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
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
thereof or require submission of their judgment also to her not as she declares her judgment infallible but only as it is definitive and unappealable else her orders are no more than good counsel On the gainsayers c. not as subverters of some necessary faith but as troublers for an unnecessary if truth of the Church'es peace and rebels to her authority whom Christ hath commanded to hear not only how far they list or in their private judgment see cause And if she may impose some penalty then why not anathematize or excommunicate This Anathematizing even Protestants do not so far charge as a trespass of charity or a sign of rigor upon the Church of Rome or her Councils but that they allow that those who turbulently or pertinaciously speak against the Doctrines of the Church in smaller points may be anathematized for it See Dr. Fern in his Preface to Consider of present Concernment c. We acknowledge that he who shall pertinaciously turbulently speak and teach against the doctrines of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one tho he denies not the faith yet makes a breach of charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself Thus he of pertinacious and turbulent contradiction but then modest contradiction he allows Was Luther's and Calvin's modest Are not Anathema's used by her against Schismatical as well as Heretical spirits May not she excommunicate as well disturbers of her peace as subverters of her faith How come Schismaticks then thrown out of the Church Doth she not use Anathema's or Excommunications in matters of Fact wherein she is confest to be liable to error If in decisions not traditional c we are bound to yeild obedience as I shall shew anon what reason have we why the Church may not anathematize for these points those who contradict and disobey But if she may then Anathema for any thing we know is joyned to some point not traditional nor in which the Church is infallible 2. To put this matter more out of doubt why have Provincial Councils granted fallible used anathematizing than which nothing more frequent toward those under their Jurisdiction If any say they use Anathema's indeed but not to be in force I say not after they be contradicted which we grant but till they be confirmed by a General Council then why may they and have they bin put in practice before they were by any such Council confirmed Nay to what purpose such Council convened since it hath no power of excommunicating the resisters and since when a General Council sits that sufficiently obligeth before it sits the other obligeth not 3. Again many Heresies as the Pelagian c. by Provincial Councils have bin censured and supprest but who may judg heresies i. e. errors against points of faith may pronounce Anathema's Judicium non infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodijudicio donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes vel Concilium Universale si secus egerint merito excommunicantur saith Bell. de Concil 2. l. 10. c. Judicio in points of Doctrine too for as for matter of fact he will allow the same liability to error may be in particular which in General Councils Thus much touching your first Quaere concerning the Infallibility of the Church Now I come to your second concerning Obedience due to the Church and submission of private judgment Where I think this will be made clear unto you That to what point soever the Church'es infallibility be enlarged yet this the Universal-Infallibility of this Supreme Judge of Controversies is not a necessary ground or the only rule of the duty of obedience thereto neither of the obedience of Non-contradiction nor yet that of Assent but that there may be and is just obligation of obedience I mean that of submission of judgment i. e. to believe what it delivereth to a fallible Authority i. e. one that may command us perhaps to believe sometimes what is an untruth And if this be a truth I conceive it may be of some good consequence For first so those also may be rationally induced to yeild obedience to the Church who now think themselves to be clearly freed from it unles it can first be shewed them that the Church is infallible in all her Propositions neither will they then suppose themselves so easily discharged by shewing the contradictions of General Councils in some few matters perhaps from their obedience in all other points wherein these agree or which some defining none other have reversed and the Church hath received in her general practice or also wherein they find even a later Council contradicting a former For if as St. Austin saith later Synods may amend and correct the former they ought also in what they amend them to be submitted-to non obstante the contradiction of the former Secondly so those who have not opportunity of consulting the highest Tribunal may not think their duty cancell'd excepting where they are certain to other their Superiors and Spiritual Guides because fallible or suborordinate nor will oppose so frequently to them not the Dictates of an higher Court but of their private judgment When-as certainly this submission of our judgment and reason to a Superior tho fallible authority is a duty most acceptable to God and which tho much unpractised by and I am afraid quite unknown to many Sectaries amongst Protestants yet hath bin always most religiously observed elsewhere in the Church of God by those who have bin most eminent in piety nothing conducing more to the preservation of truth unity of minds peace security and serenity of a man's conscience and lastly to true humility mortification and self-denial there being no mortification nor self-denial like this and therefore perhaps so many refuse it because there is nothing so much our self as our judgment And again the contrary thereof as it is the fruit of pride and self-conceit so having bin always the promoter of error and mother of distraction and confusion I cannot here but set down two or three words of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. sect This opinion saith he which T. Cartwright maintain'd against Councils c that an argument of authority of Man is in matters divine nothing worth being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort what it may grow into * God knoweth I may add * we have seen Now to shew this Truth 1. first I must grant to you That God hath obliged no man to believe a known-to-him error or to believe an error quatenus error for this I think is a contradiction in terminis to believe that to be a truth which he knows I do not say which he thinks or doubts is not a truth the same may be said of obligation to the doing or practice of any thing certainly known to one to be
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
then before all the people have ascended into Heaven to God and so have sealed for ever to that whole Nation the Confession of his being the Messias and thus with a great access to his Glory on earth have prevented their so great and long Apostacy What meaned he then to appear so sparingly and in corners the doors being shut and not to all the people saith the Apostle but to some few chosen to be witnesses tho he was not here defective in what was sufficient Again could not his Spirit that hath led some have led all into all truth if he had pleased to give it to them in a greater measure How easie had it bin for our Saviour who foresaw that sharp controversie concerning observance of the Ceremonial law by Christians the maintainers of which ceremonies contended only for them because they thought Christ had not abrogated them to have declared himself openly in that point when he was here on earth How easie for him foreseeing the controversies ever since even those so many about his own person those now between the Reformed and the Roman Church to have caused instead of an occasionally-written Epistle such a Creed as the Athanasian or such Articles as those of Trent or of the Augustan Confession or such a methodical clear Catechisme as now several Sects draw up for the instruction of their followers in the principles of their religion to have bin written by his Apostles Will any one say that had such writings bin H. Scripture yet these controversies had not bin prevented or at least not in some greater measure prevented than now they are Or would not brieflier all controversies have bin prevented had our Saviour as plainly said that the Roman Bishop should regulate the faith of his Church for ever as it may be said and is said by others There must be heresies then and therefore it seemed good to the wisdom of the Father that all things should not be done that might but only so much that was sufficient whereby they should be prevented Neither is it a good reasoning This was the best way for taking away all controversy and error in the Church that the Scriptures should plainly so as none may mistake set down all truths necessary to salvation or that there should be a known infallible Judge therefore they do so or therefore there is so because this seemed not best to God for the reasons fore-mentioned and for many other perhaps not known which made the Apostle cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11 33. to take away all controversie and error c no more than it did to prohibit in the world the being of evil I know not whether Tertullian's saying in praescript cont haer concerning this matter be not too bold Ipsas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluntate dispositas ut haereticis materiam subministrarent And haereses sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum accidere non poterant But we may make good use of it in being less rash and more circumspect in interpreting especially when we are singular where we may be so easily mistaken 2ly It seems since there is supposed sufficient means for all those who are in the Church to attain to the knowledge of all necessary truth for God and our Saviour have not bin wanting to his Church in necessaries that those who blindly obey such false guides as shall be in the world shall not be free from punishment tho they offend thro ignorance See Matt. 15. 14. Ezek. 33. 8. 3. 18. 3ly There being some doctrines false and danger in being misled by them it seems all doctrines may be tried and that by all persons See Jo. 5. 39 our Saviour bidding them try his Act. 17. 11. the Bereans and Act. 15. 2. the Antiochians trying S. Paul's See to this purpose 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Rev. 2. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 15. 11. 13. And the more trial the better so it be rightly performed whereby we may discover false doctrines and teachers that we may not be seduced by them whereby we may know more of God may confirm our belief of which there are many degrees in what we are taught and may be able to give better account to others of our faith 1 Pet. 3. 15. Col. 3. 16. and whereby truth will always have a great advantage of error For verum vero consonat 4. Now seeing that all Spiritual knowledge cometh first by Revelation from God the trial of any doctrine we doubt of is to be made either by the holy Scriptures written from the beginning by men inspired by the Holy Ghost or by the Interpreters of these Scriptures and those who were ordained by these men that were inspired and who had the form of sound doctrine committed unto them viz. by the Doctors and Pastors of the Church where also the doctrines of some Doctors whose tenets we doubt of are to be tried by the rest of the Doctors of the present times or the doctrines of all the present Doctors to be tried by the writings of the Doctors of former times Trials by the Scriptures were those Act. 17. 11. Jo. 5. 39. 2 Pet. 1. 19. Trials by the Doctors of the Church those Act. 15. 2. Gal. 1. 9. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 14. 32. c. 2 Jo. 10. Now these H. Scriptures and Holy Doctors collectively taken to the not-yet-so-far-grounded and illuminated are capable of being tried too The first Scriptures and Teachers by those who lived in the same times were tried by Miracles by those who lived afterward are tried by Tradition the second Scriptures are tried by their accord with the first as also by Miracles the 2d Teachers are tried by their Ordination from the first which Teachers if we find all agreeing in one judgment we need try no further our Saviour having promised his perpetual presence with them and that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the truth taught by them 5. Now first concerning trial of our Superiors commands and doctrines by Scriptures of which there are many several ways As trying 1. Whether such doctrines or commands be contained or commanded in Scripture 2. Whether the contrary to them be contained or commanded in Scripture Again if the contrary of them be contained there 1. whether as fact only 2 or also as precept 1. Now the first of these trials seems not necessary to be used 1. For it doth not follow that it is unlawful to do or to believe a thing because H. Scripture doth not say or command it Angumentum ab authoritate non valet negative Some things both in doctrine and discipline may possibly descend from the Apostles that are not set down by them in writing and these tho not absolutely necessary which very few points are yet very useful to Salvation Timothy might hear some things from S. Paul more than are set down in his Epistle see 2 Tim. 1. 13.
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
c see Jo. 5. 36. Matt. 16. 3. that Jesus was the Messias and the Prophet whom he had promised to raise unto them like unto Moses to whom they were now to obey in all things and to hearken to none contradicting his doctrines The many expressions therefore in the Old Testament that seem to speak of a total falling away of the Priest and a failing of the Church many of which were urged by the Donatists and answered to by St. Austin and other Fathers which see more fully discoursed in Success of Clerg § either speak not of the Priests ignorance at all but vitiousnes and neglect of duty or not of their teaching false doctrines as Priests but of their making false predictions as pretended Prophets or are texts Prophetical of their falling away after the coming of the Messias or speak not of their falling into Heresy but of their open Apostatizing unto Idolatry For Heresies and Sects retaining a distinct communion in the worship of the same God and acknowledgment of the divine law in those times of the Jewish Church we find none but both the Priests and people divided between true worshippers of God and flat idolaters Here therefore the Trier had always those to whom he might safely adhere and might always clearly discern who they were 2ly Nor those that try and after it make choice of falshood are thereby excused because since there is evidence enough one way or other given of the truth they who in searching find it not are some way or other defective in their trial Perhaps because they will not try * by all those ways which God hath left to witness his truth as both by Scriptures and also by the authorized Expositors thereof but only by one way which themselves most fancy Whenas doubtles the Jew or the Berean after their search of Scriptures had not bin excused in dissenting from the Apostles or from our Saviour's doctrine so long as this doctrine was also confirmed to them by other sufficiently evident and convincing arguments besides the testimony of former Scriptures viz * by the mighty signs and wonders which our Saviour and the Apostles did thro the power of the H. Spirit given them from God * by the Resurrection of Jesus and their mission by his authority c. After which confirmation the Apostle's advice to believers is to hold to Tradition to the doctrine formerly delivered Rom. 16. 17. Heb. 13. 7 9. and to prove and try the new spirits 1 Thess. 5. 20. 1 Jo. 4. 1. that perhaps might speak under pretence of that frequent gift of prophecying which the Devil also then imitated something dissenting from doctrines formerly received as appears by 1 Thess. 5. 20. and the clause of 1 Jo. 4. 1. the one bidding that they should not altogether despise these Spirits the other that they should not altogether credit them But of the Apostles doctrines coming with such a testimony of the Spirit Gal. 3. 5. they would not have them at all to doubt pronouncing Anathema to any that should contradict these Gal. 1. 7 9. Col. 2. 6 7 8. 1 Jo. 4. 6. Which 6th verse sheweth that the first verse is meant of the Church's or others trying the spirits of private men 1 Cor. 14. 29 32. not of particular men trying the Spirit of the Apostles or of the Church And should any now not out of affection to learn and to strengthen his faith nor to know what was the reason of them but whether there be any reasons for them try the doctrines of the ancient Councils as some have lately and by the just judgment of God upon curiosity have dissented from them such trial would argue much infidelity against our Saviour's promise and his vigilancy over his Church would much offend against the obedience we owe to the decrees of the Church and against the humble conceit we ought to have of our selves Whereas on the contrary the more indisputing obedience is which is the daughter of true humility the more christian the spirit especially where one is not in a communion of a Church of a later original nor that hath professedly departed out of another Church elder than it self And if any think that such an humble submission and assent to Church-decrees forfeits the use of reason and patronizeth ignorance 1. First the same thing may be said of our assent being tied to the larger Nicene and Athanasian Creeds 2ly Again the Church's decrees are but very few if we take only the decrees of Councils and not all the Theological controversies and determinations of private Divines of any side for such in comparison of the large field of divine knowledge wherein great intellects may still freely expatiate as appears in that great liberty which we find in the Roman writers I mean the Schoolmen freely dissenting from one another in many points Which differings when-as we also urge against them they defend themselves that such are points undefined in Councils But 3ly in things defined also we must acknowledge that learning and searching all arguments for truth well consists with obedience to Church-definitions as it did with our Saviours and the Apostles inasmuch as we find those who most profess this submittance as skilful and copious in giving reasons of their faith as any others and no way laying aside the use of reason or pursuit of knowledge Even as they who from the testimony of Scripture believe there is a God yet seek arguments from the Creation and Nature to strengthen or if I may so say multiply their faith Faith both to what the Scripture and to what the Church saith being alway capeable of a further growth And as oportet discentem credere so credentem discere See more concerning this in Infallibility § and Ch. gov 3. part § 39. But next since one may be born and bred in a Church Schismatical and here also by his condition and profession not capable of making this trial by comparing his present teachers with other modern and ancient Doctors yet upon the reasons above § 20. he is in far less danger in obeying his Spiritual Guides than in steering himself and in obeying them so long as heknows none better tho they be Schismatical he is free from Schism whereas following himself he becomes guilty of a 2d Schism and being free from Schism he may attain in such Church life everlasting nor can there any doubt be made but that a pious man living in the state of Schism and free from the crime is in a far better condition than an orthodox christian living in the habit and state of sin For tho Heresy Gal. 5. 20. i. e. either an error opposit to some truth necessary to be explicitly known to enter into heaven such as that Mar. 16. 16. Act. 4. 12. or an obstinate professing in other things against the known definitions of the Church and tho Schism i. e. a factious breaking the unity and peace of the Church
