in which we may easily be deceived Ergo That it is true This for the Spirit In the next place to come to consider Whether all to have true and saving faith must be rationally assured thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition And here we will grant as t is said before 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary and that it is a medium for necessary points of faith free from error 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance and that any or most by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points from the traditionary doctrine and practice which they may see and hear dispersed thro the Church for doubtles our careful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full perswasion of faith in all sorts of men there where his Gospel is preached and this means all men for the ascertaining of their faith as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life according to their condition c. 3. That the Church-decrees may be certainly known and are easily understood and more easily in many things than the Scriptures namely where these happen to be doubtful to us and doubtful they are or should be where ever church-Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we and hence that this point being supposed that the Church is infallible those who believing her to be so do rely upon her judgment have for the most part a stronger perswasion and those knowing her to be so have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures because the former persons faith rests on a double ground the saying of Scripture and the sense of the Church interpreting it And thus one adhering to the tradition and doctrines of the Church hath more warrant for his Faith than a single Scripturist 4. That those who hold Church-tradition fallible can have no other way an infallible evidence whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith But all these granted yet such a degree and measure of certainty or assurance as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it and render it no true divine and acceptable faith but an humane opinion and perswasion as some contend But saving faith may be begotten where the proponent of the word of God or of divine revelation mediate or immediate is not or at least is not known to be which is all one with the former to the believer's certainty infallible and it sufficeth to it that what one believes is the word of God and that he believe it in some degree or other predominant to unbelief to be so And this I think may be shewn in many instances and by many reasons 1. For first some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles questionles endued with true faith yet believed before any certainty of the infallibity of their teachers or before or without seeing their miracles tho these also seen afforded to some no certainty who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1. meerly by the powerful operation of God's Spirit So the Eunuch to be a true believer needed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip So Cornelius and his friends some words of St. Peter The Jaylor and Lydia of S. Paul strangers and formerly altogether unknown to them the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts and finishing the work For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day supposing he at that time wraught miracles yet t is not probable that all these were spectators of them or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth but believed only the relations of others persons fallible who stood near him The Bereans why examined they the Apostles doctrines if they knew or esteemed him infallible The Believers at Antioch zealous of the law why contested they with St. Paul and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible Or the weaker brethren tho of the number of true Believers why doubted they long time of some meats unclean contrary to the Apostle's instruction T is true that whoever believes that which another relates must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived but yet he who in any other one thing doth not believe him doth not believe him to be infallible And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibility of the Hierosolymitan Council yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council but private Doctors whom I have shewed that some of them accounted not infallible nor yet was their faith nullified thereby 2. Believers no way heretical or schismatical but submitting unto the Church in all things and believing her and her traditions to be infallible c and consequently whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure yet if things be well examined all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means or motive or proponent of their faith I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures nor the Tradition of former times nor universal present Tradition nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church neither for other points nor yet for this That the Church or the Tradition they rely upon is infallible But being young as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians when children or illiterate necessitated to handy-labour quiescent in one place or perhaps inhabiting deserts and solitudes c do receive the doctrine of their faith believing and yeilding obedience thereto only from their Parents or the Curate of the place or from their bare reading or hearing read some portion of Scripture recommended to them for but not proved at all to them to be the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth and obeying it but having no more external argument or assurance thereof than another suppose educated in an erroneous Church and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical hath of his error Now private teachers even within the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant or rationally uncertain of what they teach and a Catholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion than the Protestant both inheriting their tenents from their next Ancestors For Error once begun is propagated afterward by Tradition as well as Truth Or 2ly being rationally certain of the truth yet may he wilfully for filthy lucre for fear for lasciviousnes c see 1 Thes. 2. 3 5 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14. misguide his disciples Or 3. lastly teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows yet is this his certainty tho something to the truth of the others faith nothing to their
diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus sirmaretur Again 2. l. 4. c. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid he speaks of the same point auderemus asserere which argues some inevidence in the matter nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati cui ipse Cyprianus sine dubio crederet si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur Yet were the after-opposers anathematized as heretical Again cont Ep. Parmeniani 2. l. 13. c. Haec quidem alia quaestio est Utrum Baptismus ab iis qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani potest dari nec aliquid temere inde affirmandum est sine authoritate tanti Concilii quantum tantae rei sufficit De iis vero qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt nulla jam quaestio est quin habeant verum Baptisma dare possint Hoc enim in ipsa totius orbis unitate i. e. in the Council of Nice discussum consideratum perfectum atque firmatum est So contr Crescon Gram. 1. l. 33. c. Quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas ut quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli motuit obscuritate hujus quaestionis eandem Ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat Obscuritate quaestionis for tho elsewhere de Baptismo cont Don. 5. l. 23. c. he supposeth it an Apostolical Tradition on one side Apostoli quidem nihil exinde praeceperunt sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sicut sunt multa quae tenet universa Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur and tho this custom was by the Bishop of Rome and his party much pressed against Cyprian and his adherents and Agrippinus St. Cyprian's Predecessor is said to be the first that introduced a contrary practice see Aust. de Bapt. 3. l. 12. c. non novam se rem statuisse Beatus Cyprianus ostendit quia sub Agrippino jam coeperat fieri yet it appears that St. Austin did not think all common customs and traditions tho pretended Apostolical before they were approved and warranted by the judgment of the Church in her Councils to be so simply obligatory as that they may not be disputed if seeming opposite to another surer Apostolical Tradition i. e. the Scriptures as St. Cyprian thought this custom was and so answered Steven see Cypr. Ep. ad Pomp. contra Steph. and in this answer is defended by St. Austin see de Bapt. 2. l. 8. c. quia tunc non extiterant c. Noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas etsi non veras quod eum latebat sed tamen non victas veraci quidem sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere Assertae i. e. by * any Council or cleared not to be * against the Scriptures urged but mistakenly by Cyprian And St. Austin also himself saith the same thing with Cyprian de Bapt. 3. l. 6. c. Quis dubitat veritati manifestatae debere consuetudinem cedere This I have set you down the more fully that you might see the power and authority of General Councils not only in declaring points traditional but in deciding questions some way obscure and doubtful and what submission was due to such points once determined in St. Austin's opinion who yet held former by latter Councils might be amended and consequently their in some things liability to error or doubting And so such points are to be believed in consequence only to another point of necessary faith namely That private men ought in all things at least not demonstrative on the contrary to submit their own to the Church'es judgment as many things written in God's word are necessary to be assented to when known to be there written which are not written there because they are necessarily to be known or believed in consequence to that necessary point of faith that whatever is written in God's word is true And hence also are there two sorts of Hereticks some are such before any Council condemning their Tenent if it happen to be against points de fide clear necessary and universally or eminently traditional so were there presently after the Apostles times many Hereticks before any Council assembling or condemning their opinions others only such after their error condemned by a Council if the points be of less evidence c. These latter rendred Hereticks not from the nature of their Tenent but their obstinacy and opposition to the obligation which the Church'es Authority lays upon them in her determinations Whose publick proposal of such doctrines as divine truths is sufficient for their belief and further embracing the same as such and therefore their further opposition of it is not error but heresy unles they can infallibly demonstrate the contrary In which case if ever any such can happen they are free from wilful opposition or heresie i. e. I mean in their denying their assent to the Church but in public contradicting even those infallibly certain c. may be still faulty else they stand guilty thereof and also of Schism if for such a decision they go on to forsake the Church'es communion So St. Cyprian's followers after a General Council were counted Hereticks tho the matter of this Heresy as also of many others so called from opposition to General Councils seem not to be in themselves of very great importance not so He before it In which opinion namely that the Baptism of Hereticks was ineffectual saith Dr. Potter sect 4. many good Catholick Bishops accorded with him and the Donatists as likewise with the Novatians in another viz. that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners before the Nicene Council So tho since the Decision of the Florentine Council 1439 those who hold animas justorum non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem are by the Church of Rome counted Hereticks from opposition c yet those who before that time maintained it amongst whom was Pope John the 22d they acknowledge were free from it See Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 4. l. 14. c. Respondeo Johannem hunc revera sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem caeterum hoc sensisse quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo haeresis nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesioe definitio In such sence Scotus saith Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council Thus you see tho all divine Revelation and necessary deduction from it is de fide and the object and matter of faith
