either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it viz. 1. either the Infallible Authority of the scriptures from that of the Church the Church testifying so much of the scriptures Or 2. that of the Church from the scriptures Or 3. Also the Infallibility of either of these may be rightly proued from its own testimony For whoeuer is proued or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without any Circle or Petitio Principii or identicall arguing that whateuer he doth witness of himselfe is true I say all these Consequences are naturall and necessary 1. The Testimony being granted euident that the one bears to the other or either to its selfe and 2. the infallibility of one of these either of the scripture or of the Church being first learnt not from its own or the others testimony but from Tradition 2. When a Catholick then first receiues an assurance of the Truth or Canon of scripture from the Infallibility of the Church or its Gouernors he may learne first this supernaturall Diuine assistance and Infallibility of these Gouernors which is made known by Diuine Reuelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner as the Protestant saith he learneth his Canon of scripture from Tradition To which tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whateuer is to scripture 3. Neither may we think that this Diuine Assistance or infallibility of these Guides of the Church in necessaries should either not haue been or not haue been a thing well known to or belieued in the Church by this to use the Doctors terms Deriuatiue and perpetuated sensation of Tradition if there had been no Diuine Writings for soe the Christian religion Without such writings would haue been no rationall and well grounded no stable and certain Religion which surely the Doctor will not affirme And this that is said here of the Churches Infallible Authority may be also of other necessary Articles of the Christian faith For as the Doctor saith It is euident from the Nature of the thing that the Writing of a Diuine Reuolation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Reuelation Because men may belieue a Diuine Reuelation without it as is euident in the Patriarchs and Christian Beleiuers before the Doctrine written 4. Such Infallibility in necessaries then being so settled in the Gouernors and Pastors of the Church the Apostles and those others ordained by them by whom the World was conuerted as that had there been no scriptures it should not haue failed for so the Church would haue failed too The successors cannot be imagined to become disenabled or depriued of it because the Apostles afterwards wrote what they taught but rather by such Writings more secured in it Because the Belief of this Infallibility of these successors receiues a second euidence from the Testimony thereof also found in these Writings Thus both written and vnwritten Tradition-Apostolicall attesting it 5. Now that these Gouernors of the Church who hauing an apparent succession their Testimony must haue been vnquestionably belieued by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no scripture alwayes reputed and held themselues Diuinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the Traditiue Faith of the Church grounded on our Lords Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fitt their Decisions in the Creeds and by their Anathematizing Dissenters the Churches stiling them Hereticks For no Authority if we belieue the Doctor but that wich proues it selfe Infallible and therefore which is Infallible can justly require our internall Assent or submission of Iudgment And Protestants allowing only an externall obedience or silence due to Councills Fallible inferrs that Councills Fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councills are Infallible as do justly require more as did the fowr first Councills with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an Authority assumed by them We find indeed subordinate Councills also stating sometimes matters of Faith censuring Heretiks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with Relation to the same Infallibility residing in the Generall Body of Church Gouernors and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Iudgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick see and a generall acceptation rendring their Decisions authentick and valid 2. For the latter part of this Principle Nothing is more absurd then to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility If the Doctor means here as in his Rationall Account that the sentence of a Body of men Infallible is he saith not in some things lyable to some Doubts but as lyable to Doubts and Disputes as the Infallible scriptures for there he maintains That the Decrees of Councills are as lyable to many Interpretations as any other Writings And again If the scriptures cannot put an End to Controuersies on that account how can Generall Councills do it when their Decrees are as lyable to a priuate sense and wrong Interpretation as the scriptures are Nay more c. I say if this be his sense then not to compare Absurdities here Is not this all one as if he said That a Preacher or Commentator can or doth speak or write nothing plainer then the Text Nor the Judge giue a sentence any more intelligible then the Law That Councills can or haue decided nothing clearer then the thing that is in Controuersy And so no Party is cast by them since it appears not for whom they declare And that the Decree of the Councill of Trent as to Transubstantiation remains still as disputable as the Text Hoc est Corpus meum But then how comes it to pass that Protestants when the Definitions of later Councills are urged against them do not contest them as dubious but reject them as erroneous From the same misarguing the Doctor elsewhere concludes That the argument of the Vnity in Opinion of the Roman Party because they are ready to submit their Iudgment to the Determination of the Church will hold as well or better for the Vnity of Protestants as theirs because all men are willing to submit their Iudgments to scriptures which is on all sides agreed to be Infallible Thus He. Now to consider it Moses his Law prescribed by God for an Infallible Rule yet had Iudges appointed when Doubts and Contentions hapned about the meaning of it to explain the sense Our sauiour accordingly in the Ghospell when any one had a Controuersy against another which Controuersy perhaps might be Heresy or his Brothers teaching something contrary to the Rule of Faith ordered vpon such Person his not being
