shines before them whom they may securely follow So that the people are never left nakedly to the Scriptures or to the Law without orthodox Teachers and Guides therein or without an external communion lawful and safe to be adhered to nor such Teachers left without manifest testimony to all that will look after it that they are sent from God and that their communion is the true Church either by their shewing miracles and other signs of their mission or by their succession to and consent with the former Church which shewed miracles and by all other Sects tho perhaps at length out-numbring them yet discerned always to be few at first and to go out from them So under the Law the whole Order of God's Priests never fell so away at any time neither before nor in nor after the Babylonish captivity till the coming of Christ according to the promise Gen. 49. 10. and our Saviour's testimony Lu. 16. 16. Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 23. 2. but that there was always a remnant of them by the former marks to be easily discerned from the Apostatizers serving the Lord with a true worship and having a flock amongst the people obedient to them And at Christ's coming when Satan was let loose to deceive the Sanedrim and infatuate all the former chief Ecclesiastical Governors God gave all the people sufficient testimony by miracles
unrepented of before death must needs as other sins do exclude all such out of heaven and tho the Excommunications of the Church have also here a dreadful power whereby he is deprived of her prayers also and receives her curse yet in such a Church by the great light of Scripture therein retained there may be and ordinarily is so much truth asserted as joyned with christian obedience is sufficient for his salvation who is guiltless in these crimes Neither are the Church-Excommunications further powerful in their censure than others are guilty of the offence But yet such a one must know 1. First that he becomes guilty of Schism not only by not forsaking a known error or a byhim-counted unlawful communion but by where there is any remedy for it a purposed ignorance and carelesnes of further knowing truth where he hath reason to be jealous and sees a breach made in the Church of Christ. 2ly This misfortune happens to those not guilty of the Heresie or Schism of the Church wherein they live that the matter of the Heresie or Schism most times being in doctrines or practices if not necessary yet very beneficial for attaining Salvation that I say either by erroneous doctrines taught in such Church's or many profitable doctrines not taught or looser discipline practised there they run a much greater hazard of their Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 4. p. 115. Yet blessed be God for those whom he hath so far enlightned as to abide without obstinacy in their errors in any christian Society for we may presume that thence also many go to heaven and these not only hearers but perhaps some teachers also if not with their doctrines destroying the foundation Jesus Christ nor acting against conscience nor wilfully negligent to inform it as I fear many of them be See Ch. gov 3. part § 84. Besides trial of Doctrines by Scriptures and by the Doctors of the Church there is also a 3d. way of trial both of the Doctrines and Doctors and Churches which is much recommended by our Saviour Matt. 7. 15. c. and by his Apostles 1 Tim. 4. 7. 6. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 1. Jam. 3. 17. and that trial is as their doctrines tend more unto holines of life and as this fruit is more or less produced by them For tho this holines is by all doctrines equally pretended yet is it not by all doctrines equally advanced For many ill consequences there are following some doctrines more than others which tho they are disavowed and shaken off in the expositions of the teachers yet do they still adhere to them in the peoples practice As there are other doctrines which whereas perhaps as some mis-understood them they seem pernicious yet we find the followers thereof excelling in holines where the doctrine seems to commend and induce ignorance very studious and knowing where the doctrine seems to nourish boasting presumption and pride very humble and contrite in spirit whom when we find and that frequently walking just contrary to what we suppose their doctrines we are to imagin their doctrines not to be what we suppose the practice of the Church being the best expounder generally of her opinions But were it otherwise yet I conceive far better it were to have faulty doctrines mis-understood so as to produce holines than even those that are good mis-understood so as to produce profanenes and impiety Again there are fewer divine truths acknowledged in one Church perhaps than in another and so obedience less perfect and in a Church where there are no false doctrines affirmatively and positively taught yet perhaps many true ones areo mitted or also rejected such as are exceeding beneficial to produce sanctity Now 1. first this is certain that no lye abounds so much to the producing of holines as truth doth and the more true and orthodox any Church is and the more truths of God are embraced by her and none of his counsels rejected the more purity is in her For the whole design of our Saviour's coming into the world of the moulding of all the doctrines of the Law and of the Gospel these and not others