most firmly the principle and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation but are easily admitted to one anothers communion So the Roman or rather all the visible Church of God before Luther whether Eastern or Western in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour upon which ground they worship it to worship a meer Creature and so to commit idolatry and give God's honour to another yet this Church holding the contrary principle That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental nor are those unconvinced of their error dying in the Roman communion and in this practice by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 3. p. 78. sect 4. p. 123. But note That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points to regulate and guide our belief and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof because here contrary to the Supposition made before we have a sufficient proposal of the truth or an authorized proposer what in such doubtful points we are to hold For if we know or being impartial might know that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment we are convinced by this authority determining as well as by arguments proving Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place the set number of which varying so much according to several persons and conditions yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can tending any way to their Salvation can much less be prescribed than of the former The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility or Whether we cannot savingly and with such a faith as God requires believe some divine truth unless we be infallibly certain that it is a divine truth 1. First then concerning the object of Saving Faith It is true and granted that the object thereof is only God's Word and that this Word is infallible and that since God cannot lye fidei non potest subesse falsum Which saying refers not to the act but the matter of faith i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false because it is the Word of God which is apprehended by this Faith Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on or ultimately resolved into something which is infallible i. e. God's Word whether this be written or not written and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter tho we may unfeignedly for the act believe any thing but what is certainly true Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word and 2. that it be believed by us to be so So the Schools Fides non assentit alicui nisi quia est a Deo revelatum And 3ly that this word be believed to be utterly infallible From whence this therefore follows 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith 2ly That Faith believing any thing which is true yet not as divine revelation or God's word or this word not to be infallible is no divine or saving faith So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon But our Quaere goes further Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith that we not only believe what is God's infallible word but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty and assurance which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church and Tradition 1. First it seems that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these these again both the authority of the Scriptures and of the Church do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition By which I mean * a Tradition so universal as these things are rationally considering all circumstances capable of i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth and * a Tradition so full and sincere as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute 1. For first supposing the Church infallible yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition which universal Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof and not from the testimony of Scripture and so escapes a circular proof The series then of proof is this The Church is proved infallible at least in Necessaries from our Saviour's promise of assisting her c testified in Scripture These Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from universal Tradition and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible from the evidence and nature of it self because it is morally i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature impossible for so many men of so many ages so dis-interested to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter Or as some others express it such Tradition tho it were not so plenary as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church must be allowed to be infallible from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs amongst which are Miracles as it is contrary to the veracity of God supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship to permit that they should be fallacious The series of the probation runs thus The Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from the testimony of the Church which testimony of the Church or of so many people so qualified is proved to be infallible not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture for thus the proof would run in a circle tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid tho it be true also that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony but as being so universal a Tradition or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed as it is morally impossible especially considering God's veracity and providence that it should deceive us But as I said to prove the Church the other way to be infallible i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures which Scriptures to be divine we learn only from the Church Or more plainly thus to prove the Church to be infallible in
reasonable that the Church'es infallibility in Necessaries should be taken in the latter sense there being nothing in our Saviour's promise that appears to restrain his assistance or in the conveyance of Tradition that appears to restrain its certainty to the former sense See Church-Government 2. part § 31. In which former sense if it be only allowed the Church'es insallibility in guiding Christians will be confined only to two or three points and those scarce by any at all doubted-of or disputed In this latter sense therefore both because of our Saviour's promise and the evidence of Tradition it must be said that the Church cannot be mistaken in defect but only if at all in the excess not in substracting from Christians any part of such necessary faith or duty but perhaps in superadding thereto something as necessary which is not 2. And here also secondly concerning such excess I think you will grant me That it will be hard for a private man to judge that any particular point decided by the Church is not some way or other necessary to be stated known and believed by reason of some ill influence which the contradictory thereof may by some consequence at least have upon our other faith or manners necessarily required and formerly established Nay farther that it will be hard to say that any point decided c is not necessary either directly and immediately or by connexion with some other points that are so to the actual exercise of Christian Religion and the practice of a completely holy life to which the most contemplative points of faith are very much conducing tho they mistakenly seem to many in this respect useless and therefore that they ought not to be so rigidly vindicated 3. And thirdly yet further if the Church be granted infallible in Necessaries however we take them it seems also most reasonable that from her we should learn if this be at all requisite to be known which or how many amongst many other decrees of hers if she makes any besides those concerning Necessaries which I say or how many are necessary For to what other Judgment can we repair for this unless to our own But how unreasonable this That whilst she is appointed to guide us with her infallibility in some points we are to state to her in what points only she can infalliby guide us This Mr. Chillingworth well discerned when he said 2. c. § 139. We utterly deny the Church to be an infallible Guide in Fundamentals for to say so were to oblige our selves to find some certain society of men of whom we may be certain that they neither do nor can err in Fundamentals it follows nor in declaring what is fundamental what is not and consequently to make any Church we may say or Representative of the Church i. e. a General Council an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all things which she proposeth and requireth to be believed i. e. In as many things as she saith are fundamental and she may say all are fundamentals or necessary if she will. Thus he So 3. c. § 59 60. to that objection since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe Her in fundamentals and cannot precisely know what be those fundamentals we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point He answers by granting the consequence and denying the supposition I mean the former part thereof That we are obliged to believe her in fundamentals in delivering of which he saith she may err As for that Objection ordinarily made against the Church'es defining what points they are that are necessary and wherein by consequence she is infallible viz. that then Ecclesia non errabit quando vult because she may as she pleaseth nominate the points fundamental c. We answer that it being supposed necessary that the Council or the people must know not only the fundamental points but an exact distinction of such from the rest of which presently the same divine hand that will not suffer the Council appointed for the peoples guide to erre in any fundamental neither will permit them to say or to define any point to be fundamental that is not because this latter thing is supposed as necessary as the former i. e. God will never permit them to say they do not or cannot err in any point wherein they may err 4. But fourthly after all this it seems to me not to follow necessarily that if our Saviour by his Spirit preserve the Church an infallible Guide in necessary points of Faith 1. Therefore she must be infallible in distinguishing them from all other points which perhaps are not the same if we speak of those whereof men are to have an explicit knowledge to all persons and from whence if it be true it will follow that the Church shall travel in vain to prescribe any set number of such points See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. 1. l. 4. c. Solutio Quaestionis hujus i. e. of absolute necessaries inanis impossibilis Nor 2ly doth it follow that therefore the Church should certainly know in what particular points she is infallible and in what not Certainly know I mean not for some but for every point to the uttermost extremity of Infallibility For who can doubt that she is both certain and may profess her certainty and infallibility and the absolute necessity that lies on all to believe some of them for many of those points she delivers namely for those at least which are of clear revelation of universal Tradition and also for the immediate manifest and natural consequentials thereof Nay who denies that private men also from the abundant clearnes of Scripture only may attain sufficient certainty of many doctrines of Christianity But I say certainly know that she is inerrable for every point in which she is so For as to one ground of her infallibility the assistance of the Spirit leading her into all truth necessary since men may be and all regenerate men are guided by the Spirit of God and yet without extraordinary revelation cannot certainly discern and distinguish the particulars wherein they are guided by it nor sensibly perceive the motions thereof why may not the Church also be ignorant in what particular points she is so far assisted by God's Spirit as never to give an erroneous judgment in them And as to the other ground evidence of Tradition tho I grant sufficient assurance or infallibility in it if plenary yet 1. Tradition of some points being greater and of some other lesser and more obscure this Tradition seems not always in all points to be such as to amount to that certainty some of late pretend 2ly By this the Church can only know her infallibility in points traditionary But then some determinations of Councils and that under an Anathema will be found to be not of doctrines clearly traditional and such as have bin the common tenents of the former Church but of new emergent
and tho the Church can make nothing de fide i. e. to be divine Revelation which was not so always from our Saviour's and the Apostles times yet all divine Revelation is not de fide in another sence i. e. proposed by the Church to Christians as necessary to be believed and thus a proposition may be de fide to day which yesterday was not And those who affirm the Church to be unerrable in all points de fide mean not in all points absolutely which may possibly be derived from some traditional principle of Faith but only in so many of them as she proposeth to Christians tanquam de fide or necessary to be believed whilst very many theological propositions probably deducible from the delivered principles and even mentioned affirmatively in Councils yet are no part of these necessarily injoyned credends To return now to our matter whence we digressed § 11. and to pass from Bellarmin to some other late writers of the Roman Church of the moderatest sort These seeing that some deductions and consequences from revealed and traditional doctrines are neither so immediate and clear nor yet so necessary to be known and the contradictory of them to be confuted as others do assert and derive the Churches inerrability chiefly or only from evidence of Tradition not certainty of reason or extraordinary illumination of the Spirit Whence these also holding the Church'es infallibility in all things which she determineth tanquam de fide do likewise maintain all things determined by her tanquam de fide to be only doctrines traditional or those so evidently deductive as that in substance they are coincident with that which is traditional See Dr. Holden de resol Fid. 1. l. 9. c. I will transcribe you some part Quaedam consecutiones adeo evidenter constant primo intuitu ut nemo sanoe mentis supposita praemissarum veritate possit ullatenus de rei veritate ambigere as there he names this Duas esse in Christo voluntates proved ex duplici natura Christi against the Monothelites Quoecunque autem sub hac ratione conditione declarantur denunciantur ab Ecclesia universa seu a Concilio Generali veram habent divinae fidei seu veritatum revelatarum Catholice traditarum certitudinem c. Aliae sunt consecutiones sequelae quae non adeo manifeste evidenter emicant effulgent quin studium aliquod scientia requiratur c. Hujusmodi autem veritates quarum aliquas vidimus in Conciliis Generalibus definitas supremam illam Catholicam certitudinem quam vi traditionis universae attribuimus articulis fidei habere nequeunt Nullos etenim agnovit Ecclesia divini luminis radios sibi de novo affulgentes quibus veritatibus recenter detectâ—s particularium hominum ratiocinatione quodammodo develatis possit certitudo ab omni prorsus periculo erroris immunis atque fidei revelatis catholice traditis articulis par aequalis succrescere Thus Dr. Holden to whom I may add Mr. Cressy in his Motives approved by several Sorbon-Doctors 33. c. Besides the certain Traditional doctrine of which he speaks before other points of doctrine there are sometimes decided in Councils rather by the judgment and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and weighing together the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors now such doctrines or decisions many Catholicks conceive are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith c. Then after If in such Decisions as these latter are there should happen to be any error which yet we may piously believe the assistance of God's H. Spirit promised to the Church will prevent but if this should happen c. And c. 41. And many Catholick writers there are who upon the same grounds with Mr. Chillingworth extend the promise of the holy Spirits assistance to the Church not to all inconsiderable circumstantial doctrines but to substantial and traditionary only Thus he See like things in F. Sancta Clara syst fid 12 13 14. c. -12 c. p. 110. Singula quae in Conciliis tractantur non sunt ejusdem considerationis Illa quae a Theologis hinc inde agitantur ante definitiones examinantur tandem non nisi magno labore rerum consequentiarum subtili trutinatione ex discursu longo perplexo ad Conclusiones statuendas devenitur hujusmodi omnia si tanquam non necessaria errabilia putantur nihil est contra Ecclesiae infallibilitatem And 13. c. p. 147. Cum hac tamen doctrina bene stat proloquium illud Scholasticorum Ecclesiam simpliciter non posse errare in fide licet bene circa fidem seu in appendicibus fidei hoc est ut alii loqui malunt in non-fundamentalibus seu non-necessariis And one such point which he instanceth in tho not as a determination of any Council yet see Concil Lateran 3. Can. which seems somewhat to favour this opinion yet as a common received tenent in some former times is this Papam ex Christi institutione plenissimam habere in universum orbem jurisdictionem temporalem eamque in Imperatores Reges transfudisse adeo ut habeat toti mundo dominari omnia regna disponere 12. c. p. 124. where he quotes many Authors Quod tamen saith he hoc saeculum in Scholis non fert ut satis colligitur ex Suaresio Bellarmino aliis See likewise the Authors quoted in Bellarmin de Roman Pont. 5. l. 5. c. § Argumentum postremum and § Sanctus quoque Bonavent where he names Hugo de S. Victore about 1130. who was one of the first qui temporalem potestatem summâ— Pontisici ex Christi institutione tribuit And is not Stapleton quoted before of the same opinion with these when he saith It is sufficient that the Church be infallible in the substance of faith in public doctrines and things necessary to Salvation as Bellarmin grants some points de fide are not being the end of infallibility given God and Nature as they are not defective in necessaries so neither being superabundant in superfluities c. And doth not St. Austin's Saying so much noted shew him too of the same opinion I will transcribe it somewhat more fully than usual as being very considerable Answering to St. Cyprian's Authority urged against him by the Donatists for rebaptization of such as had bin only baptized by Hereticks amongst other things he goes on de Baptism 2. l. 3. c. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam c posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem scribuntur c. per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid c. ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones
vel Provincias siunt pleniorum Conciliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere quis autem nesciat ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat which he applies afterward to the point of Non-rebaptization when it was by the Church better considered See a like passage to this de Bapt. 2. l. 9. c. Si Concilium ejus i. e. Cypriani the Provincial Council called by him attenditur huic est universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium praeponendum Nam Concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponuntur universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur Now that St. Austin as Mr. Cressy well observes Motives 33. c. understands this emendation of Councils in points not of fact c. but of Doctrine I mean of such doctrines as are not expresly delivered by former plenary Councils and those Councils accepted by the Church catholick tanquam de fide which determinations the Church is conceived only to make in points more evidently certain to her and so never after amendable appears from the context both precedent and consequent where he goes on Quapropter S. Cyprianus qui c. satis ostendit facillime se correcturum fuisse sententiam suam si quis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi sic dari posse ab tis qui foras exierunt quemadmodum amitti non potuit cum foras exirent unde multa jam diximus nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse sine dubio cederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Which answers to what he said before aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat c. as elsewhere he intimates the former obscurity of this question de Bapt. 1. l. 7. c. Tho indeed it is well noted of some concerning this passage of St. Austin that by the Concilia plenaria he meaneth only such larger Councils as were composed of many Provinces inferior to the most General such as that of Nice because he saith Quis nesciat priora saepe posterioribus emendari When-as before his time there had bin only two of these most general Councils and of these the latter making no such emendations as to reverse or contradict any one doctrine of the former Now that Councils inferior to those collected ex toto orbe Christiano only if consisting of many Provinces were by St. Augustin and other Africans stiled Concilia plenaria or universalia see de Baptis 2. l. 7. c. 3. l. 2. c. Contra Parmenian Epist. â— l. 3. c. Contra Crescon 3. l. 53. c. Codex Canon Ecclesiae African passim num 19. 28. 65 25. Conc. Carthag A. D. 403. num 127. 138. of these inferior plenary Councils then St. Austin seems to speak when he mentions the latter correcting the former reading the words quae fiunt by way of Parenthesis Quis nesciat ipsa Concilia i. e. quae per singulas regiones vel Provincias fiunt Councils Provincial plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati those comprehending many Provinces and especially those quae fiunt ex toto orbe Christiano as that of Arls or Nice for one of these he meaneth here but rather that of Arls 1. see Canon 8. and St. Aust. Ep. 162. ad Eleusin sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque saepe plenaria those Councils comprehending many Provinces for this saepe emendari cannot be applied to the universally-General that were before St. Austin's times neither can his arguments against the Donatists stand good upon such a supposition of such Councils errability priora c. Again Bellarmin himself since he grants that Councils may err in the reasons they give for some Conclusions which I conceive extends also to the mis-interpretation of some Scriptures whence they draw them and in the deductions to be made that they may be de side puts in evidenter aut quod evidenter inde deducitur and allows latter Councils may determin what former Councils doubt of which determination when-as both of them have the same assistance of the Spirit is only from some rational light that latter Councils from more weighing and discoursing such points do attain doth he not affirm a Council in some smaller and less evident or less argued points of doctrine liable to some error And lastly that the Church doth not pretend to infallibility in all doctrines pertaining to faith but only to some as being more evident me thinks sufficiently appears from this That in her General Councils she decides not all pre-extant controversies but hath left many sharp ones namely where there is neither clear revelation nor tradition nor consequence from them for either side undetermined and in that she hath defined some others as probable see Concil Viennense fore-quoted But if she were by divine assistance in all doctrinals pertaining to faith whereof some are granted not necessary Bell. de Ecclesia 3. l. 14. c. certain of truth she ought never to state any as probabilities Whence also it appears that of all controversies that arise tho some way pertaining to faith one side is not presently to be called necessary and to be decreed and the contradictory thereof necessary to be confuted and exterminated But if in all truths necessary or not necessary when she offers once to decide them the Church must needs be infallible notwithstanding any mis-arguing by the supervising of the H. Spirit lest any should be induced to believe something false Is there not the same reason that in matters of fact notwithstanding any mis-information she should be by the same holy Spirit preserved from erring lest any should be obliged and that sometimes under her Anathema's for these also she useth in matters of fact to submit to what is wrong Thus much concerning this tenet That only Traditional points and their undeniable plain Consequences are the matter of the Churc'es infallibility and de fide necessaria of Christians But note that the Church'es infallibility must not be enlarged to all points which may be called Traditional neither for surely of all things pretended to be traditional there is not Tradition equally evident but of some less than of others according to which the evidence of the Church must be of many several dogrees neither may we reasonably ascribe to her the infallibility in all of them which we do in some other tho her evidence in the least may be so much as that none ought to reluct against her sentiment or practice The next thing which will be enquired after is How to know amongst many decrees of Councils which of them according to the expression of the former opinions the Church proposeth tanquam de fide or tanquam necessario credenda or which she proposeth as clear and