a Hill in the most extended Vnity of an Externall Communion which no other Christian Society can equall a Candle on a Candlestick a Perpetuall erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Truth frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus Where also according to the disparity of seuerall mens capacities I suppose nothing more necessary then that this Euidence receiued eyther from all or only some of these Notes to those who haue not ability to examin others be such as that it out-weigh any arguments mouing him to the contrary and the like Euidence to which is thought sufficient to determin vs in other Elections And then this Church thus being found he may be resolued by it concerning the Sence of other Diuine Reuelations more dubious and generally all other Scrupules in Religion to witt so farr as this Church from time to time seeth a necessity of such Resolution and the Diuine Reuelation therein is to her sufficiently clear only if such person not spending so much of his own judgment will afford instead of it a little more of his Obedience III. CONSEQUENCE 3. The less conuincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the Marks the more obscure the Sence of eyther what is called the Catholick Church or declared by it the less reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of any who call themselues by the name of the Catholick Church All this is true vpon supposition that matters stand as the Doctor would pretend but such supposition being groundless he must giue me leaue to inuert his Consequence and say The more conuincing the Miracles if any credit for these may be giuen to Church-History the more euident the Marks euen now giuen by S. Augustin and modern Catholick Writers the more clear and manifest euen to simple persons who with much difficulty in seuerall places comprehend the Sense of controuerted Scripture is the Catholick Church whose Representatiue are the subordinate Councills and whose Gouernors the seuerall Degrees of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy ascending to the Prime See of S. Peter and the more clear also the Points declared by it viz. in these Councills whose Decrees suppose that of Trent if questioned for their Truth are not for their perspicuity and particularly in the Points of Controuersy they assembled to determin between Protestants and Catholicks the more reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of those who call themselues by the Name and challenge the High Priuiledges which no other Separated Socityes of Christians do of the Catholick Church IV. CONSEQUENCE 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men the greater reason men still haue to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture The Higher any Points of Faith be and the more remote from Sense and naturall Reason or not comprehensiue by them which such Church as is named before and in the highest capacity of it Generall Councils proposeth to the Faith of Christians the more noble exercise they haue of their Faith whilst they haue an abundant certainty also that such Leaders can misguide them in nothing necessary to Saluation And no reason haue they vpon such improbabilities or contradictions to Sense or naturall Reason to suspect or be jealous of the Churches Infallibility as an Imposture which Church they see through what euer obstacles faithfully adheres to the Diuine Oracles how incredible soeuer to Nature and may be thought because it seems not swayed or hindred by these at all to vse more integrity in her judgment and fidelity to the Diuine Reuelations Yet this is not sayd as if the judgment of our Sences appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conueying Faith and his Diuine Reuelations to vs affords not a sufficient Naturall Certainty or Infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our Senses wherein the Diuine Power doth not interpose But only 1. That where the Diuine Power worketh any thing Supernaturally that is contrary to our Senses as it may no doubt here we are not to belieue them And this I think none can deny 2. And next That we are to belieue this Diuine Power doth so so often as Certain Diuine Reuelation tells vs so Though by the same senses if tells us so we belieuing our Senses that it tells vs so when we do not belieue the same Senses for the thing which is contrary to what it tells vs The truth of which Diuine Reuelation we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith For otherwise Lot and his Daughters were not to credit the Diuine Reuelation supposing that Diuine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodome were Angells because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well who because Lots sight was actually deceiued vpon this Supernaturall accident in taking the Angells to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficiēt Certainty or ground from their seeing our Lord to belieue him risen from the Dead Or that no Belief could euer be certainly grounded vpon our Senses Nor that Christians haue any certain Foundation of their Faith For a Naturall or Morall Certainty though such as is per potentiam Diuinam fallible and errable and is to be belieued to err where euer we haue Diuine Reuelation for it not else I say a Certainty though not such an one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a Faith as God requires of vs in respect of that Certainty which can be deriued from humane Sense or Reason and which serues for an Introductiue to the relyance of this our Faith vpon such Reuelation as is belieued by vs Diuine and which if Diuine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Reuelation an infallible Object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the Subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Diuine Faith Now this Naturall or Morall Certainty is thought sufficient for the first Rationall Introductiue and security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Diuines in their Discourses of the Prudentiall Motiues V. CONSEQUENCE 5. To disown what is taught by such a Church is not to question the Veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of loue to their souls reject what is so taught To disown what is taught by such a Church as we have here represented it will be to desert what God hath reuealed in the Scriptures the true meaning of which Reuelations when controuerted we are to receiue from it And so men ought not