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
OF FAITH Necessary to SALVATION And of the NECESSARY GROUND OF Faith Salvifical Whether this alway in every Man must be INFALLIBILITY OXFORD Printed in the Year M DC LXXXVIII FIVE SHORT TREATISES I. Concerning Faith Necessary to Salvation II. Of Infallibility III. Concerning the Obligation of not Professing or Acting against our Judgment or Conscience IV. Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors and Trial of Doctrines V. Concerning Salvation possible to be had in a Schismatical Communion Estius in Sent. 3. d. 23. §. 13. Utrum in haereticis vera sit Fides Articulorum in quibus non errant Quaestio est in utramque partem probabiliter a Doctoribus disputata Ibid. Fidei impertinens est per quod medium primae veritati credatur id est quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum Fidei Ibid. Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Courteous Reader THese Treatises by divers passages may seem to have been written before the Author was fully united to the Catholick Church So that some things in them are not so cautiously and clearly explained as had himself liv'd to publish them they would have been But we thought it our duty rather to represent them as he left them than to make any breach in the Discourse it self or to pull any threads out of so close and well wrought a contexture CORRIGENDA Page 8. Marg. such points very few p. 9. l. penult necessary besides the assent p. 32. l. 18. and is in some l. 38. some degree of incredulity Of Infallibility Pag. 15. l. 12. tho this can never p. 20. l. 1. pertaining to Faith methinks sufficient ibid. l. 9. in Doctrinals pertaining to Faith certain of truth p. 28. l. 17. But I say he shall never be so Of Submission of Judgment Pag. 30. l. 7. that it was generally practised Trial of Doctrine Pag. 21. l. 18. by most of differing p. 28. l. 5. He may be free l. 7. from the sin of Schisin and invincibly ignorant of the errors which are profess'd in his Communion he may attain in such a Church life everlasting because in desire he is hoped to be of the true Church l. 22. sufficient thro Godâ—s infinite goodness l. 23. crimes and invincibly errs in not-fundamentals errors unknown to them l. 30. we may hope Danger of Schism Pag. 3. l. 13. and if she deny it l. 14. which are accounted THE CONTENTS PART I. 1. COncerning Faith necessary for Salvation § 1. 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith. 2. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of Faith. § 2. 1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe whatever is known by us to be Gods word Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be Gods word which knowledg obliges us afterward to belief § 3. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal § 6. 2. That it is not necessary to our salvation that all that is Gods word be known by us to be so or in general be known by us to be a truth § 10. Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all Such points very few Not easily defined § 13. In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large 2. That it is highly advantageous to salvation that several other points of Gods word besides these be known § 14. 3. And our duty each one according to his calling to seek the knowledg of them In respect of which the Apostles Creed is too narrow § 15. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons c. And § 17. That the Decrees of Councils not obligatory at least to some against a pure nescience but only opposition thereof and not any opposition but only when known to be their Decrees PART II. II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical whether it must be in every Believer an Infallibility that the matter of such Faith is a Divine truth or Gods word § 20. Concessions § 21. I. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only Gods word II. Concerning the Act of Faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition § 22. That the Authority of Scriptures and Church is learnt from Universal Tradition § 23. Concessions concerning Tradition § 25. 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether infallible or no to ground a firm Faith upon 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho such Tradition be not absolutely Universal § 28. 3. That no one Age of the Church is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition § 29. 4. That the testimony of the present Age is sufficient to inform us therein § 30. 5. That Tradition of the Church is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures § 31. 6. That the Church is a sufficiently-certain Guide to us in Doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary § 32. Digr 1. That all Traditions carry not equal certainty § 33. Digr 2. The difference between the Church's and Mahometan and Heathen Traditions III. Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit § 35. Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward means 2. That all Faith wrought by the Spirit is infallible § 36. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science § 37. IV. That from these Concessions it follows not that all who savingly believe have or must have an infallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe § 38. Neither from the evidence of Scriptures § 39. Nor of the Spirit § 40. Nor of church-Church-Tradition § 41. For these following reasons § 43. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons § 51. CONCERNING FAITH necessary to SALVATION AND Of the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether This always in every Man ought to be Infallibility SIR YOU have importuned me to communicate to You my opinion on these four Queries as being you say the chief subjects which are debated by our modern Controvertists and in which if one side should gain the victory there would follow a speedy decision of most other Theological Controversy The First concerning FAITH What or how much is necessary for our Salvation The Second concerning Infallibity in this Faith Whether it be necessary in every Believer to render his Faith Divine and Salvifical The Third concerning the Infallibility of the Church Whether this is at all or how far to be allowed The Fourth concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgment Whether this be due to the Church supposed not in all her decisions infallible For the two latter I must remain for a while your Debter On the two former I have returned you as briefly as