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
unlawful and therefore I grant the consequence That if any be bound to believe or assent to a fallible Authority in all they determin for truth either they de facto shall never determin an error or at least a private man shall never certainly know that which they determin to be an error 2ly Again this I hold most certain That God cannot propose any error to be believed by us for a truth for this would mainly oppose his veracity as any impiety doth his holines And 3ly I see not that God in obliging to obedience of fallible Councils can be said to have absolutely necessitated any to believe an error tho unknown to him to be so unless we can say also that God hath necessitated that Authority to err for t is possible for one errable not actually to err But granting actual error of our Guides in some things to come now to some stating of this matter which note that it will be the same case in every thing concerning their injunctions of believing truths or falsities and of doing things lawful or unlawful 1. First then I am not obliged by God to obedience to any authority inferior or supreme in any thing I certainly or infallibly know to be an error or unlawful Some case therefore there is which if it happen I cannot be justly obliged to obey an authority fallible Therefore I willingly assent to such sayings as that of Mr. Hooker 2. l. 7. § quoted by Mr. Chillingworth 5. c. 110. § as if it weakened or qualified that Author's judgment elsewhere for submission to Church-Authority Altho 10000 General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence yet one demonstrative reason alledged demonstrative that is infallible or one manifest truly manifest not seeming so for what Sect hath not their called demonstrations and manifest texts testimony cited from the word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse but overweigh them all c. Will any Catholick writer deny this He may say further If an Angel from Heaven c. Let there be submission of judgment where such manifest texts and demonstrations are not and all is well And again I must grant that it follows not from the Church'es infallibility in Fundamentals or Necessaries being supposed that therefore all are tied to assent to her in whatsoever she proposeth if they can certainly know that she errs in any point because then they certainly know that such point is not necessary or fundamental since in such necessaries she is granted to be infallible Again I grant that if any can be certain that two General Councils do point-blank contradict one another tho one of them is in the right he may be certain that such point wherein they contradict is not fundamental but yet nevertheles he is in such point to assent to the latter Council unles he can infallibly demonstrate the contrary 2. Secondly I am not obliged by God to obedience of assenting or acting to any inferior Court or Magistrate in a thing whereof I doubt only whether it be truth whether it be lawful if there be any higher court to whom I have opportunity to repair for better information but if otherwise I am notwithstanding my doubting to acquiesce in the judgment of a lower court 3. Thirdly to the supreme Ecclesiastical court tho supposed fallible in some things I am obliged to obedience both of assent and acting at least in such a manner as is described before § 28. in all things which are not certainly known by me to be errors or unlawful What do I gain by this for obedience to them very much For 1. if all who cannot be sure that a General Council is erroneous in any point must submit their assent to all very few they will be most men being ignorant and not pretending at all to demonstrate against General Councils that may withdraw it in any thing at all and none at all in most things But 2ly by what way can any one in any thing be infallibly sure not think only or suppose that he is sure that such a Council errs By divine Revelation But whence can he certainly know that it is Divine especially when these contrary to the proposals of the Church'es supremest Council By the Church But that is She in the way wherein only she is capable of delivering it whose judgment he opposeth By the Scriptures Hath he any other then besides those the Church hath and which she first recommended unto him Or understands he them better He whoever pretends evidence of Scripture against the Church in very deed objects only his own interpretation thereof against that of the Church and for doing this methinks he might blush before so many Reverend Fathers For suppose he find the contradictory to their decision totidem verbis in Scripture words are capable of divers acceptions and the true contradiction lies in the sence not the terms But then hath he well compared Scriptures And is he sure that no other text is again totidem verbis contradictory to that he urgeth If it be then one place must not be understood as the letter soundeth and then why not that which he presseth I ask a Protestant Is a Catholick presently infallibly certain that the Protestant Synods are erroneous in denying of Christ's presence-corporal in the Sacrament so soon as he reads the words Hoc est Corpus meum I could heap up many instances in this kind But I would not have this so understood as if I held that a private man might not be sufficiently certain in many things from the exceeding evidence and clearnes of the Scriptures therein But hardly I say shall he ever be so in any such thing where a General Council is not certain of the same from the same so clear Scriptures but at least thinks its self from these Scriptures or notwithstanding them certain of the contrary Lastly by Reason But what arguments from their Reasons can counterpoise this from the authority of so many of much greater reason Ipsa sola Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas argumentum est majoris ponderis quam alia quaevis ratio quia credendum judicamus quicquid maxime vitam societatem humanam dirigit ac conducit Especially if this be considered That as many matters of our faith are obscure and exceeding the natural light of reason so evidence of private judgment in them against the Church can hardly be so pressing and irresistible as that he may not conform to her judgment Again what certainty can any presume-of in such a pretended demonstration as being communicated and made known to others yet convinceth none but himself The authority even of Councils less than General i. e. fallible to punish dissenters from their decrees unless they have unjustly hitherto usurped it methinks argues their errors to be by private men not easily discoverable But of this see more in Obligation of Judgment § 15. 22. c. Trial of Doct.
§ 14. Church-Governm 2. part § 36. c. It remains then that I go on to shew That where we have not this infallible certainty God hath obliged men to submit their own opinion to and to acquiesce in the judgment tho fallible of those Superiors whom he hath appointed to guide them and so per accidens hath obliged them to believe a falsity so it be not certainly known to them to be false or as you say to obey another in any thing right or wrong so long as it is not certainly known to them to be wrong and so long they know not but that it is right and that under pain of sinning against their duty Obliged them I say not only for opinions but actions which depend on their opinions For note that if we owe no obedience of assent to any judgment fallible lest they teach us something untrue neither owe we to them any obedience of our actions lest they command us something unlawful or also lest we act something contrary to our conscience which we never may Again To their Superiors I say if so be that they have no other higher Superiors in respect of whom the authority of the inferior is always voided whom in their doubtings they can repair-to and consult as in respect of General Councils tho they should be fallible we have not a superior Director 1. First for such obedience due not only to the supreme Synods or Courts but also to inferior Spiritual Governors fallible see the express divine command in many Scriptures Heb. 13. 7 9 17. whose faith follow Eph. 4. 11. c. Pastors and Teachers sent that we might not be carried away with other doctrines than those which they deliver Matt. 18. 15. c. We appointed to hear the Church upon penalty of being treated like Heathens and of being bound as on Earth so in Heaven Acts. 20. 28 29. The clergy appointed Episcopi to feed the flock that must be amongst other things surely with their Doctrine which is the Spiritual nourishment of the Flock not to be refused Luk. 10. 16. He that hears them hears Christ and the despiser of them despiseth Christ. To which may be added all those texts which authorize Ghurch-Governors to judge controversies and inflict their censures upon false teachers and spreaders of errors 1 Tim. 4. 11 -6 3 5. Tit. 1. 11 -3 10 11. Acts 15. 2. c. 1 Tim. 1. 20. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 17 18 -4 14 15. Rev. 2. 2 14 15 20. 1 Cor. 14. 29 32. Again all those texts wherein Christians are exhorted to note and avoid those that cause divisions Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2 Jo. 10. Again those texts also wherein Christians are charged to be all of one judgment which cannot be but by adhering to the judgment of some one person or assembly to speak the same thing Not to be wise in their own conceit 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 -15 5 6. Phil. 1. 27 -3 16. Again those texts which require Christians to acquiesce in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superior who is not only the Apostle but the Apostles Successors to the world's end 1 Cor. 4. 16 17. 11. 1 2. Phil. 3. 17. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. With which Successors is left the charge of continuing to the world the doctrine of their predecessors 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 13 14. 2. 2. which texts see more largely explained and the extent of obedience that is required in them vindicated in Success of Clergy 2. Secondly after these Texts commanding obedience and submission of judgment to the authority but not to the Universal infallibility for who will maintain this of all those Spiritual Superiors who are thus to be obey'd let us consider also the common practice in our Secular converse Doth not there lie upon children an obligation of duty especially in their minority to yeild the obedience of assent for else they may not the obedience of their actions to the rules and injunctions of their parents That saying Col. 3. 20. doth it not either argue all parents infallible in what they teach or command or that God hath bound children not capable of repairing to an higher Director to submit their judgment and actions to those who may guide them amiss Again whether no obligation of Scholars to their Masters and those experienced in the Science they learn I say whether it is not a duty in these to yeild their assent to them not only for the charge they have of obedience but also for the great disproportion of their judgments tho the other are not infallible and may possibly teach them wrong for there is no infallible Judge at all in the Sciences The like instances may be made in the People to their Pastor the Penitent to his Confessor the Christians to any Synod less than General for these are all fallible What mean those rules Oportet discentem credere Unicuique credendum est in sua arte To which I may add That right reason binds any to yeild faith to another not only if infallible but if all circumstances considered less fallible than himself If these be dictates of right reason what difference between this and the law of Nature And again what difference between that and the law of God Many Scruples I know and demurs and difficulties usually arise in our minds endeavoring to defeat such obedience and resignation of our selves to anothers authority when any way fallible You will give me leave therefore before I go further to take notice of some of them and to see whether they may not be rationally silenced 1. First then to this you may say that where-ever we doubt once upon reasons no way satisfied of any thing which such Governors enjoyn whether it be true whether it be lawful here we are quit from our obedience to them R. True if you have any other higher Judgment appointed to repair to and accordingly deciding such doubt in which case theirs is voided But mark here that thus you decline not their judgment because fallible but because you have another Director or Guide appointed less liable to error than they But where-ever this cannot be had duty obligeth you not to follow your own but your former Directors judgment whose Faith follow Heb. 13. 7. Will you restrain such Scripture-rules of obedience only to General Councils But if not their judgment whom we have named in case you can attain to no higher Tribunal whose doth your duty oblige you to follow your own But thus also then is it not your duty to follow a fallible judgment which may guide you right or wrong Tell me hath not God obliged every one to follow his * own conscience right or wrong Conscientia erronea obligat From what law but God's Obligat because he doth not know that it is erroneous how much more an * erring Council whose mistakes he hath many times less means to find out
their sentence therein to be true or just but in doing also of something where the lawfulnes of it is questioned which thing also here by the text I am to do if they command me as well as the former and yet which thing I may not do unless I believe either their sentence therein to be true and the thing in general lawful to be done or at least lawful for me rebus sic stantibus their sentence past to do it i. e. unless I believe that tho it be against God's law that they command me since they may err yet God excuseth or holdeth me guiltles in doing it in that he hath peremptorily obliged me to adhere to their sentence and judgment not my own So that in any thing they once determin lawful whatever my opinion was of it before yet now I am obliged to believe it lawful for me to do it since I am commanded by God to obey them in doing it and may do nothing at any time against my conscience and whilst I hold such thing unlawful to be done by me And again Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe those laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the law of God but your perswasion in this case i. e. where Superiors have determined otherwise you are bound for the time i. e. till the same Authority reverse it to suspend c unless they have an infallible demonstration And there he shews against pretence in every thing of a Demonstration An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such as being proposed unto any man and understood the mind i. e. of him that heareth it cannot choose but inwardly assent Which tryal of a demonstration Archbishop Laud also allows § 32. n. 5. T is no demonstration then as long as those think notwithstanding it they have cause to dissent to whom I propose it But when you have read these things in Hooker look on Mr. Chillingworth's Answer 5. cap. 109 110. sect c. to me seeming very unsatisfactory First there Dr. Potter saying it is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publick Mr. Chillingworth defends him thus Dr. Potter by judgment means not his reason or Scripture as Mr. Knot imagines the sence of it for these he may oppose to the publick but his bare authority But search Dr. Potter p. 105. and you will see he speaks both of Reason and Scripture Then coming to Mr. Hooker Mr. Chillingworth expounds what he saith on Deut. 17. 8. not of yeilding assent to the judgment of the Judge or any active obedience which presupposeth assent but of obedience of suffering only the sentence of the Judge and paying the mulcts he tho unjustly lays upon them But 1. did no other sentences pass in the Sanedrim about the law but concerning satisfactions and punishments Did none of their judgments command the doing of such a thing the observing of such a fast the offering of such a Sacrifice marrying or forbearing to marry such a woman wherein those saith Mr. Hooker were to do as the Judge decided those who thought and perhaps truly that the law disallowed it that to the like purpose he might urge the Puritans to wear a Surplice c after the Ecclesiastical Magistrate had commanded it tho it seemed to their private opinion unlawful For that he speaketh of opinion and active not passive obediedience which passive obedience the Puritans willingly granted and was out of controversy t is plain in that he saith that such a sentence once passed was ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience to build the duty of obedience upon whatsoever his own opinion were as touching the matter before in question And in the close of the Section he saith God the Author of peace must needs be the Author of those mens peaceable resolutions who concerning these things i. e. where is no infallible demonstration to the contrary have determined with themselves to do and think as the Church they are of decreeth till they see necessary cause enforcing them to the contrary And this is plain also out of the places which he urgeth that place in the 17. Deut. and the injunction of the Council Act. 15. For Acts 15. speaks of active obedience abstaining from blood c. which always supposeth precedent opinion of the lawfulnes thereof And Deut. 17. runs thus If there arise a matter too hard for thee c. Thou shalt do according as they shall shew thee Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee c. And the same is set down after the same manner 2 Chron. 19. 10. And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood between law and commandement statutes and judgments ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord c. Certainly these places may not be restrain'd only to the patient undergoing of the punishment sentenced by the Judge for the non-observance of his decrees or of that which he saith is Law. Another part of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer is that Mr. Hooker limits the matters wherein they were to yeild obedience to the injunctions of Authority namely to such matters as have plain Scripture or Reason neither for nor against them and wherein men go only upon their own probable collection which I grant But this plain Scripture and Reason as Mr. Hooker expresseth it is a really infallible argument or demonstration and not such pretended For the Puritans also pretended they had most plain reason and Scripture for the things wherein they were unconformable Now if Mr. Hooker here requires submission in all such points where there is no infallible argument to the contrary whether he intended it or no c in very few or no matters can such submission be denied especially to a General Council neither do we find in Mr. Hooker's proof Deut. 17. 8. any restrictions of obedience of submission only to certain points where they had not plain law or reason to the contrary Now in the last place to consider his main answer to those words of Mr. Hooker 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 Here answereth Mr. Chillingworth he saith men are bound to do whatsoever c. but he says not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just giving an instance of a man cast wrongfully at law and sentenced to pay an 100l I answer in some sentences or judgments this which Mr. Chillingworth saith is true viz. where they enjoyn me a thing to which I think I am not oblig'd which I may cedere meo jure and do tho I do not think their determination right and just and