against it ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the Knowing what things are reuealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to vse the Doctors Expression to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority Else a mistaken and culpably ignorant belief herein will no way justify his disobedience No more then the Socinians contrary belief justifies him against the Decrees of the Church in those Points which yet he belieues not to be founded in Gods word and rejects as contrary And the Doctor els-where to express and curb such extrauagant and capricious beliefs is glad to call in for the interpreting of Scripture to them the concurrant sense of the Primitiue Church the common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and learned men And on their side who disbelieue this Authority he calls for no less then Demonstration and this not some improbable Argument miscalled so but which being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent thereto that is that euery reasonable man vnderstanding the terms assents to But how this and seuerall other things which haue fallen some times from the Doctors pen do consist with these Principles and some other Tenēts of his Or how the true sense of Scripture in all Necessaries is so clear and intelligible to euery sincere endeauourer as that he hath such Demonstration for it as that no rationall man hearing it can dissent from it I cannot vndertake to giue a Satisfactory account Mean while such Protestants as perhaps may cast their eyes on these Papers may do well to consider whether vpon such a Demonstratiue Certainty in the Points controuerted as this it is that they oppose Church-Authority teaching them otherwise Likwise the Common Reason of MankindChristian the Common consent of Wise and learned men named by him before what are they indeed but where all are not vnited in the same judgment the most common Suffrage and testimony of the present Vniversall Church whom also we ought sooner to credit then any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitiue Church in case this suffers any debate And if as he says Particular persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they haue Demonstration that is their own certainty and Infallibility as to such Point to shew against it then we need not seek for our Lords Patent of the Churches Infallibility for their or our submission to it tell the Opposers of its judgment for the Points they dissent in produce theirs Here then we see the Doctor getts as near to an Internall Infallible or at least Authenticall Proponent as his cause and interest will permitt him Hoping by his requiring Demonstration and introducing Common Reason and Wise and learned men and Primitiue Church to shake his hands of so many Sectarists who molest his owne Churches peace vpon the account of this his Proposition or something like it viz. that no Christian is bound vnder what euer pretence of Church Authority to belieue that which is not reuealed in Gods Word and is bound to reject what euer is offred to be impos'd vpon his Faith that is contrary or hath no ground in Gods Word c. And you must lett them judg of both these For the last part of this 29. Principle That such Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith I grant that a rejecting of the imposition of a Belief of such a Positiue Point or the refusing to admitt it as an Article of their Faith which may be done whilst they eyther suspend their judgment concerning it or also acknowledg the truth of it supposed no Diuine Reuelation if this were all the Protestants do is not therefore making the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith But mean while the rejecting any such Positiue from their Faith as not only vntrue but contrary to the Scripture is making or declaring the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith because it makes this Negatiue a thing reuealed in Scripture and so a matter of Faith though I do not say an Article necessary to Saluation And therefore perhaps it was that the Doctor in the Reason he annexeth That they only apply the Generall grounds of Faith to particular instances c. mentions indeed such Positiues as are neyther in nor may be deduced from the Scripture but warily omitts such as are pretended contrary to Scripture Now that Protestants declare many of these Positiues they reject contrary to Scripture See for Purgatory Adoration of Images Inuocation of Saints Indulgences in the Article of the Church of England 22. For Works of Supererogation Art 14. For Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not vnderstood by the people Art 24. Sacrifice of the Mass. Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. And to this Belief of the Negatiues of them as contained in Scripture all the Members of the Church of England or at least the Clergy seem to be by their Canons as strictly obliged though some of their Diuines appear not well satisfied with it vnder these terms To allow and acknowledg all the Articles and so these fore-cited agreable to Gods Word To declare their vnfeigned assent to them and this for establishing Vnity of Opinion and consent as those of the Roman Church are obliged to the Positiues who are no such way obliged by that Church to such a necessary Belief of all her Positiues as that a Person nescient of them cannot be saued or that the explicit knowledg of them is necessary though always in some measure beneficiall it is to Saluation But this indeed is necessary to Saluation that any Subject of the Church knowing them to be determined by her obey her Definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such Disobedience being conceaued a breach of Gods Command And from this if I may be indulged to trangress a little an Answer may be giuen to that Quaere of the Doctors in his Book Roman Idolatry p. 52. which he says he could not hitherto procure from Catholiks though he hath often requested it viz. Why the belieuing of all the Ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Saluation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome Where if he will allow me here for auoyding by disputes to change these Words Communion of the Church of Rome into the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church and 2. will giue me leaue to vnderstand a good life here restrained to all other duties of a Christian saue those which respect this Communion else if a good life be generally taken the Doctors supposition must not be allowed Then I answer That such Belieuing and Leading such a life cannot be sufficient for Saluation to so many persons as persist without repentance eyther in a wilfull ignorance of their Obligation to