was the advancing by them her sanctification So that I may say had there bin an error that could more have advanced it than these truths truth had bin error and that error had bin made truth Where then more of these divine rules are known and observed there will flourish more holines And therefore we may reflect Where more holines is found there probably are these better known and taught because where they are most taught there in all likelihood also they are most observed Therefore since all acknowledge the excellent sanctity and purity of the primitive times they must likewise grant that Church more orthodox which more closely retains their doctrines their discipline c. And it is an astonishment to me to see that those who so much admire the one yet so freely cut off and reject the other that effected it and now where practised do still effect it which they might by this know to have caused it for that where all other doctrines are put and these which used anciently are now cast aside in some Church's abrogated there such sanctity grows not nor is the brick made at all where the straw is denied How is it then that the fruit is so much commended and yet the root that bears it called superstition will-worship tyrannical abridgment of christian liberty * the equalling of things indifferent and of mens traditions so are all things called which in their conceit are not strictly commanded in Scripture notwithstanding all the holy examples which they may find in these Scriptures thereof and that the commands of God are made thereby not of none but of much more effect with the commandements of God * the placing salvation in mens devices and in the practising of their own inventions Again besides this that where more divine truths for I speak not here of other knowledge which many times proves a great enemy to piety are revealed there generally must be more holines because all divine truths tend to it see Psal. 119. 104 128. and ordinarily where the judgment is very much illuminated the affections cannot but follow it and the more light the soul hath in it the less likely it is to miss its way t is yet further to be observed that holines where ever we find it if not begotten by yet quickly begets truth that the passions brought into order do readily admit that heavenly light which less or more enlighteneth every one that cometh into the world The H. Ghost is a fire Matt. 3. 11. so that wheresoever the Spiritual light thereof is there is heat also and much more e contra And the mortification of lusts soon brings in orthodoxnes of opinion when the inclinations of the soul are so well regulated as truth is rather for at least not against them So that in that Church
to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole nations into her bosom If lastly in all other opposit Churches there be found inward dissensions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governors much more experienced since this Author's death in the late Presbyterian wars confusion of Orders invading of Episcopacy c. whereas contrariwise in this Ch. the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the very lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony beauty and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continuance increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious Spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it followeth that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further disquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of that Church that was before Luther's times and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from error i. e. dangerous to or destructive of salvation and yet peremptorily command men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard bin of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truths of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed therefore are they who believe and have not seen the merit of whose religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptance before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others This is the main course of their perswading at this day c. FINIS Concerning SALVATION possible to be had in a SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION AND Concerning the danger of living in and the necessity of departing from a KNOWN-SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION CONTENTS Tho it be conceded 1. FIrst That the Catholick Church contains in it not many opposit but only one external Communion § 2. 2ly That there is no salvation out of the communion i. e. internal of the Church Catholick 3. Yet Salvation must be allowed to some that are out of the external communion of the Ch. Catholick 4ly That of those who live out of the Catholick and in a schismatical external Communion there are several sorts 1. Those who make such separation who are not salvable without repentance 2. Those who follow such leaders and continue the division upon the same motives and passions not salvable without repentance 3. Those who follow such leaders in simplicity of heart and out of their condition considered invincible ignorance Such seem to be in a salvable condition tho incurring great disadvantages for their salvation § 7. 