so it is in the instance he giveth But in some other sentences it is false viz. when they enjoyn me an action the lawfulnes whereof is questioned For since I may never do a thing believed unlawful for me to do therefore here I must either believe their determination for my doing it just and right or I must not do it Now as I said before this I may believe either by believing the thing in it self lawful which they judg so or at least that it is lawful for me to do it rebus sic stantibus tho the thing in general prohibited or unlawful to be done without such circumstances because God hath peremptorily obliged me to obey their sentence tho in some things errable As may be shewed in many instances which were decidable by such Judges For example a controversy ariseth between a bounden servant and his master whether he is to obey his Masters command in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day The Servant arguing from Exod. 20. 10. In it thou shalt not do any work c that it is by God prohibited Here upon the Judges sentence well weighing this text with other Scriptures I say the Servant is bound by them to water his Master's cattel and therefore bound to think it lawful to do so none being obliged to do what he thinks unlawful to do for Conscientia erronea obligat The same it is if any one upon Levit. 18. 16. refusing to marry the wife of his brother deceased without issue making some false gloss upon Deut. 25. 5. should receive a command from these Judges to marry her My last instance shall be in the very matter whereof Mr. Hooker discourseth tho Mr. Chillingworth avoided it The Church of England passeth a sentence in the supreme Ecclesiastical court That every Minister in celebrating Divine Service shall wear a Surplice Here I say a Puritan may not do what the judicial sentence hath determined c by no means unless he first think or believe the determination of the Council lawful i. e. That his doing this namely wearing the Surplice is not against the law of God. The reason is because here they enjoyn him the doing of that of which the question is whether to do it be lawful But had they enjoyned him to pay a mulct for not wearing a Surplice then the question is not whether he may lawfully pay this mulct for unusquisque potest cedere de suo jure and he who doth this thing is supposed to be satisfied in this point that he may cedere suo jure but only whether that court had a just and legal cause for which they enjoyned this mulct which as to the point of lawful concerns them but not him at all But had the law said or did such a one mulcted doubt whether the law had said no man shall submit to any mulct or punishment which he thinks the Judge unjustly sentenceth him to then must he not pay the mulct till he thought the determination lawful A sentence therefore may be conceived unjust two ways 1. Either in enjoyning men to do a thing which the law as they conceive hath prohibited to be done such a thing may never be done as long as the sentence is thought unjust i. e. Enjoyning them to do what the law prohibits to be done Or 2ly in enjoyning men to do what the law hath prohibited the Judge in such a case to enjoyn but not the others in any case to do tho to do such a thing in such a point ought not to have bin imposed Here the judged doubtles may obey the sentence whilst he thinks it unjust To make things plain I fear I am too tedious See more of this matter in Success Clergy Mr. Chillingworth goes on to shew an impossibility that such a yeilding to judgment against our private opinion can be His words are If you will draw Mr. Hooker's words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of a judicial and final decision just and right tho it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right it is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus tho at the same time they think the contrary Thus far he To this I have spoken more fully in the following Discours § 2. To make Contradictories the terms in both Propositions must be taken exactly in the same sence els they will be only verbally so As I will shew you this to be after I have first premised this That taking thinking in the latter Proposition for infallibile certainty but t is clear Mr. Hooker means no such thing the words imply a true contradiction for he who saith he believes for any authority whatsoever humane or per impossibile divine contrary to what he is infallibly certain of saith he believes what he believes not or what he cannot believe So that where there is infallible certainty it voids all argument from Authority neither can any one say I do or will submit my judgment to such or such in a point whereof he is sure But let thinking therefore or private opinion be taken in any degeee below absolute certainty and then I think that expression had it bin Mr. Hooker's as it is tho not totidem terminis is far from contradiction To shew which give me leave to change this word think in the latter proposition into some other words which yet are plainly what Mr. Hooker means by thinking and you shall see they will be very well consistent I think or believe from the argument of the authority prudence c of such persons their determination of such a point to be right tho all the arguments I have from seeming reason of the thing or from that sence which I conceive of Scripture incline me to think that such a determination is not right Now I suppose as the terms are here explained none will deny That one may think or believe a thing to be truth not against his belief or thinking but against all arguments which are drawn from his seeming natural reason or otherwise except that ab authoritate if these do not amount to infallible certainty or that a man may yeild an assent of belief in respect of authority contrary to his assent of evidence in respect of the thing so that evidence be in any degree below infallible certainty Els we must deny that we can believe any mystery of faith which seems to us contrary to natural reason see Rom. 4. 17 18. 2 Cor. 10. 5. and these two propositions will contradict also I believe or think such a thing a divine truth from divine authority delivering it tho my natural reason inclines me to think or believe the contrary Doth a man speak a contradiction if he say to a Scholar or a child Do not believe or give credit to your own reason meaning by it the reasons or arguments his brain suggests to him about
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
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
refuseth it only to consent to another judgment much more fallible i. e. his own Now that God hath granted such a power to the Church of excommunicating dissenters to some of her decisions at least is acknowledged by the Reformed * who allow the Church'es practice of it in her first 4. General Councils concerning the additions in the Nicene and other Creeds * who allow the Church'es practice in commanding something to be done or forborn by her subjects under the penalty of Excommunication but wherever the Church enjoyns any thing to be done she inclusively enjoyns assent or belief that such a thing is lawful to be done Lastly * who practise such excommunication themselves not only toward men for contradicting or for declaring their dissent but for dissenting from their decrees 1. †As appears in the closes of the 3. 4. and 5. Canons c of the English reformed Synod held under K. James 1603. where Can. 5. Whosoever doth affirm any of the 39. Articles to be in any part erroneous stands excommunicated not till he recants his publick contradicting the Church'es doctrines but till he repents of and publickly revokes such his wicked errors and †as appears in all those Canons wherein that Synod enjoyns any Agends upon pain of Excommunication which injunctions of Practicals as I said before involve also an injunction of Assent first that such practicals are lawful See Can. 9. 12. 59. of that Synod 2ly As appears in the English Synod under K. Charles 1640. * where in the 3. 4. and 5. Canons any accused of Popery Socinianism Anabaptism are to be excommunicated till they abjure such errors and that is till they assent to the contradictory of those errors and that is till they assent to the doctrine of the Church of England where it is contradictory to those errors and * where Can. 6. There is required an approbation and sincere acknowledgment which is no less than assent to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as containing all things necessary to salvation and this confession required upon oath See this matter discoursed more at large in Church-government 3. part § 29. And hence a sober man may discern how that without submission of judgment in some things none that are learned and much studied in Theological controversies can enjoy the external communion of any Church For since for example the English Church excommunicates all that shall say that any of her Articles or Canons is erroneous or repugnant to Scripture see for this her 4. and 5. Can. set down before 2d part of Church-government untill they shall publickly revoke not such their saying but such their error and since the Rom. Church is said to require belief of so many Decrees of the Tridentine and other former Councils if any one Canon or Article tho of never so little moment of the Church of England or Canon of those other Councils allowed by the Church of Rome whereto assent is required doth appear mistaken to such a one's private reason hence he can be of neither of these external communions and sic de caeteris yet one of which certainly is the communion of the true Catholick Church of which we say Credo unam sanctam c. I may add Neither could he heretofore be of the external communion of the former Church Catholick for many ages wherein by reason of new rising heresies the Church'es determinations and those requiring assent have bin multiplied from some one or other of which a learned man is likely to vary in his private judgment being perhaps not every way so well informed as that of the Church was who made them So suppose one holding all the rest with the Council of Trent should differ from it in this one tenet That the Baptism of S. John Baptist and of Christ were not of the same efficacy or one holding all the rest with the Church of England should only differ from it in this point of her 28 and 29th Article That the Real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist only by those who have a lively faith for which see Mr. Thorndike Epilogue to the Church of England 3. l. 2. c. or before the Reformation and Council of Trent one should in some thing hold differently from the Decrees of the 2d Nicean or Lateran Council he is thereby excluded from the external communion both of the Church of Rome and the Church of England and of all the former Church following the 2d Council of Nice unles he be in something content to mortify his rationale and make a submission of his judgment-Therefore the Schoolmen so subtil in their disputes and so various in their resolves yet laid aside their private reasons and bended their judgments to the yoke thereof where any controversible point was formerly stated by the Church taking liberty to expatiate and exercise their science only in those disputables wherein she had no way bounded them Now to come to your other Query Whether if in non-fundamentals the Church require our assent to something contrary to our private judgment we ought to yeild to it To this I answer We ought Because the Church'es power of punishing by Excommunication all that do not consent to all her decisions and determinations wherein she requires consent seems to be absolute and unlimited For to some of her decisions the reformed grant that he who assents not is justly excommunicated by her I ask therefore to which 1. Is it only to those decisions which she maketh according to the Scriptures that if any assent not to them he may be justly excommunicated by her See the 20. and 21 Article of the Church of England But then before she may justly exercise such Excommunication some body must judge when her decisions are made according to the Scriptures when not This Judge must either be her self or private men If she must judg this then t is all one as if there were no such limitation for we may be assured she will never make any such decision as her self will judge not to be according to or to be contrary to the Scriptures If private men must judge this then this her authority is null toward so many private men as shall judge her decisions to be contrary to Scriptures and to the rest that judge them according with Scripture she hath no use of this authority because they already consent T is null I say to the former because as the power of excommunicating those who do not consent to her decisions when made according to the Scriptures is committed to her so the power of judging when they are so made when not is here supposed to be left by God to private men Therefore these being judged by them not to be so her authority which was thus limited is now toward all such men voided And how will this consist with God's giving Pastors c for the unity of the faith and that men may not be
himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are †Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the H. Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5. 36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. 15. 19. 2 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. Mar. 16. 20. required belief and submission to their doctrine And †Universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus his being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Paul's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jerusalem received from Jesus working miracles and raised from the Dead as Universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Church'es doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the doctrines of the Church and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scriptures very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bid us Hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult in which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17. 8 9 10. Matt. 18. 17. Lu. 10. 16. cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that text Gal. 1. 8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Church-men shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these be Anathema to you But rather it saith this If an Angel or I apostatizing as some shall Act. 20. 30. shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received i. e. from the Church let him c. which makes for the Church'es authority very much The Scriptures then recommending tryal do no way warrant to us a tryal of the publick doctrines of the Church by our private sence upon the Scriptures that so we should adhere to it against them but a tryal of the doctrines of private teachers by the Churches publick sence of the Scriptures that in adhering to it we may be always secure 5ly They question since there are many present divided Churches to the judgment of which of them they shall repair I answer Had this question bin asked an hundred years ago in Luther's time any one could have solved it What any one would have done then let him do now since all grant that the Church which was then Catholick is not changed since in its doctrines or practices only some men are since gone out of it and he may know by this that he is not to follow them because they are gone out if he resolve once to be a follower of the Church'es authority All or most of modern controversies either Councils which the present Church allows have decided or collectively the solution of them may be known by the agreeing tenets of particular Churches and their Bishops even before and without any General Councils Most of the decrees of the Council of Trent tho it should stand for nothing yet we must grant were the general tenets and practice of the present Church of that age and of many ages before that and many Councils also which must be granted at least Patriarchal or Provincial have decided the points now in controversy or many of the most considerable of them and we find no other superior Synod at all contradicting them in those or later times but the same things ratified by the general practice which followed If therefore there was a church Catholick in those days that had or exercised any authority and this I think we confess in our Creed surely such tenets were established by it neither can we acknowledge one Holy and Apostolick Church in those times save only that by whom such things were used and by whom also many of them decreed After that therefore we have once yeilded to conform in our judgment or in not-contradiction to the Church we need not demand and expect for these things a future General Council for we are judged already we learning what is the Church'es judgment sufficiently by the decrees of former Councils Provincial at least which with this universal practice following them are equivalent to General Els many ancient heresies as Pelagianism c remain yet uncondemned in the Church these having bin censured only by Councils Provincial whose judgments afterward were generally approved and by the general practice of that Church which Church we cannot deny to be the same with that which once was the total Catholick and which is also now if we look after the major part of the Church the greatest communion of Christians Such things as these are said and you must tell me what I must reply to them And indeed if Protestants saw no eminent Church to which if all her decisions were made authentical men would presently apply themselves their contention would not be so earnest against our ascribing too much to the Church'es authority But suppose say they that the church present determin things against Scripture and against the former Church Why may not I say I again as well suppose you who think thus of the present Church to mistake Scripture and the former Church your selves and why may I not say again to you suppose that she err in fundamentals where are you that in these do follow her judgment Yes but the fundamentals she directs me in are more plainly set down in Scripture Well then since you may not judg against her in the plain may you in other things less plain But say you our Saviour hath promised in these she shall not err Then you need not fear erring with her in the rest for were truth in the rest so necessary as you pretend God could and would here also have made her an infallible directer And we are to know this that the Church may be faulty in something that she enjoyns and yet he that assents to her judgment not be so but faulty he will be if he do not assent Els what shall we answer to Deut. 17. 11 unles we will say
therein clearly delivered as for example that Jesus is the Lord or that he died in some sence or other as hoc dato that he is the Lord he may be certain that he is the Lord or as he may be certain of identicals And as I think one may be certain of this so I do not think that ever there was any heretick that allowed the Scriptures i. e. as we have them that ever denied any such thing in general terms for this would be to affirm contradictories both true Again since the Ch. may be infallibly certain of something in the Scriptures from the evidence of revelation why a private man may not be so too I see no reason since the Church consisteth only of so many particular men and the reasons appearing to the Church may also be clear to him Tho here I must put some difference because as there is a certainty arising from clearnes of revelation so there is another from illumination of the H. Spirit see Jo. 16. 13. which illumination is promised to the Councils of the Church but not so to particulars and for this it is I think well said that the conclusions of such Councils may from the superintendence of God's Spirit over them be orthodox when the reasons upon which they are grounded may be fallible or not proving such conclusions A private man then in some things may be infallibly certain but since he also may be mistaken not only in * very plain Scriptures by †not comparing them with other places that say something contrary to the sence which they seem to him to bear †by education in such mis-interpretations and many other thousand ways as we have much experienced of late in the Socinians and our English Sectarists both great Scripturists but also * in thinking himself infallibly certain of something there when he is not which conceit many times ariseth not from the places incapability of any doubt but from his not being then acquainted with any objections against his sence of it The chiefest signs that I know by which any one may gather that he is infallibly certain indeed when it is in any point that is controverted are these two and they are such as will litle nurse him in his opinion of infallible certainty 1. The first is that no other man or at least not the major part of men having the use of reason understanding our terms and granting all the suppositions which we do doth contradict or frame any objections against our tenet The 2d That all having use of reason c or the most that were formerly of another perswasion to whom we propose all our grounds become certain of the same thing also I say the most because it is not here altogether as it is in Mathematicks the demonstrations whereof never any that see them contradict Now that you may not think these marks of certainty too rigid see the same proposed by the Reformed against the Puritans whom they think too rashly to pretend certainty in heterodox opinions See Hook. Eccl. Pol. preface 6. sect and Bishop Laud § 33. Consid. 5. n. 1. Therefore thinking one's self certain and his not having any doubt at all of the truth of the thing he holds is no sure note of certainty For potest non subesse dubium where yet subest falsum from the ignorance of those texts or arguments which prove the contrary of what he holds And tho there may be no doubt from contrary arguments yet is the greatest reason that can be to doubt from a publick contrary judgment where the much major part of such as I have opportunity to know their opinion these having all the same evidences as my self dissent from me Now against these indications of certainty proposed by us it may be and is said That passion self-conceit pride love of contention and especially contrary education and custom in error may blind some mens judgment so as not to discern the plainest things But mark first that this is said ordinarily by a man that is singular against the contrary judgment of the Church of God. Thou that judgest another judgest thou not thy self What can be a better argument for the Church than her former customs which thou accusest to mislead her present judgment Who are liker to be clear of passion those that submit to anothers judgment or those that adhere to their own Lastly from this it will follow that we also to be infallibly certain of a truth must be infallibly certain we are not misled by passion or education in an error as well as that others may be so and this surely is very hard to know In dissent from our Pastors saith Dr. Jackson we cannot but doubt whether we have learnt as we should the precepts of Christian modesty whether learnt to deny our selves and our affections to reverence him as God's Minister taking no offence at his person whether we have abandoned all such delights and desires as are the usual grounds of false perswasion And in another place he grants that to the disobedient and those who hate the light even plain Scriptures are difficult If we cannot be resolved in these then must we doubt whether we will or no whether our doubt and scruple be of faith and conscience or of humor What Dr. Jackson saith here of doubt I may say of certainty since many also are deceived in thinking themselves certain when they are not that till we are certain that we are void of such passion we cannot be certain that we are certain c. Again t is said That in points which we must needs grant to be most certainly plain to any rational man yet some hereticks have bin of a contrary judgment as t is instanced in the Manichees and in some frantick people of late acknowledging no obligation to the practice of Christian vertues c. I answer this comes about for the most part at least by their denying some principles which others argue upon The Manichees acknowledged divine Scriptures but not such as we have them but said that our Scriptures were miserably corrupted Our Sectarists of late acknowledge our Scriptures but say they were writ for and belong only to new beginners in Christianity not to the perfect c. So likewise those that vary in their conclusions t is notable to see how much they vary also in their suppositions Some in Scripture hold those to be counsels only which others take for absolute commands some suppose those precepts temporary as I think we must needs confess that Act. 15. to be which others will needs have to be eternal some will have the practices set down in Scripture to oblige as well as peremptory precepts others not c. And upon these various grounds which others grant not every one builds from those grounds most infallible conclusions which all the world if they yeilded to his principles would also with him assert Mean-while he looking at the plainnes