most firmly the principle and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation but are easily admitted to one anothers communion So the Roman or rather all the visible Church of God before Luther whether Eastern or Western in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour upon which ground they worship it to worship a meer Creature and so to commit idolatry and give God's honour to another yet this Church holding the contrary principle That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental nor are those unconvinced of their error dying in the Roman communion and in this practice by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation See Dr. Potter sect 3. p. 78. sect 4. p. 123. But note That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points to regulate and guide our belief and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof because here contrary to the Supposition made before we have a sufficient proposal of the truth or an authorized proposer what in such doubtful points we are to hold For if we know or being impartial might know that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment we are convinced by this authority determining as well as by arguments proving Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place the set number of which varying so much according to several persons and conditions yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can tending any way to their Salvation can much less be prescribed than of the former The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility or Whether we cannot savingly and with such a faith as God requires believe some divine truth unless we be infallibly certain that it is a divine truth 1. First then concerning the object of Saving Faith It is true and granted that the object thereof is only God's Word and that this Word is infallible and that since God cannot lye fidei non potest subesse falsum Which saying refers not to the act but the matter of faith i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false because it is the Word of God which is apprehended by this Faith Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on or ultimately resolved into something which is infallible i. e. God's Word whether this be written or not written and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter tho we may unfeignedly for the act believe any thing but what is certainly true Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word and 2. that it be believed by us to be so So the Schools Fides non assentit alicui nisi quia est a Deo revelatum And 3ly that this word be believed to be utterly infallible From whence this therefore follows 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith 2ly That Faith believing any thing which is true yet not as divine revelation or God's word or this word not to be infallible is no divine or saving faith So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon But our Quaere goes further Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith that we not only believe what is God's infallible word but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty and assurance which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church and Tradition 1. First it seems that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these these again both the authority of the Scriptures and of the Church do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition By which I mean * a Tradition so universal as these things are rationally considering all circumstances capable of i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth and * a Tradition so full and sincere as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute 1. For first supposing the Church infallible yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition which universal Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof and not from the testimony of Scripture and so escapes a circular proof The series then of proof is this The Church is proved infallible at least in Necessaries from our Saviour's promise of assisting her c testified in Scripture These Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from universal Tradition and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible from the evidence and nature of it self because it is morally i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature impossible for so many men of so many ages so dis-interested to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter Or as some others express it such Tradition tho it were not so plenary as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church must be allowed to be infallible from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs amongst which are Miracles as it is contrary to the veracity of God supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship to permit that they should be fallacious The series of the probation runs thus The Scriptures are proved to be God's word and so infallible from the testimony of the Church which testimony of the Church or of so many people so qualified is proved to be infallible not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture for thus the proof would run in a circle tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid tho it be true also that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony but as being so universal a Tradition or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed as it is morally impossible especially considering God's veracity and providence that it should deceive us But as I said to prove the Church the other way to be infallible i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures which Scriptures to be divine we learn only from the Church Or more plainly thus to prove the Church to be infallible in