4. Those who convinced of Schism in such a Church yet rejoyn not themselves to the external communion of the Ch. Catholick tho consenting in all things with her Hindered 1. Either by some respects meerly temporal Such faulty but how highly is hard to determin 2. Or by some considerations and designs meerly spiritual Such less faulty than the other yet seem not wholly justifiable 1. †Whether they continue still in a communion schismatical § 9. n. 1. Which communion seems forbidden both 1. By the Scriptures 2. And by the Injunctions of the Church Catholick § 10. To which all owe obedience § 11. 2. Or †whether they communicate with no Church at all who seem of the two the less unjustifiable § 13. yet not wholly excusable § 14. 5. Those who 1. much doubting the Church they live in to be schismatical yet are not fully convinced thereof Or 2. convinced defer their intended reconcilement till an expected opportunity § 17. That several circumstances considered both these may or may not be culpable A Query What is to be done if the Ch. Catholick require some conformity to doctrines or practices against his conscience or particular judgment who seeks her Communion § 19. Several propositions tending to the solution of this Query § 20. Bishop of Chalcedon in Protest plain Confess 2. c. If Protestants allow not saving Faith Church and Salvation to such as sinfully err in Not-fundamentals sufficiently proposed they shew no more charity to erring Christians than Catholicks do For we allow all to have saving faith to be in the Church in the way of salvation for so much as belongs to faith who hold the fundamental points and invincibly err in not-fundamentals because neither are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed 13. c. If they grant not Salvation to such Papists as they count vincibly ignorant of Roman errors but only to such as are invincibly ignorant of them then they have no more charity than we For we grant Church saving Faith and Salvation to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errors Id. in Survey of L. Derry 8. c. 3. §. in answer to Bishop Bramhal's objecting the Pope's excommunicating of such Churches Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Affrick Asia Greece and Russia but only such as vincibly or sinfully err such as are formal or obstinate hereticks or schismaticks For Excommunication is only against obstinacy Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus In these Churches there are innumerable who are but credentes haereticis schismaticis because the Catholick faith was never sufficiently preached to them and these the Pope doth not excommunicate Nor doth he exclude formal Hereticks or Schismaticks but Juridically declareth them to be excluded For by their Heresies or Schisms they had already excluded themselves or juridically confirmeth their exclusion begun by themselves S. Aug. Confess 8. l. 2. c. Legebat Victorinus Doctor tot Nobilium Senatorum c sanctam Scripturam omnesque Christianas scripturas investigabat studiosissime perscrutabatur dicebat Simpliciano non palam sed secretius familiarius Noveris me jam esse Christianum Et respondebat ille Non credam nec deputabo inter Christianos nisi in Ecclesia Christi te videro Ille autem irridebat eum dicens Ergo parietes faciunt Christianos Et hoc saepe dicebat Jam se esse Christianum Et Simplicianus illud saepe respondebat saepe ab illo parictum irrisio repetebatur Amicos enim suos
verebatur offendere superbos daemonicolas quorum graviter ruituras in se inimicitias arbitrabatur Sed posteaquam legendo inhiando hausit firmitatem timuitque negari a Christo coram Angelis sanctis si eum timeret coram hominibus confiteri reusque sibi magni criminis apparuit erubescendo de Sacramentis humilitatis Verbi Tui non erubescendo de sacris sacrilegis superborum daemoniorum depuduit vanitati erubuit veritati subitoque inopinatus ait Simpliciano Eamus in Ecclesiam Christianus volo fieri c. mirante Roma gaudente Ecclesia Superbi videbant irascebantur dentibus suis stridebant tabescebant Servo autem tuo Domine Deus erat spes ejus non respiciebat in vanitates insanias mendaces S. Aug. de ordine 2. l. 9. c. Cum docilis factus fuerit tum demum discit quanta ratione praedita sint ea ipsa quae secutus est ante rationem quid sit ipsa ratio quae post authoritatis cunabula firmus idoneus jam sequitur Grot. Votum pro pace Preface Facile vidi id voluisse Christum ut omnes qui ab ipso nominari per ipsum beatitudinis compotes fieri vellent unum essent inter se sicut ipse cum Patre unum est Jo. 17. 11. 21 22 23. Neque vero unum animo tantum sed ea communione quae conspici potest maxime conspicitur in regiminis vinculo in sacramentorum participatione Est enim Ecclesia aut esse debet corpus quoddam Rom. 12. 5 12 c. 27. Eph. 1. 23. 2. 16. 4. 4. 5. 30. Coloss. 1. 18. 2. 17 19. Quod corpus Christus caput ei a Deo datus per varias junctur as praefecturarum compaginari voluit Eph. 4. 11 12 16. in hoc singulos baptizari ut unum corpus fierent 1 Cor. 12 13. de uno consecrato pane vesci ut sic magis magisque coalescerent unum se corpus esse testarentur 1 Cor. 10. 