of his deductions and seldom examining the soundnes of some ground which he irrationally takes for granted becomes infallibly certain as he thinks of what is indeed an error and many times a gross one But it may be said again that where we can shew none of these differences in principles yet there have bin hereticks that have gone against tenets even in fundamentals of which tenets we must needs grant that any man may be infallibly certain as the Arrians Socinians Nestorians Eutychians c. To you I may speak my opinion In all these and many more which being chief foundations we usually also call most manifest truths yet the most of Christians E will not say all are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church from time to time by which they are kept fixed and not shaken in them And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason where the authority of the Church is laid aside Certainly to name some of them the omnipresence of God not in his power but substance his certain foreknowledge of not only what may but also what shall be yet so as not to destroy mans free election Christ's non-inferiority as touching the God-head to the Father and all those particulars about the Trinity Person Natures and Wills of Christ can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture to every one that grants it to be Scripture that all men without the Church'es guidance and education in such a faith c would have bin infallibly certain of them 2. But to let these pass and suppose in private men what infallible certainty you please of them or also of many other divine truths yet in the 3d. place I do not see how from the former instances we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible certainty against the judgment of the Church of many former ages for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on their side I suppose is Communion in one kind only which hath this prejudice also accompanying it that it was practised by the Church Catholick in the publick ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation Yet I think that none will offer to affirm that he is I say not much perswaded but infallibly certain of the unlawfulnes of such a practice when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church and some precepts there only temporary not perpetual as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it * That the Church hath altered many other things not only without our complaining thereof but with our imitating her Nay further * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture but amongst Apostolical Traditions only See Montag Origin Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scripturis Infantes baptizari aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare And Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us Such as are these which follow The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scripture The Baptism of Infants Perpetual Virginity of the B. Virgin Observation of the Lord's Day The Service of the Church in a known tongue The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times even in the Eastern Churches also of giving it in one kind to sick men to Seamen to Travellers to the absents upon necessary occasions from church to those also who came to church to carry home with them that they might there reserve it in readines and communicate themselves therewith when they thought fit on those days when there was no publick communion or they hindred from it by distance danger as in times of persecution or necessary secular busines that which they carried home with them being only of one species viz. that of the bread And * these things tho so done to avoid some inconvenience I suppose the spilling and the not-keeping of the wine as also it is now yet so done without any absolute necessity for the sick can take wine sooner than bread and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling and those vessels also be first consecrated and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to Infants newly born and baptized to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary only in one kind namely that of the wine When one considers * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent in the Greek Church for all days save Saterdays and Sundays because saith Balsamon Deo sacrificium offerre they accounted to be festum diem agere in the Latin Church for Good-Friday to communicate expraesanctisicatis i. e. on what was consecrated on another day and reserved till then which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread * The great cautiousnes of the former times against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood which could not be gathered up again as the bread might in their receiving it in some places sucked up through a pipe in others by intinction and dipping only or sopping the bread in the wine a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches Again whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect communion and robbing the people as it were of the chief part of their redemption yet when he hath considered * their never questioning the compleatnes of such Communions who thus received it in one kind which it most concerned people going out of the world and some of them perhaps then first communicated for their last viaticum to have most perfect Where note also †1. First * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so constantly believed that the use of the Cup also in publick communions was upon many abuses committed about it by little and litle in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess was only to warrant and justify the Church'es former custom against those Petrus Dresdensis the Hussites and others who then began to inveigh against it saying hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum illicitum as likewise against that custom to communicate men fasting and hence began to change it and to communicate after Supper and in both kinds And 2ly †* That some of the Reformed also
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
of which another is not tho he also might be certain conformable to the Church's definitions how near would this come to a perfect union Thus Dr. Jackson on the Creed 2. l. 1. § 6. c. Superiors are to be obeyed in all such points as their inferiors are not at leisure to examin or not of capacity to discern whether they be lawful or no. And in another place Some may sin in obeying authority whilst some others do not sin And again ib. Unles a man can justly plead some peculiar reason or priviledge it is a very dangerous case to disobey lawful authority in such matters whereunto he sees many men by his own confession of great judgment and integrity of life yeilding obedience with alacrity c. For indeed I suppose all inferiors not bound to examin the doctrines they receive from the Church But how is it then that those that are not certain are taught to believe those that upon this certainty depart from the definitions of the Church rather than to adhere to the Church Surely they ought to be taught otherwise even by these that are departed For suppose Luther upon some private certainty might not yeild his consent to former Church-definitions yet all the rest not having the same certainty even by the Protestants stating of this question ought to adhere still not to Luther but to the former Church And again Luther in this certainty being bound at least to Non-contradiction of the Church neither might he then go about to teach others that infallible certainty which he had of those points which oppose the Church You know the ordinary objection against what is above-said out of Rom. 14. c. 23. Where the Apostle saith He that doubteth of the lawfulnes of a thing and yet doth it sinneth and therefore it is urged that he that practiseth a thing upon the Churches command whereof he doubts whether it be lawful or subscribeth to the Church's judgment in a thing whereof he doubteth whether it be true sinneth To this I answered before § 2. and § 20. that he that believeth or is perswaded that he ought to yeild obedience to the Church in things contrary to his private judgment sinneth not in this sort because such a one doubteth not but is satisfied in what he ought to hold or to do But if the question be asked of those who have some doubt whether they ought to obey the Church or to follow their own judgment whether such at least ought not to follow their own judgment to avoid sinning I answer neither do such sin in obeying the Church rather than themselves Indeed where one side is undoubtedly lawful and the other only is doubted of whether lawful he who doth that which he doubteth of sinneth But where one hath or hath reason to have a double doubt and a doubt of the lawfulnes of both sides you see that here he must go what way he will do something when he doubteth or hath reason to doubt of the lawfulnes thereof And thus it is where ever the Church commandeth me to do a thing on one side and my particular judgment in the thing disswades me from doing it on the other for here in not doing it I may or ought to doubt that I sin against the obedience I owe the Church as well as in doing it against the obedience I owe to my own judgment or conscience Here therefore I am not to say my judgment being against it I must not do it or I sin if I do it and so oppose the Church'es authority out of conscience as I think but when a command of the Church is now come in upon me to do it and so it is not left free to me in respect of external authority as before and as it is in the Apostle's instances not to do it here I am first to examin whether this my judgment is not to be submitted to the Church'es judgment for if I am perswaded or so much as doubt whether it ought to be submitted I may now sin in not doing according to her judgment against my own i. e. I may sin in not doing it tho it is against my judgment to do it As in two instances it will be plain For suppose a Church-injunction come forth for Christians not to observe Jewish Sabbaths and some Christian Judaic in his own particular judgment thinks such Sabbaths are to be observed yet such a one sinneth if he doth according to this iudgment after and against the Church'es injunction see Gal. 4. 10. tho before this he had sinned if he had not done according to his own judgment See Rom. 14. 5. 14. Again suppose a decree of the Nicene Council that all men should subsubscribe their Creed and that some particular Christian thinks thinks I say is not certain in his own particular judgment something in it to be false if such a one doth not subscribe it tho against his own particular judgment he sins because he either knows or ought to know that in fundamentals at least his particular judgment is to yeild to the judgment of the Church But 3ly if the question be asked again Whether he that doubts not but is fully perswaded that he ows no such obedience to the Church and that he is to follow his private judgment rather than to follow that of the Church when they cross whether such I say may or ought to obey the Church against his private judgment I answer No by no means because an erroneous conscience obligeth i e. our words or actions may never go contrary to our heart And if any one tho in doing well thinketh he doth evil he in his intention doth evil But yet if his judgment oweth obedience to the Church'es tho he doth not think so in this following of his conscience he sinneth because he doth against his duty of which he ought to have informed his conscience better and this no small sin after such a known declaration He that heareth you heareth me and If he will not hear the Church let him be accounted as a heathen c. Concerning the Use of Private Judgment 1. FIrst it is true that we are in all things to follow our own judgment as our judgment reflecting on the former acts of the intellect and considering all reasons as well those taken from authority as those taken from the appearance of things in themselves to us finally determines what we ought to do But note that such judgment when ever culpably mistaken excuseth not from sin our acting according to it But 2ly it is false that we are always to follow or act after our own judgment as our judgment is taken for our own private argumentations reasonings and evidences concerning the subject we examin and judge of against the authority of whomever judging otherwise See Oblig of Judgment p. 1. and the Canons quoted before Ch. Governm 2d part how far the Reformed Synods have thought fit to restrain mens private judgments
and Timothy might also commit these things again to other faithful men for them again to teach others and not perhaps write them or not all See 2. Tim. 2. 2. So when he was sent to Corinth 1 Cor. 4. 17. he might acquaint them with more of S. Paul's doctrines and ways in Christ than St. Paul writ to them See 1 Cor. 11. 34. where the Apostle possibly might order somewhat more concerning the receiving of the Sacrament which is not mentioned in the Scripture As S. August thinks he ordered receiving of it fasting See Epist. 118. ad Januarium near the end See 2 Thess. 2. 15. 2ly As we may not argue things unlawful in themselves or untrue so neither useles or superstitious and will-worship because we do not find them in the Scriptures For there are many things which may be enjoyned by Ecclesiastical authority which are not only not unlawful or which are required only for the preservation of order and unity in the Church for God's publick Service but which are very useful and much helping us for our Salvation for the advancing of holines suppressing of lusts c and granted to be so even by those who think them not all commanded in Scripture As Confession of sins to the Priest observing certain times of Fast frequent hours of Prayer several Penances See Common-prayer-book Preface to Commination c. And there are also many other customs received from a constant tradition which those who think them not to be set down in Scripture yet do not therefore deny them to be true and Apostolical or affirm them unlawful to be observed as Episcopacy Baptizing of Infants the Eucharist administred only by the Priest the observation of the Lord's day c. Nay some precepts in Scripture there are quietly acknowledged to be temporary and antiquated as that of observing that day of the week on which God rested and that Act. 15. 29. and some other things not in precept willingly admitted to oblige for no reason but only because the first were anciently laid aside and the second practised by our Mother the Church And by the same reason as some admit these tho not contained in Scripture they must admit many more 3ly But were some of these things enjoyned needless yet as long as they are not by God's word forbidden and are by the Church commanded if S. Paul would abstain from flesh whilst he lived not to offend his brother how much more should we obey in these not to offend our governors or rather to perform the divine command of yeilding obedience to our Governors which submission to them is due I suppose in all things not contrary to the Scriptures In which our Superiors may offend many times in their injunctions when we do not in our obedience the preservation of so reverend an authority which cannot in all things be menaged for the best and of the unity of the Church being more benefit to any member thereof than the observance of a command which is fruitles yet no way contrary to the Scriptures can be inconvenience Our Superiors may offend I say in enjoyning when not others in obeying Because injunctions and laws become unjust and unlawful not one but many ways as in respect of the matter when contrary to God's word so where the matter is not a thing evil in respect of the end author or other circumstances As when such injunctions are no way conducing to the publick good when enjoyned as God's command or as to be preferred before something that is so or as something necessary to Salvation when not enjoyned by a lawful authority c. Now the matter of the command being not faulty the thing may be done provided that no unlawful end be expressed in the injunctions for thus it becomes part of the matter and substance of the command because the end by them that obey may be changed and as concerning the Legislator t is no fault to obey another who ever he be in that which we may impose upon our selves Lastly for the matter tho it is everlastingly granted that I may do nothing that is contrary to God's commands yet I have no reason to refuse obedience to my Superiors unles it be a thing which not I think but I am sure is so as the Apostles were sure in their refusing Act. 4. 19. for where there is reason to doubt concerning the matter whether it be contrary to God's command or no and so I think there is always where the Church's judgment is opposed to mine there t is a duty to obey my Superiors But here what if that which is not commanded in the Scripture be enjoyned by the Church to be obeyed as a thing commanded there or as commanded by God Which thing our Saviour blamed in the Pharisees and justified his Disciples in not observing their commands In which if we may conform to authority it seems that there will scarce be any superstition or will-worship at all but only in the imposers of laws Answ. 1. T is to be noted that the Pharisees traditions in which the instance is made were many of them other than those here supposed some being contrary to the Scripture as that tradition mentioned Matt. 15. 5. some recommended before the commands in Scripture and whilst those done these omitted in which respect such service became most odious see Mark 7. 8. Matt. 23. 23. 15. 9. others required to be done as necessary which were not only needles but upon a false ground recommended as that of washing hands because they held that unwashen hands defiled But 2ly this shall be granted that that which is commanded tho it be not contrary to Scripture yet when it is pretended by the imposers to be in it self necessary as when it is pretended either to be Scripture or to be reverenced and equalled to the Scriptures and God to be as much worshipped in it when as men only and not God require it as in what himself hath commanded and that rather to be omitted than it and when it is by others obeyed and reverenced as such is superstition and will-worship both in him that commands and in him who obeys whenever he hath sufficient evidence for conviction And this I suppose was the fault of those who sat in Moses's chair not that they required obedience to their decrees such as were not contrary to God's word but an equal reverence and belief of them in this obedience as of the written law nay placed the substance of holines and of God's honor in these wherein it did not consist more than in the other and so required the omitting of the other rather than of these as should one now impute the power of prayer to the posture or place he makes it in or to the number of times he doth it and not to the devotion and purity of the Suppliant the mercy and promises of God c this would be Superstition and will-worship i. e. a worship