all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures our Saviour's promise c. delivered there and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible because this is one of her traditions or doctrines is granted even by some of the Roman writers to be a circle See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9. c. Non audentes fidem divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali i. e. in universal tradition and he gives the reason because they cannot be perswaded quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltant c. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it than this of Mahomet If he should first write a law which tells the people that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth and then prove to them that law to be or to say to them an infallible truth because he delivers it A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition that Scriptures are the word of God otherwise to men as to Protestants supposing the verity of Scriptures tho unproved by the Church t is no circle if any one suppose a Catholic from them being granted attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility tho the same Romanist also doth affirm that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church'es testimony or from tradition Only where both these Scripture and Church-infallibility are denied neither can be proved by the other till one is either supposed as true or proved by some other medium which medium is received to be tradition and if so then I say there can be no more certainty that the Church is infallible than that certainty which lies in universal Tradition 2. And secondly the same may be said for Scriptures which being supposed to be infallible because God's word yet if they are proved only by the same tradition to be God's word all the certainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradition For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath Again suppose I were without tradition infallibly certain that such Books are God's word yet can I not for all this quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith For my faith being grounded not on the bare words but sense of those books and the sense of the same words being divers especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary notwithstanding this clearnes become very ambiguous and that in some necessary points of faith as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and matters of faith to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity Grace and Free will Justification c. upon which first known I must ground my faith I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word Here therefore tho the Scripture for the Words should not yet my Faith for their Sense would have a dependance upon and repair unto universal Tradition and where-ever the Sense is doubtful to me as the Scriptures may be doubtful to one where perspicuous to another the chief certainty I can have for that Sense which my Faith ought to embrace will be from the universal church-Church-tradition Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore on which as the Final assurer of the Scriptures or of the Church'es Infallibility the act of Faith must rest let it be granted 1. First without disputing whether it be absolutely infallible because it is needles to the stating of our business That there is in it certainty or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon For tho t is willingly assented to that Tradition being in its nature a relation of a thing gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible for t is not absolutely impossible for all men in the world from the beginning thereof till this time to have lied in every thing they have said but yet he were no ordinary mad-man that upon this nonimpossibility would believe no relation at all only because t is not absolutely impossible that they may err and himself hit the right yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein or else that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures that they are God's word Which granting that some few learned and studied men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture yet for this the most of men especially as to some of the books thereof depend on the certainty of Tradition And indeed it were impious to affirm that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledg of good and evil upon which our eternal happi nes is to be acquired or misery sustained or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths whereby we are to direct our lives to that end for which he hath created us But this can be assigned no other at least to most men than Tradition Therefore it is the interest of all Christians as well those who submit themselves only to the Scripture as those who submit also to the Church unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty therein lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathematical or sensible demonstration they be made Scepticism and Quodlibets 2. But 2ly we must either hold certainty in Tradition or that we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent Yet transfer this discours to any other temporal matter and who can wish to be more sure of any thing than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them As for example that there is such a City as Paris or was such a man as Henry the 8th But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters that are of the same distance of time from us there seems to be much more certainty in that the providence of God hath appointed a selected company of men successively in all ages to be the Guardians Conservers Divulgers thereof to the world for ever 3. Lastly if this Tradition and the doctrines we acknowledge divine were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men not in all but some determinate time and place see Christ's Ben. p. 35. say how posterity can receive these from any other evidence unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven Christ's preaching miracles death to be presented before us and that before every one of us excluding all relations from others because these may be fallible But such a ground of our faith destroys the nature of faith and it