17. Note that in this Discours by Schismatical I mean in that sort of Schism which is a separating from lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors And that Churches not only private persons may be thus schismatical see Dr. Hammond Of Schism 3. c. § 10 21. and what is said in Ecclesiastical Government 2. and 3 parts Of the danger of SCHISM SIR COncerning the hainousnes and danger of Schism I have read over those quotations you directed me to in Mr. Cressy's Motives c. 46. but cannot consent to what he there sect 5. compared with the former quotations deduceth from them i. e. that no man if living in a Communion or Church schismatical tho he hath no influence upon the beginnings of the separation tho he judge charitably of the Church which others have separated from and approacheth as near to it in his belief as that which is truth in his opinion will permit him can be saved Unless 1. first this be true also which he indeed seems to affirm 47. c. 2. § that the true Church cannot be hidden from the eyes of any man who doth not willingly shut them That any ones opinion that such a thing as he or his church holds is truth I add or that that Church wherein they are baptized and educated is the true Church of what condition age calling capacity soever he be must needs proceed in him from some corrupt passion as S. Austin instanceth in two such passions which chiefly make ones error an heresy qui alicujus temporalis commodi or qui gloriae principatusque sui gratia falsas novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur and from ignorance not invincible but obstinate and affected Now I hardly think any one will affirm this of every man whatsoever that is born and educated in a Communion schismatical Tho indeed I believe that this may be truly said of very many especially the learned who notwithstanding think themselves very free from it For the necessity which is ordinarily pleaded of following or not-doing contrary to our conscience freeth not us from being guilty of Schism in doing after it no more than it could free a Donatist c if there be any defect from negligence interest passion c in the information of it See Notes of Necessary Faith § 6. And see Archbishop Lawd Conf. 37. sect 6. n. where he saith That an error and that in points Not-fundamental may be damnable to some men tho they hold it not against their conscience If they neither seek the means to know the truth nor accept truth when it is known especially being men able to judge Now I conceive in most learned that abide in a Schismatical communion such a fault there is Namely either †much negligence and this either in not reading the controversies of religion at all or in their reading the tenets of their adversaries only in their own writers or in their taking and arguing against the extremities of some private mens opinions for the Catholick doctrines of that Church from which their Ancestors have departed Or if they deficient in none of these 2ly †much interest and passion and addiction to worldly conveniences or honors therefore S. Paul and S. Jude observe much carnality in Schism 1 Cor. 3. 3 4. Jude 19 which passion unknown to them restrains the free liberty of their judgments Hence the ignorant people in a Schismatical Church may well be saved whilst the learned thereof in their uncharitablenes to and opposition of the true Church perish Or 2ly unless this be true that where invincible ignorance is and no actual breach of charity at all yet the pure want and privation of external unity or communion with the Church without any their default damns such men tho mean-while they do receive all the benefit of the Sacraments well know and believe all the necessary Articles belonging to faith and manners and conform in their lives thereunto even in strict obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors of that Church which they live in and which they only know Now this I think as unreasonable an assertion as the former See § 6 7 8. Now to consider the quotations in Mr. Cressy and what may be said in this point you must give me leave not to shuffle all together but to distribute the matter into many Propositions that we may see which of them are disputable which not 1. Let it be granted for the present that the Church cannot have in it many opposit external communions but only one so that he that enjoys not that one external communion is rightly said to be out of the communion of the Church i. e. out of the external communion thereof Only here note that one may elsewhere out of this external communion of this only true Catholick Church be partaker of the Sacraments and those the true Sacraments for none deny that the administration of true Sacraments may be in a Church Schismatical
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
be justly supposed by any therefore to justifie all their Acts Laws Injunctions or Censures whatsoever no more than from my peaceable obedience to my temporal Prince will any such thing be collected Suppose the Church pronounceth an Anathema on all those who do not believe her decrees yet can none hence justly conclude That every one that is in her communion believes them unless we are certain that every one doth what another requires who doth not quit all relation to him who requires it Neither have her Anathema's being universally pronounced more force upon nor are they more to be feared by one when he is now within than when he was before without her communion or than they are to be feared by all those who continue still without the further any one runs from the Church he the more justly incurring her censures Neither reasonably may those thro the Kingdom of France after the conclusion of the Tridentine Council who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church or Father Paul the Venetian who writ the history of that Council dying also in the same communion be therefore presumed to have assented or subscribed to all the decrees thereof Doth the 5th Canon of the Church of England bind all tho Non-Subscribers to forsake or not to enter her communion who think some one thing she saith not agreeable with the Scriptures for fear of their giving scandal by being thought to believe such points Did the many false doctrines of those who sat in Moses's chair and ruled in the true Church of God therefore warrant the Samaritan discession from the Church Consider well Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 10. 