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
Teachers of the Church present and past by whom we may learn what is the constant tradition of the Church which Church hath always preserved and perused the Scriptures and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail 2. To conform our minds the better to the expositions of which Doctors of the Church we are advised not to rely much on our own reason and judgment See Rom. 12. 16. Prov. 3. 5. 28. 26. Is. 5. 21. Prov. 12. 15. 11. 14. And to be the more perfectly convinced by experience also how easily our reason is misguided by Reason I mean reasoning upon not its own but Scripture-principles after having recollected how many times our selves have changed our opinion in Theological matters the same holy writings guiding us at all times being as confident in our former then as now in our present tenet 1. Consider that whilst in every Nation doubtles there are many of excellent judgments turning the same Gospel reading the same books of controversie which they both mutually answer yet in a manner all those of one Kingdom or Government do so espouse one opinion and all of another a contrary that they will both lay down their lives in defence thereof and so their posterity after them And this happens partly because there is no tenet but that there is some verisimility in it and some reason for it that seems to many hard to be answered which reason according to our party we lay for a foundation and then fit all other contrary arguments by distinctions how absurd soever unto it being certain that no truths contradict one another and hence do both sides especially in answoring objections accuse the other of going against their conscience But this happens more from not equality of arguments for every side but opposite interests of the controvertists which interests commonly prevent the access to or just force of those arguments upon the understanding where the truth if it should prove contrary to those interests will undo them Therefore they make either none or a very negligent search into their adversaries tenets and reasons as delivered in their own writings or into the doctrines of Antiquity when quoted against them Notwithstanding which interest being rather hereditary than by themselves contracted they mistake themselves to be indifferent and any way unbiassed 2. Consider how those who have the Scriptures most common yet when free from the yoke of Ecclesiastical authority do run into most diversity of opinions and those not slight or void of danger to their salvation In particular the Socinian abstracting from all Church-authority and committing himself only to Scripture and his reason yet who more than he opposeth things which seem most clear in Scripture For what more plain there than that this world was created by the Word the Son of God Jo. 1. 1. Heb. 1. And therefore also the Reformed more than the Romanist tho in both there are many differences is censured for diversity of opinions Nisi adsit spiritus prudentiae nihil proderit verbum Dei saith Calvin witness those of Munster And worthy here of serious consideration is the reason why Timothy and Titus are advised to avoid i. e. not to interest much or practise themselves in or meddle with vain curiosities and questions of science falsly so called because they will increase still unto more ungodliness and eat further as doth a Canker or gangrene and strife gender strife and questions minister more questions See 2 Tim. 2. 16 17 23. 1 Tim. 1. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 7. Tit. 3. 9. compared with 10. which argues he was forbid much disputing with such perverse men And t is likely Hymeneus c at their first differing from doctrines delivered attempted not the denial of the Resurrection Which continually greater intanglings of Reason left to it self do extremely prove the weaknes of it and the unreasonablenes of trusting to it 3. Consider that as the Pharisee that was so blind Matt. 23. 16. thought he only saw Jo. 9. 41. and that others were blind Jo. 7. 49. so whilst we think others misled with passion we are no less misled therewith than they and so they also think of us only we do less discern it And in thus standing upon and preferring our own judgment before others that search the Scriptures as well as we we presume either that we have better naturals than they or else more integrity and honesty than they and what root can this proceed from but pride and uncharitablenes no good pre-dispositions for the discovery of truth see 1 Tim. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 2. 4. Consider that for ordinary readers over the New Testament is spread a veil as was over the Law for the Jews 2 Cor. 3. 14. and the knowledge thereof is attained not thro the strength of Reason but illumination of the Spirit and the like entertainment as the word preached then found with several persons the same now doth the word written Now self-conceitednes of their own wisdom was then the greatest impediment that could be to the understanding of the mystery of the Gospel for that which was truth was some way or other to them foolishnes And no where were there so few converted as at self-conceited Athens See 1 Cor. 1. 17. c. 1 Cor. 2. 6. c. 3. 18. c. Rom. 1. 22. Lu. 10. 21. Why so because knowledge or a great stock of falsly so called reason maketh proud 1 Cor. 8. 1. and pride hinders the Spirit by which Spirit only is had true knowledge the way to which is humility mortification and abnegation of that which of all things is most our self the rational part of man and extremely addicting our selves unto holines that so we may discern truth see Psal. 25. 12 14. Ps. 111. 10. Jo. 7. 17. 14. 21. 8. 12. see below § 39. And he that is so disposed is more inclined to obedience of others than reliance on himself and then Qui didicit obedire nescit judicare And if we prove this way also betrayed to error yet is this error more excusable before God accompanied with these qualities than truth can be acceptable to him possessed with pride There is great reason then that we should not depend only on our own judgment or on the Scriptures as we interpret them but diligently search also the former practice and tenets of the Churches of God and consult the present judgment of those * who have the promise of not erring at least in knowledge necessary to salvation nor in other things so far as that any may therefore lawfully reject their external communion for which see Church-gov 2. part § 31. 3d. part § 62. * who are the Successors of the Apostles 2 Tim. 2. 2. the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ 2 Cor. 8. 23 * who are appointed by Christ for the building up of the Church and perfecting of the Saints and especially that
they should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine by the steight of men till they may all come in the unity of the doctrine of faith to the fulness of Christ Jesus Eph. 4. 11. Heb. 13. 7 9. Neither may we say that so also we quit only our own reason to accept another man's for as we are guided by their authority so are they guided not by their own reason only but by former authority till we ascend to the first founders of Christian religion See Ecclus. 8. 9. To the judgment therefore of such visible Doctors and Teachers of the Church we ought to repair to some or other of these nay to some or other external communion of them For the promises of perpetual assistance c are not made to the Church at random or in obscurity and unknown viz. that some man or other on earth either of the Clergy or if not of the Laity shall be an orthodox Christian so far as to be capable of salvation till the end of the world but * to those to whom our Saviour also committed the Keys to whom indeed t is most necessary they being the Shepherds and the rest the flock committed always to their guidance See Matt. 16. 18. compared with 19. 28. 20. compared with 19. 18. 20. compared with 18. * to such a Church †as people might know and repair and make their complaints to Matt. 18. 17. †as is a light of the world set on a Candlestick and shining before men a city set upon a hill that cannot be hid Matt. 5. 14 15 16. never was nor never shall be hid of the perpetual being of which we make confession of our faith in the Apostolical Creed the holy Catholick Church and yet plainer in the Nicene one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which who so understands not of an external visible profession and communion as theirs then was may retain the words but not the sence and faith of that Council See this matter more largely discoursed in Succession of Clergy § 2. c. and in Church-government 2. part § 25 26. First therefore in this humble repair to their Judgment where we find all these Doctors of Christianity disagreeing from what we take to be Scripture which holds also in the determinations of any Christian Church whatever so long as we can come to know no other or no better see § 36. we ought in such a case to relinquish our judgment and submit to theirs who also have the same light of Scripture as we and in humility we ought to think more ability to judge of it and who likewise have the promise of indefectibility in truths necessary to salvation Therefore here also the more high and weighty the point is the more firmly ought we to adhere to them trusting to the protection of our Saviour the Head of the Church that in these points especially they shall not all so conjoyned be mistaken And again in smaller points since there is less danger in our erring in them and the more guilt still the smaller they are in our making a schism from or division in the Church for them more humility exercised in obeying no truth of consequence vindicated by contention wisdom perhaps would think it fit to subscribe to the same Guides For as the Apostle said in another case If they are sit to judge the greatest are they not so to judge the smallest matters 1 Cor. 6. 2. And if any thing herein may be indulged to singularity of opinion t is only so far as to make known the reasons that move us to it to the Church or some few therein whom we count men of learning and integrity and void of passion and after this to submit to whatever they who now together with us apprehend all the reasons which sway us shall determin The contrary to which can be only the fruit of self-conceit or obstinacy This if they unanimously deliver any thing to us which we think against Scripture and much more yet ought we to submit to any order of their's tho we do not find it in Scripture if we find nothing in Scripture against it without calling such their sanctions Will-worship and Superstition making sure to use the same charity to the Church which we are obliged-in to private men in whom nihil est damnandum quod ulla ratione bonum esse queat Neither is this assenting to them against our own reason or judgment as we call it going against conscience which conscience is nothing but our judgment and that we call judgment many times nothing but our own and that a slight opinion In not following of which opinion or judgment we are faulty only then where we have no wiser person caeteris paribus nor no established law to guide and direct it Nor is it going against our reason when as nothing is more reasonable than to go against some of our own particular reasonings when we have another stronger reason to the contrary that is the submitting of it to such an authority nothing being more ordinary than for arguments from a Reason to give place to those from an Authority upon which Authority also and not upon Reason is grounded our Faith. See Submiss of Judgment § 2. c. But let me add this for our further contentment that he who not only demands of the Church but takes pains also as all ought to be informed by the Church concerning the proof and evidence of what she requires him to believe shall seldom or never be put to believe that what she saith is truth only from her authority because she saith it but also from his own judgment because she manifests it Obj. But doth not an erring conscience then bind us to follow it tho it be so or may I sometime do a thing which I think unlawful upon another's judgment without sinning Answ. He that is perswaded in conscience that tho he thinks such a thing unlawful yet he ought rather to follow a wiser man's judgment than his own whose judgment saith t is not unlawful cannot absolutely say he is perswaded that it is unlawful And he who thinking such a thing is more likely in reason yet thinketh likewise that he ought rather to obey the Church's judgment than his own reason if he here follows his conscience that is in respect of his own reason he goeth against his conscience as I call it in respect of the submission he thinks he ows to anothers judgment For whilst his judgment prefers another man's judgment before his own this man in following the others must needs also be said to follow his own judgment and consequently his conscience Now he that is not thus perswaded of the duty of submission of his judgment c to wiser men or men authorized to guide his judgment t is true that he sins in doing against his own opinion or conscience so long as he is not so perswaded but then he ought
of the 6th or 5th or at least of the 4th age so as to involve S. Austin c. these being the times wherein she flourished under the protection of Christian Governors more ample in her power publick in her doctrines and discipline frequent and copious in her writings active against all sorts of hereticks as also more exercised with them which the present times as enjoying still the same happines must needs and ought more to resemble than the other and to which taken in this extent ordinarily differing Churches appeal 3. That he would not think that those practices which he observes to be used in the latter of these times and omitted in the former therefore are justly to be rejected unles they be also in that sence as they are afterwards used disallowed and opposed by the former and that by the more general vote thereof For what is said of Scripture § 6. may here be said of the Church that it follows not negatively that such practices are either unlawful or unexpedient because a former age did not recommend or did not use them Therefore that he would compare the practices and tenets of the present Church not with those of every but of any age of those primitive times so not contradicted by the rest In which age if any doctrine held we may lawfully say such is no new but an ancient doctrine or a doctrine of the Fathers 4. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should find in writers of so many ages and of so many several countries no differences at all for there he will find several both †of the former of those times or at least of a many in them from the latter * As the more common opinion and practice of the more ancient times of the Church are by some quoted somewhat to differ from the succeeding in the Millenary doctrine communicating of Infants vision of God before the day of Judgment in the rarer use of Images less observance of the Reliques in Invocation of Saints in the punctuality of Auricular Confession for some sorts of sins c. Quoted I say not that the difference in these is granted so great altogether as it is by some made concerning which as to some of these particulars see what is said in Church-government § 55. but that in the more and less practice of some of them and in the commoness of the belief of other of them there may be some difference in several times So the Millenary doctrine and non-vision of God in some places and times perhaps was the opinion more common So a common practice in some times was used of communicating Infants Images in some times also were less used tho then not the use of them I mean as practised by latter ages opposed and so of the rest that follow Concerning such things see what the 3d. caution saith But observe touching such things wherein difference is named That it is either difference of practice secundum magis minus not opposition of doctrine or opposition of doctrine only in some matters of small moment or the opposition of such times not universal but only of some places or Churches others practising or teaching the contrary And †in the same times he will find many differences of those of one Church from another As of the Eastern and Western Church about Easter the Roman and African Church about Rebaptization and afterward about Superiority of the See of Rome for Appeals and so many things practised in the Eastern Churches not at all or latter used in the Western And †in the same Church he will find one party against another as Epiphanius and Chrysostom c And the same party when of a more mature judgment differing from himself as S. Austin in the busines of Free-will and Grace c. But it is sufficient if in some other differences he finds them all or by much the most agreeing in most or in many points of those which are now controverted especially points of practice which are of greater moment to render up his judgment to them in those uncontrolable and plain things wherein they consent and more is not desired of him amongst which are the contradictories to most of those hurtful opinions related below § 41. c. and not to make that fallacious induction with which many satisfie themselves * They are not sufficient Guides in this or that point wherein they differ ergo they are in none at all or not in the many other wherein they accord and in this main point especially that universal obedience is due to Church-decrees and that it is lawful in no case to desert her external communion which settles all the rest * Or they clash in this and this point which truly for the most part are things of less moment see Church-gov 2 part § 55. c. tho by the then contenders much aggravated ergo they clash in all or in almost all when-as such arguments have force only against their infallibility or absolute unanimity in all things not against their accord in those things which are more necessary and for which we have occasion to search them So whereas we find the Millenary tenet and the place of faithful souls out of heaven till the day of Judgment and Infant-Communion anciently common tenets by latter times as is thought justly rejected to be urged as a proof of no safe adherence to all common opinions and practices of former Church because in some things errable we are to consider that these besides that they never were Church-decrees in any Council nor granted to be universal are not points of such consequence as to prejudice the ancient Church her authority judgment or guidance in all other necessary matters Hear what Dr. Ferne Preface to Consider touching Reform very judiciously saith of two of them after he had made much use of those instances Having spoken saith he the intent of this Treatise I must before I leave him intreat the Reader to remember one thing in the former the error of the Millenary belief and Infant-communion often instanced-in there and to take notice that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those instances to the prejudice of the whole Church as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church universally and in all the members of it may err and be infected with error in points of concernment or prejudicial to the faith For that of the Millenary as it was not universal so not of such moment and that of the In-fant-communion tho more universal and of longer continuance was but a tolerable mistake So that all errors of the whole Church by his concession are ever either not universal or not of concernment 5. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them as if he should always find in them an unanswerable reason or justification of such and such practices or tenets for this we promise not
but that such things they practised such things they held and then perhaps this may be a sufficient reason to him to admit them that so the Church of God hath always done or taught before him 6. That he would not repair to them as if he should find every thing now controverted there considered or stated but that for what he shall find there stated at least for the substance of the practice of it as most points of government and practice are tho not for the quatenus or in what respects it is performed that to it he would conform 7. That he would not entertain such a conceit †as if in this search he should find any Church of present being so perfectly to resemble Antiquity as in no point to differ from the general customs thereof for in some all differ none giving the Eucharist to Infants Nor †as if he should not find several Churches in some one thing or other more to resemble the primitive than a Church of a better constitution doth As the Reformed is said to resemble the Primitive times in celebrating the Communion in both kinds and the first or 2d century thereof in not using Images not invocating Saints c. The Roman in the obligation of and obedience to the decrees of the Church and her Councils in prayer for the Dead merit of works penances Church-ceremonies the Christian Sacrifice of the Altar Real presence Reservation for communicating absents domestick Communion in one kind frequent celebration of the Eucharist frequent hours of Prayer and set times of Fasting Confession recommendation of Evangelical counsels vows of Poverty and Celibacy single life of the Clergy But that he would conform to that Church rather which he finds to tread the footsteps of Antiquity in the most points as all do in some or in those of the most moment and consequence especially in those of government and practice which as they are not so easily changed as those of simple belief so do they more concern this search when-as the absolutely necessary points of faith are perhaps sufficiently acknowledged by all those of differing communions Thus much of the Cautions to be used in searching Antiquity Now to go on 3ly He will find one present external visible communion and body of Christians much more than all the rest tho perhaps none in all things agreeing with the doctrines and discipline of Antiquity especially if considered after the settlement of it under Christian Emperors Which things if they be found which discovery presupposeth first his search this I desire may presently be granted that any one hath little reason to bear himself up upon the arms of his own or others newer interpretations of the Sacred text and not-unhandsomly stated theses and subtlely-urged objections against so constant so strong a stream And here also note that if any side rip up the faults and errors of the Fathers and whilst they seem to appeal to them yet as much as they can weaken their authority if they defend their own differing from them much more by shewing that the other side differs from them in something but yet much less than they if the more candid of them at least confess a recession from the Fathers in many points for informing your self in this turn over Calvin's Institutions and see in how many places he ingenuously confesseth the opinion of Antiquity opposit to his decisions 2. lib. 2. c. 4 9. sect compared with 3. l. 11. c. 15. sect 2. l. 14. c. 3. sect 3. l. 3. c. 10. sect 3. l. 4. c. 38. sect 3. l. 5. c. 10. sect 3. l. 22. c. 1. sect 2. l. 3. c. 7. 10. sect where multis saeculis is as high as Chrysostom 4. lib. 4. c. 10. sect 9. cap. 8 9 10. 11 c weakning the authority of Councils 12. c. 8. sect 12. c. 19 20 24 27. sect 18. c. 11. sect 3. l. 3. c. 16. sect 4. l. 17. c. 39. sect 4. l. 13. c. 16 17. sect many of which places I have transcribed in Church-gov 4. part § 100. and if some others of the same side who yet maintain the same opinions with those other of them that appeal to the Fathers do refuse a tryal by the Fathers at all to say nothing that this relisheth of much pride and self-conceit and pride is an ill Reformer this shews that such a side tho not willing to confess it yet is convinced of loosing their cause in this trial by the practice of former Church and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this appeal and then the resolution set down before in § 22. is in all reason to take place Again if the contrary party seems on the other side to attribute too much to the Fathers in quoting them in their disputations and conferences as well as the Holy Scriptures and as it were superstitiously treading in their steps in the external forms of Government and in the most inconsiderable ceremonies adhering still to the same expressions which the Fathers used in those points which are now controverted as Merit Satisfaction Supererogation Sacrifice Altar c which the other more willingly change compiling their Body of Divinity out of the Fathers common doctrines as the first beginning of School-Divinity see Peter Lombard was only a design of putting the Fathers tenets in an orderly method This argues that these rather are the true Successors of the doctrines of the Primitive Church and that they are unjustly charged to recede from the Fathers in those points which are controverted and then according to the resolution above § 22. we are to adhere to them For what likelihood is there That he who thinks their testimony makes much for him and much against his adversary will all he can strive to weaken the authority of these Witnesses in shewing their errors in general their contradictions of one against another of the same against himself c. See Daille's Uray usage des Peres and that the other who is conscious that they are more against himself than his adversary should by all means establish their testimony even by holding them in all their joynt-verdicts infallible What probability that they should most declame against the certainty of Church-tradition whose doctrines it most confirmeth For we are to believe this or we for as much as I can apprehend nullify our Saviour's promise and his mission of other teachers and all appeals to the Church c * that there shall be a Church of God in all ages like it self in the former and * that as the Jews might Jo. 5. 39. and the Bereans did Act. 17. 11. find the Old Testament to confirm the doctrine of the Apostles of the New and the Gospel to establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. so the Church's practice shall establish the Gospel and the latter practice thereof the former to the end of the world * that Christ's sheep shall always know his voice and shall not follow
mystery of to attribute too great a virtue to give too great a reverence to the Holy Sacraments c. 3. You are to peruse their writings and books not of controversy but of devotion and instructions for the practice of holy living In which you shall find certainly what fruit their doctrines bear and what strength and virtue they contain in them and a great difference between them in their operations upon the affections a much fainter and more languishing heat from the one than from the other as indeed what fervent motives to piety could one raise from such foundations as have bin above-mentioned Some teaching as it were from Experience the other from Art some full of wit the others of zeal the one more enlarging the other straitning the way to heaven some laying light the other more heavy burdens but more full of hope and present consolations more punctual and particular in their directions as from those who have first tried the way wherein they direct others more high in their aim carrying men to these heights which the other imagin impossible to attain It remains that you observe which do inflame you to more sanctity and purity of life and to them adhere for there is the power there is the Spirit of Christ. And commonly the purer the Church the more with these writings doth she abound as others do with controversy and questions as error is ever unsettled laying foundations always learning but never coming to the perfect knowledge of the truth whilst one controversie still gendreth another after the busines is committed wholly to our reason 2 Tim. 2. 23 16. 3. 7 1 Tim. 1. 4. 4. Lastly after their books and precepts peruse their lives and practices by reading the stories of the pretended holy men of all sides and those the nearest to the present age wherein the relations are more certain of which stories those Churches that afford very few t is to be suspected that where little is said there is likewise little done that may be talked of In which compared you shall find a plain difference in their strictnes according to their doctrines and a transcendency in their virtues according to their principles some much more mortified and weaned from the world and accordingly more enlightened and honoured of God than the other in each of them their doctrines perfectly designed and copied out And here in perusing their lives as their rules and doctrines t is wisdom to adhere to those by whom you most profit And since we find in the Church which the Reformation forsook frequent relations concerning holy men therein as having frequent extasies and revelations doing many miracles foretelling things future exercising most rigid abstinences and penances every day confessing and communicating c and find not in the Churches reformed any one holy man at all of whom the like things are told by them in the histories of their lives methinks it follows either that all those writers of Saints lives in the Church reformed-from have bin most intolerable liars and this in all ages as well those before as those since the reformation began for in those ages we find the like stories or else that this Church is much more favoured of God than that of the reformed is But if those writers of lives have bin all such intolerable liars t is a wonder in so frequent a fault that no Protestants at all should fall into the same but all be so strict observers of truth that none of them should at any time for the advancing of the reputation of their religion make the same fictions But from their universal silence herein may it not rather be guessed that such things as are writ in these lives involving the testimony and knowledg of so many nominated persons living in the same time and place where such facts are alledged cannot be so easily forged and counterfeited as some would perswade Not that I affirm that there is any Church or Religion wherein you may not find some persons that are virtuous in their conversation and exemplary in their lives For many excellent men also have there bin amongst the Philosophers and in the heathenish religions walking only in the light of nature much more therefore may some such be found in any Christian Sect whatever who enjoy besides that of Nature the light of Scriptures But yet in that Church where the doctrines are purest and tend most to holines certainly will be found a much greater number of holy men and Saints than in any other and these also of a greater purity and perfection and consequently more honoured also with singular favors from heaven not unlike to those of primitive times To these three ways of Trials of Doctrines c me thinks upon the weighing of our Saviour's promise That the Gospel and the doctrine of his Kingdom should be published to all Nations may be added a fourth not unconsiderable And this is diligently to observe in the many divisions of faith and diversity of opinions that are in Christianity what profession of faith doubtles sometimes attested by miracles if histories deceive us not that was or is to which usually the heathen nations have bin and are now converted and of what perswasions and communion those men are whom God hath made his instruments of their christianity For we cannot rationally think tho it may so happen to some few particulars as the Goths are said to have bin at first converted by Arrian Bishops under an Arrian Emperor yet so that God's mercy soon promoted them into the faith of the Church Catholick we cannot rationally think I say that for the general the good God having promised to the nations bread would give them a stone having promised them the revelation of his truth would plant amongst them instead thereof a manifold idolatry as worshipping of dead men and of bread as God c as some would perswade us and would not give them the waters of life to drink of unless these poisoned with such errors as from which the external communion of all true believers ought to separate And if considering the promises of God Rom. 11. c. at the time of the conversion hereafter of the Jews to Christianity no wise man would doubt to conform to their external communion why should we not also chuse rather as more safe to be of the external communion and faith in which the Nations generally both who have bin and are converted to the faith have bin and are initiated and that upon the same promise Matt. 24. 14. Mar. 13. 10. as the Jews hereafter shall be Now to these I will add only one thing more That the most part of the Northern world have received at least the publick plantation and profession of the Christian faith in or since the times of Gregory the Great as the Ecclesiastical histories plainly shew In whose time we know what were the publick doctrines in most of the modern controversies and by whom
or also Heretical So S. Austin de vera Relig. 5. c. acknowledgeth the Arrians and Photinians Hereticks to have had all the same Sacraments with the true Ch. Qui i. e. Photiniani Arriani c paria Sacramenta celebrantes tamen quia sententia dispares sunt exclusi a Catholica communione c. And of the Donatists schismaticks he saith Ep. 48. near the end Nobiscum estis in baptismo in symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis c. And the Roman Church which esteemeth the Greek schismatical denieth not them to have the true Sacraments And if some of them deny it of the Protestants t is only from the Protestants not using some forms which they count essential to the Sacraments especially the form in the ordaining Priests not from their being a schismatical Church See 6 7 8 § Therefore of that place of Fulgentius de remiss peccat 22. c. quoted in Mr. Cress. Motiv 46. c. 4. sect Out of this Church neither doth the title of Christian secure any man neither doth Baptism confer salvation neither doth any man offer a sacrifice agreeable to God neither doth any man receive remission of sins nor attain life eternal c the meaning of it is only That the Sacraments tho true do not profit to salvation a Schismatick as they neither do a drunkard or adulterer c because as the drunkard notwithstanding these is damned for his drunkennes so is the Schismatick for his faction and uncharitablenes and pride in not submitting his judgment to the Church And many the like sayings concerning the inutility of the Sacraments to Schismaticks before Fulgentius hath St. Austin in his writings against the Donatists who urged from the true use of the Sacraments and the belief of the Creed c the security of their salvation See de Baptismo 1. l. 3. c. Esse baptismum apud Donatistas nos concedimus sed apud Donatistas Baptismum non recte accipi c Qui ab aliqua haeresi veniunt ad Communionem Catholicam incipit illis prodesse quod inutiliter habebant Certus est in ea sola i. e. Catholica Ecclesia illi prodesse baptismum Christi etiamsi alibi acceptum fuerit c. But then the reason given by him of these Sacraments not profiting c is the want of charity in those who in such Church use or receive them as we may plainly see by his fuller arguing the busines in other places Epist. 48. near the end Nobiscum estis in baptismo in symbolo in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis in spiritu unitatis vinculo pacis in ipsa denique catholica Ecclesia nobiscum non estis Haec si accipiatis i. e. vinculum pacis c non tunc aderunt sed tunc proderunt quae habetis Here the want of spiritus unitatis vinculum pacis renders the true Sacraments received as to their salvation uneffectual And de unitate Ecclesiae 19. c. Accipiat vinculum pacis quod non habebat sine quo illi prodesse non poterat baptisma quod habebat Utrumque enim necessarium est ad regnum Dei adipiscendum baptismus justitia Baptismus autem in eo qui justitiam non habet potest esse sed non potest prodesse Justitia autem haereticis deest quam sine charitate ac vinculo pacis habere nullus potest and for this also he quotes 1 Cor. 13. 1. But then take one in a schismatical Church that is void of that fault which the Father alledgeth here to render the Sacraments uneffectual to them and to expell them from salvation as you must grant to me some are when I name a child to you that is not yet come to the full use of his reason and such a one baptized and then dying is certainly saved And then I ask Why not some other who tho living longer yet thro an invincible ignorance may be as free from division and faction and breach of charity in this kind as when he was an infant or as any others are who are educated in the bosom of the true Church For which purpose see S. Austin de Baptism contra Donatistas 1. l. 10. c. Ecclesia Catholica quicquid suum habet etiam in communionibus diversorum ab unitate separatis per hoc quod suum in iis habet i. e. per baptismum of which he is there speaking ipsa utique generat i. e. filios Christo non illae Per hoc quod suum in iis habet therefore the Church hath aliquid suum in other heretical and schismatical Churches Generat filios therefore some also in Schismatical Churches thus may be said to have the Church for their Mother Else if Baptism when administred by such were utterly effectless in it self how could it profit them to salvation without any second administration thereof who afterward return into the bosom of the true Church 2. Be it granted That there is no salvation to any that are out of the communion i. e. internal of the Church For certainly none are saved that are not the members of Christ the Head and then t is impossible that any should be one of the members of Christ and not have those of the church for his fellow-members unless Christ have two distinct bodies Of this S. Austin against the Donatists De unitate Ecclesiae 2. c. speaks very fully Quaestio certe inter nos versatur ubi sit Ecclesia utrum apud nos an apud illos Quae utique una est quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt Haec autem Ecclesia corpus Christi est Unde utique manifestum est eum qui non est in membris Christi Christianam salutem habere non posse Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur per eandem capiti suo cohaerent quod est Jesus Christus He continues afterward cap. 4. Quicunque de ipso Capite Scripturis sanctis consentiunt i. e. are never so orthodox in their belief unitati Ecclesiae non communicant non sunt in Ecclesia quia de Christi corpore quod est Ecclesia dissentiunt ab ipsius Christi testificatione i. e. that she is toto orbe diffusa and shall never perish c apertissimis ac notissimis Scripturarum testimoniis contradicunt Again Quicunque credunt quod Christus Jesus in carne vener it c sed tamen ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Catholica In aliqua parte separata for the reason given by him above because they want charity Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur capiti suo and because notissimis Scripturis contradicunt 3. But all this being granted yet 3ly if any happen to be extra Ecclesiam out of the Church's external
Church that it may have a just cause of departing from her and of error also so intolerable that none at all ought longer to live in her society As if any should say of her what the more moderate Protestants say of the Roman Ch. That by reason of her superstitions or her material idolatry or her Antichristian principles none may safely communicate with her That in the division made not they but she is the schismatical Church That she retaining the expression unchanged yet hath in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils quite changed and lost the sence and meaning of some of the Articles of them That there is great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresy and so of damnation by living and dying in her faith and perswasion tainted with many superstitions That her errors are reductively fundamental if any pertinaciously adhere to them See Archbishop Lawd's Conference 35. § punct 5 6. and 37. § 1. numb 5. numb Such things I say are a very high breach of charity and that to a person of nearest relation to us our Spiritual Mother tho perchance many Schismaticks are so far charitable to her as not to say that her errors exclude her from all salvation or that she is no Church at all but this spark of charity left in some toward her little excuseth their many other wrongs Non video saith Cassander Consult 7. Art. 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 Thus he Neither doth it excuse them if any do all this against the Church out of ignorance and not-contrary to their knowledge as being perswaded the Church may apostatize from Christ because as S. Austin saith see before 3. § notissimis ac apertissimis Scripturarum testimoniis contradicunt c and such ignorance must needs be highly faulty and proceed from a judgment blinded with pride ambition or some other self-interest And this desperate condition of the authors or fautors of Schism I think all sides acknowledge See what Dr. Hammond saith of Schism 1. c. There is no one vice which hath fallen under so much of the displeasure and correption and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the ancient Church as this of Schism and the ingredients and preparatives to it have done Where also see the aggravations thereof in many pages 2. The second sort are those in all after-ages who follow such leaders and continue the same division after they know how at first it was made upon the same motives as the other began it and blinded with the same passions and culpable ignorance And these being in the same guilt are in the same condition for salvation as the former Only the first of the two caeteris paribus the far greater sinners because the first seducers if the followers no way outvy them in further prosecuting the principles received from them and accumulating their uncharitablenes and contumelies against the Church and resisting greater light given them and plainer discoveries made unto them But note that by reason of these as many times the Scholars transcend their Masters the followers may easily become twice as much the children of hell as their first leaders were See Matt. 23. 15. And of these two only I suppose are meant all those quotations of the Fathers the reasons there mentioned being ambition interest c and upon these breach of charity and of the unity of the Church 3. The third sort are those who follow such leaders being not schismatici so much as schismaticis credentes in simplicity of heart and out of not a faulty but considering their condition or age c an invincible ignorance perhaps such a one not knowing of any other Christian church save his own as some travellers have noted that the Maronites or Armenians in Persia ignorant of any division of theirs from the Roman Church heartily joyned in Divine Service with the Romish Covents there or if knowing of another Ch. not knowing whether it departed from his Church or his from it or what its different doctrines or customs and practices are c. And here to perswade you that such ignorance may be consider now an ordinary-Laic-Christian-Greek what breach of charity or Ecclesiastical unity such a one following his Ancestors and Ecclesiastical governors who have continued even ever since the Apostles times a visible succession can be made guilty of whilst this his Church is mean-while condemned for Schismatical and if we find him hereof no way guilty what warrant have we to deny to him baptized and holding all fundamentals salvation T is true indeed in some heresy i. e. such as denies some fundamental point without the belief of which none are saved that the haereticis credentes are in somewhat the same case with the haeretici and these blind tho led by others likewise for want of faith necessary to salvation and for crimes committed against the light of nature not extinguished in them fall into the ditch But in Schism it is not so because it is not necessary that the follower in the same practices should be guilty of the same breach of charity or contumacy as the leader nor of such irregular passions which are the causes alledged why Schismaticks cannot be saved And for other things Schismaticks have or may have all the Sacraments rightly administred see 2. § even the Eucharist as well as Baptism as is the common tenet of the Schools Sacerdotes etiam haeretici schismatici excommunicati revera conficiunt seu consecrant hoc Sacramentum dummodo neque ex parte verborum quibus ad consecrandum utuntur i. e. if they use the words of Institution neque ex parte intentionis ullum sit impedimentum Estius 4. sect 13. d. 3. sect may have all necessary points of faith rightly taught and believed as all confess and therefore how can such a man yeilding obedience accordingly following only the good directions of his Schismatical Superiors but not knowing them to be such miss or come short of salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. or at 21. In the Scriptures quoted by Mr. C. which are Matt. 18. 7. Rom. 16. 17. Phil. 2. 1. Jo. 14. 27. 13. 35. those only are by texts of the Apostle condemned who make or by whom come Schisms and Scandals to which I may add Tit. 3. 11. where S. Paul pleads autocatacrisy and in the rest love and unity is recommended but such a man as we here speak of is free from the first and possessed of the second And if as the position so the reasons which the Fathers give for it had bin set down by Mr. C. you would have seen I am confident such a man cleared from any such censure How doth