5. We may not being in her communion openly gainsay the errors of a Church such as are not fundamental as all I think grant how much less may we quit her communion for them And if one may not leave that which he imagines the true Church for such faults or defects neither may he forbear to return to it And if a member of a Church may not disturb her peace in an open speaking against some things he supposeth to be errors in her but not fundamental now for erring in fundamentals the true Church of Christ is secure and in the Protestants opinion the Roman Church doth not err in any such upon this pretence because else some may be scandalized as if himself also held such errors why may not one likewise enter into the Church's communion without an obligation of declaring against her supposed errors for fear of giving such scandal And indeed upon such terms i. e. of fear of giving scandal no man may be of any communion wherein he thinks any one untruth is held and then by being of none shall he not give more scandal as if he denied there to be on earth a Catholick and Apostolick Church to which he may securely joyn himself He that may not pass over to another Church because she hath some in his opinion errors may not stay in his own if he imagines the same of her But mean-while he that takes such offence may perhaps too magisterially accuse a Church of errors who 1. first ought not hastily to conclude especially the decrees of Councils to be untruths unless he be infallibly certain thereof And if he be so yet 2ly ought he not to be offended at anothers submission to the Church that holds them unless he knows also that the other is infallibly certain of their being errors But yet 3ly from the others submitting he cannot indeed gather so much as that such a ones private opinion in all things is the same as the Church's doctrine is but only this that such a man's judgment is that he ought to submit as much as is in his power his contrary reasons or opinion to her wiser and more universal judgment To conclude No man may neglect a duty for fear of giving some scandal or of having his actions by some weak men misconstrued For t is only in the doing and forbearing of things indifferent that we are to have an eye to scandal Now our communion with that which we suppose to be the Church Catholick must needs be a duty and that a high one Of which S. Austin saith so often see 5. § That there can be no just cause of departing from her Therefore either she errs not at all in her decrees or else we may not desert her communion because therein are maintained some errors tho some upon these be scandalized that we still abide in it I add as no just cause of departing from her notwithstanding such errors so no just cause of not returning to her when she is willing and ready to receive him By Him I mean here as likewise in the rest of this discourse such a one as tho he scruples at some of her in his conceit errors yet is perswaded that that Church to which he desires to joyn himself is the truly Catholick Luk. 9. 59 c. And he said unto another Follow me But he said Lord suffer me first to go and bury my Father Jesus said unto him Let the dead bury their dead c. Another also said Lord I will follow Thee but let me first go bid them farewell which are at home at my house And Jesus said unto him No man having put his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God. FINIS PART I. §. 1. 1. Concerning Faith necessary for salvation 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith. §. 2. 1. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of faith 1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe what ever is known by us to be Gods word §. 3. Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be Gods word which knowledg obligeth us afterward to belief §. 4. §. 5. §. 6. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal §. 7. §. 8. §. 9. §. 10. 2 That it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is God's word be known by us to be so or in general known by us to be a truth Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all 〈◊〉 points very few §. 11. §. 12. §. 13. Not easily defined In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large §. 14. 2. Other points only highly advantageous to salvation that they be known 3. Yet our duty each one according to his calling to seek the knowledg of them §. 15. In respect of these the Apostles Creâ—d too narrow §. 16. §. 17. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons c. And the decrees of Councils not obligatory at least to some against a pure nescience but opposition thereof and not any opposition but only when known to be their Decrees §. 18. §. 19. §. 20. PART II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether Infallibility that the matter of such Faith is a divine truth