plus perturbat infirmos bonos quam corrigit animosos malos 3ly When such Separation may offend against some duty to which we are obliged either by the Divine or Civil laws As the children may not abandon their parents or the wife her husband on such pretence neither is it required where necessary commerce or natural or religious relations will not permit it This is clear from the Apostle's permission of the Christians commerce with the heathen and idolaters 1 Cor. 5. 10. yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world with idolaters c. for then must ye needs go out of the world So likewise when we cannot communicate in the publick or also private worship of God in the Sacraments c with the orthodox and godly with whom we ought without such a mixture of the impious and profane as is not in our power to prevent here no necessity of Separation from those impious and profane lies upon us for so must we needs go out of the Church or relinquish those from whom we receive much benefit The same it is for relinquishing near relations for so we must abandon our habitations But note always that at such times when such necessities theirs or ours do not force or exact from us such converse t is a far better practice if not a necessary duty to separate even for diet cohabitation discours c from the Schismatical in opinions or notoriously wicked in manners tho by their great numbers we are confined to much solitude Now to come closer to our matter in hand tho in some pretences which may be made here as of our selves being sufficiently grounded in truth and out of danger of seducement or infection and of our good purpose in our association with the Schismatical only for converting some of them for which our Saviour allows converse with publicans some of the reasons for separation contained in these Scriptures seem to be removed as that of avoiding infection and partaking of their sin tho give me leave to interpose here that in such conversation t is very hard to be so innocent that some compliances must not be made by one who would by no means be discovered what he is both in discours and actions some way prejudicial to the truth neither can there scarce be any Schismatical Church wherein some of their public practices prayers discipline will not be contrary to the conscience of one that is orthodox Tho thus I say some of the reasons for Separation be removed yet are there some other of those reasons remaining still of force As that we may not seem to countenance them in evil and that by our deserting them some of them at least may be ashamed when especially if it be in such a conjuncture of time wherein the foundations of a Schism are shaken our open profession of truth may startle those whom our discours cannot work on and our example in going before them perhaps be more effectual than our reasons in only directing them the way But in our continuing still in their Society tho our private instructions and reproofs may manifest to some that we countenance them not yet to most these cannot do so nor to any perhaps so much as we ought For whilst we pretend our fellowship with them to be only to reprove them how can we do this so fully and so far as duty obligeth when we are to reprove them chiefly in that also wherein we continue fellowship with them namely in their separated communion from the Church In which separation yet we bid or seem to bid them God speed so long as we also abide with them in it But besides these reasons of Separation the preserving our selves from infection from their judgments the discouraging of the offenders c touched in some of these texts yet some other of those Scriptures as 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. 1 Cor. 5. 5 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14 17. seem to lay yet a more special injunction upon us especially not to communicate with them in their Sacraments and publick Divine worship and this upon some other yet higher reasons namely the duty of the publick owning and professing our religion and the keeping it pure and unmixed with any unbelieving schismatical or heretical assemblies For the Sacrament being instituted as for a sacred instrument of our communion with the Deity so also for a publick testimony and mark of a strict league and amity between all those who together partake it neither will the honor we owe to God the Father who dwelleth in us and adopts us for his children 2 Cor. 6. 16 18. nor to God the Son whose members we are 1 Cor. 6. 15 16. nor to the Holy Spirit whose Temples we are 1 Cor. 3. 16 17. suffer us by such a sacred and solemn ty to link and unite our selves to any congregations that are estranged from him or disclaimed by him This is making fellowship between righteousnes and unrighteousnes mingling light and darknes 2 Cor. 6. 14. joyning the members of Christ to a Spiritual harlot by which they two become one body 1 Cor. 6. 15 16. For the Sacrament hath this vertue that those become one body amongst themselves that partake it See 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. and by touching the unclean we also become unclean Lev. 5. 2 3. and all those separations under the law of the corporally unclean from the congregation of the Lord because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord and holy as he is holy see Lev. 11. 43 44. were only types of the Separation which ought to be from notorious sinners which we here speak of to which the Apostle makes application of them 2 Cor. 6. 17. Be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing saith the Lord taken out of Esai 52. 11. And hence also taketh he strict order for the sudden separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church especially from communicating the Sacraments thereof as of Leaven from a lump unleavened that the Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange see 1 Cor. 5. 2 5 7 13 ejection or casting them out where the Church hath the power or her going out from them 2 Cor. 6. 17. where they have the power but still a separation there must be Else in consorting with them we provoke the Lord to jealousie 1 Cor. 10. 22. as if we are not true and loyal to him and entirely his Now tho some of the texts urged by us speak only concerning non-communicating with idolaters who worship not the same God with us nor use the same Sacraments which I grant is a much greater crime in any Yet 1. first they may be enlarged upon the same grounds namely the publick signification of the Sacraments that the partakers thereof are co-united in the same faith and charity to those congregations who worship the same God but not in that way he requires and who are any way opposite by a division of themselves
thereof especially for what concerns the publick and solemn worship of God. Consider the Article of our Creed of which Creed we pretend a constant and publick confession that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolical i. e. one external visible communion upon earth that always is and shall be such but how is this sufficiently attested and professed by any who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it Such denying of the body of Christ before men seems to be next to the crime of denying before men the Head himself But chiefly there where this Church the Spouse of Christ happens to be under any disgrace or persecution our taking up the cross with her may be much more acceptable to God than the conversion of souls and the doxology of confessing him and her beyond our other best service See particularly that command of the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. Now if it be said that some of these texts fore-named are not to be understood as strict precepts always for avoiding sin but counsels only for attaining perfection yet thus also every generous Christian will think them prescribed for his practice Again consider that as both many Divine and Ecclesiastical commands from which I see no just authority any one hath to exempt himself at pleasure cannot be observed in our adherences to another communion so neither can they in our absence from the true Church For how then do we observe the publick intercessions commanded 1 Tim. 2. 1. publick teaching and exhortations c recommended by the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 14. 23 24. Col. 3. 16. frequenting of the Sacraments 1 Cor. 11. 17 24. Confession and Absolution as need requires For the necessity of which Christ hath substituted some officers to be made use of from time to time for heinous sins committed after Baptism in his stead Jo. 20. 21 23. as likewise to guide and govern in all Spiritual matters those who pretend to be his sheep to withdraw our selves from whom is to withdraw our selves from Christ in a subordination to whom all must live Eph. 4. 5 11 12. Heb. 13. 17. and God tolerates no Anarchical persons in religion Add to this the benefits of the publick prayers and intercessions and oblations of the Church which such a one acknowledging himself a member thereof seems to his great loss to be deprived of As for that internal communion with the Church which some excluded from the external may nevertheless enjoy or the security in the actual want of participation of the Sacraments that such may have they seem no way appliable to such a person as this who is not by force hindred of her communion but invited to it voluntarily depriveth himself tho the reasons he hath in the doing thereof seem to himself never so plausible To partake the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing where de facto we may have them and de facto refuse them and where in case of necessity votum signifies something yet t is probable that to such a one necessitated the actual reception of them would have bin more beneficial could he have obtained it There seems to be no small danger in a silly sheep's staying out of the fold when invited and offered to be taken in and that without leave of the shepheard tho upon a to-himself seeming good design But yet supposing such leave indulged to any I see not at last what advantage can be made thereof but that all the scandals all the jealousies all the secular inconveniences or also disappointments of Spiritual designs that can happen to one actually reconciled to the orthodox communion will happen to one after absenting himself wholly from a false From which sequestring himself the ordinary jealousie that useth to be in religion will conclude that he who is not with them especially where many secular advantages accompany it is against them And whereas our conjunction with the true Church may be done with much privacy this desertion of theirs is the thing most liable to discovery Lastly since he that now is of no external communion at all was before a member of an unlawful one and perhaps there not only seduced but also a seducer of others or at least culpable of many misbehaviors toward the Church so much the more cause he hath with what speed he can to fly into the bosom thereof both because so he may procure his own safety and pardon and by an open subscription to truth and unity make an amends for his former error and division if he have bin any way consenting thereto and also because the truth c will receive a greater testimony and honour from one that publickly converts to it after educated first in error than from many that from the benefit of their first institution and breeding continue in it to some of whom a right opinion may be rather their good fortune than their choice The summe of all is The case of one's stay after such full conviction in the external communion where he is or of his staying out of the other who stretcheth forth her arms to receive him tho upon never so pious pretences is doubtful his reconciliation safe therefore this rather to be chosen and as for the good he hoped to produce God is able and either will otherwise by lawful means effect it or is not willing it should be effected and mean-while will rather accept of our obedience than of much sacrifice Note that in this discours I speak of a Church certainly Schismatical and of men after all convenient means of information diligently used fully convinced thereof and amongst these chiefly of such as in purposing some good ends to themselves intend to continue always or for any long space of time either in their former communion or out of the orthodox not of such as convicted are removing all impediments as fast as they can to unite themselves to the Church But 1. first concerning Churches schismatical I apprehend not Schism to be of such a latitude as that there cannot be any difference especially between Churches wherein are divers Apostolical Successions suppose the Eastern and Western the Grecian and Asian and the Roman Church before a General Council hath decided it without such a crime of Schism and violated unity of the Church on one side that all good men therein are presently obliged to render themselves of the opposit communion And 2ly concerning conviction I think men ought to take heed of being any way hasty which may proceed from a natural ficklenes of mind and over-valuation of things not tried to desert that Church wherein God's providence hath given them their education and which hath taught them the word of God and first made them Christian and which as t is said in the Law concerning possession Quia prior est tempore potior est jure i. e. caeteris paribus to desert the Church I say without much conference with the learned much weighing of reasons much study of Theological
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
matters deserving her anathema's as well as the dissenters from her faith in greater whilst she determins some matters for settling peace as well as others for necessary faith See Notes of Infallibil § 29. I think none will deny this lawful enough and what communion is there which doth not require it 8ly But if she requires to them also a Subscription not only of non-contradiction but of assent and of submission of our private reason or judgment to hers yet I see not considering that she in such a collective body is much wiser and more seen both in the holy Scriptures and writings of the Ancients than we and the duty we owe to her as being our appointed Guide in such things our Guide I dare say as much as those under the Law were Deut. 17. 8. c. to the 14th I see not I say but that in things where we are not infallibly certain but only have some private reasons or opinion that is short of assurance that such things are untrue or unlawful we may thus subscribe her decrees or practise her commands See what Dr. Hammond saith Schism 2. c. 10. § 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 Church's communion and when the fundamentals of the faith and superstructures of Christian practice I suppose he means such as are immediately built upon the fundamentals are not concerned in the concessions one would think in these points especially that a person to be safe should rather trust to the Church's judgment than his own he will chearfully express his readines to submit or deposit his own judgment in reference and deference to his Superirors in the Church where his lot is fallen Methinks he might better have said where his obedience is due for the Church where his lot is fallen may by heresy or schism stand divided from the Church Catholick See this point discoursed at large in Obligation of our judgment or conscience § 2. and in Infallibility § 35. Now a subscribing professing or acting in this manner I conceive will never be construed a going against our conscience or judgment considered in general tho it should be against some private reasons of ours because this preferring of hers before our own judgment is also an act of our judgment For there being such a weighty authority on the one side and such reasons of my own but short of certainty on the other my judgment here sits upon and examins both and at length gives sentence that here it is more safe for me to submit to the first than to rely on the second Here therefore I shall only go against my conscience if I go against this my judgment in adhering to the 2d and forsaking the first But indeed if the Church should require me to subscribe not that I believe her authority more than my private reasons but that I have no private reasons nor scruples in my mind for the contrary of her tenet when indeed I have so the subscribing thus would be going against my conscience and must at no hand be done But I am confident no Church will exact such a confession nor would ever reject I say not from bearing any office in her wherein perhaps she may be more strict but from her communion such a submission as this Wherein one first acknowledgeth her infallibility or actual unfailance in all doctrines necessary to salvation and 2ly promiseth in no other point publickly to gainsay her Conciliary doctrines and 3ly in these points to endeavour as far as is in his power to submit his private reason and judgment to hers tho perhaps the repugnances of some verisimilities of the contrary may hinder his yeilding so plenary an act of belief to the truth of some of them as some others do Or again if any one is perswaded in his judgment or conscience that when the judgment of the Church is contrary to this his private reason or judgment so often he ought to adhere to his own not to hers such an outward submitting or subscribing to her judgment when this is against his own private reason in that matter would be going against his conscience and he ought at no hand to do it But yet in the not doing it he may be guilty of great crimes heresy schism c. But 9ly such subscription of a firm belief of all her doctrines or of exact conformity to all her publick rites I think is by no Church required from all that either are born in or are afterward converted to her communion but only from those whom she prefers to be the Spiritual guides of others and admits into Ecclesiastical revenues For those of the Roman communion of the strictnes of whose profession of faith I find our men much complain the Council of Trent requires a profession of their faith to be made or her decrees of which Pius 4tus hath compacted a form particularly expressing the chief of them to be subscribed or sworn to only by Bishops and by others who undertake curam animarum See 24. Sess. 1. c. and 12. c. de Reformat Neither doth Pius the 4ths Bull so much accused require it of more unless it be of Regulars In which Bull observe that the Oath or Subscription of such persons having curam animarum c is required not only to some Articles or Canons of the Council namely to those expressed in the Bull for the naming of which being about some twelve Heads the Council of Trent is said to have added twelve new Articles to the Apostles Creed to be believed under peril of losing salvation but to all the rest of the decrees of that Council whatever as well as those and likewise to all things tradita definita declarata by any other Council which by the Roman Church is reckoned Oecumenical as well as those delivered by that of Trent See the words Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus that is yet something more too Oecumenicis Conciliis ac praecipuera sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita definita ac declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor c. After which it follows Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest sponte profiteor veraciter teneo From which words if we will say the Roman Church hath added new Articles of Faith to the Apostles Creed to be explicitly professed and believed under pain of damnation we must argue not only those 12. points to be added by her but also all the rest not only whatever the Tridentine but any other of those she calls General Councils hath delivered or declared But indeed from this large reception of and subscription to not only some but all points determined by such Councils we may gather 1. That it is only a subscription and profession in such a manner to and of them as the Councils have proposed to be received and
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