will be no more belief but sight and science which are opposed to faith properly so called See 2 Cor. 5. 7. Jo. 20. 29. The knowledge and assurance then of things past for time or far distant for place must be conveyed either by relation only or extraordinary revelation 2ly Again let it be granted That Tradition may be certain enough tho contradicted by some for what is there also in nature or sense that hath not by some bin opposed and not absolutely universal Els the Scriptures themselves are not received by sufficient tradition for most of the sacred books have bin opposed by some and that for a long time and some books by many But if notwithstanding this they be thought sufficiently attested so also may many other things whereof hath hapned some contest 3ly Let it be granted likewise that the universal Church of no one age can be mistaken in the delivering of any eminent and more material tradition wherein her care is interested For who so denies this must either affirm that no Tradition can be certain to us or that it is so only by the records and histories of former and those the very first times for if the present age may fail in these so might any present age before it except the first whereby the traditions of the present must be confirmed But since these records and writings of former times were casual and since our Saviour established his doctrine only in a succession of his messengers and from them only without any writings for a time the Church learned her faith surely Christians according to this tenent if destitute of writings would have bin left uncertain in their religion notwithstanding the provision made by our Saviour of Teachers of his Gospel to the worlds end 4ly Let it be further granted 1. Not only that he who diligently searcheth after the truth of a Tradition cannot ordinarily err or mistake that for a Tradition that is not or that for no Tradition that is but 2. that the general testimony of the present age is enough to warrant a Tradition to him from which he may receive a sufficient certainty without examining a succession of the same doctrine from the first age or searching the conformity of the present with former times as well as he is sufficiently assured that there was such a man as William the Conquerour or is such a City as Rome only by the general undisputed accord of all of the present time namely amongst whom he converseth without reading the Chronicles up to the Conquerour or consulting the several interjacent Provinces between his abode and Rome Nay 3ly let this also be yeilded concerning the present age That tho quo universalior as well universalitate loci as temporis traditio eo certior yet one without searching the universality of the present age may have sufficient assurance of what he believes from the publick Liturgies Canons Articles Catechisms and other common writings such as come to hand where they all or most accord one with another of which books also that such Fathers and Synods c. are the Authors as are pretended let it be likewise granted that he may learn from the same surenes of Tradition as he doth that such an one was an Emperour c. for so he believes the same Tradition for Tully or Livy being the author of such books as for Caesar being Emperour of such a people and then the same assurance which he hath of Secular Authors he may have of Sacred or as he doth that such are his Princes Proclamations or Edicts which he submits to without any signed testimony or any scruple that they are such nor doth any venture to transgres them upon the not absolute impossibility that they are forged 5ly Let it be granted which we know by experience That the Tradition of the Church is easilier understood in those points which she undertakes to expound than the Scriptures themselves which are by her explained For supposing the contrary then were Creeds Catechisms and all the Church'es teaching needles since of two things equally obscure the one can never illustrate or explain the other Therefore men may be more assured in many things of the doctrine and meaning of the Church than of the Scriptures As for example t is easier especially when not some single text is considered apart but all those which both sides urge are confronted together to understand what we are to hold concerning the Trinity from the Nicene Creed and concerning Grace and Free-will from the decrees of the Milevitan Council than from the Scriptures So in Luther's time it was easie for those to know the Church'es tenent and practice concerning Adoration of the Eucharist Auricular Confession Invocation of Saints c. who were not able to examin the doctrine of the Scriptures in such points so that it must be yeilded that Tradition is a more evident Guide for many things than those Sacred writings are 6ly Lastly since this Tradition of divine things in which above we have pleaded sufficient certainty to be is contained in the Church and delivered as it were from hand to hand by the successive Guides thereof therefore let it be granted That the Church which pretends not to make any new Articles of Faith at all but to recommend to her children what is deliver'd to her is infallible or a certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary in the same manner as Tradition may be said to be infallible or certain For to say Tradition is certain is to say we have some way to know Tradition suppose that Tradition of the Scriptures being God's word without being deceived in it and this way is the testimony of the Church therefore is this also certain Having made these Concessions concerning the evidence of church-Church-tradition and the sufficient testimony it affords us to ground our faith on at least in all the principal points of our religion wherein such Tradition both as to delivering a sufficient Canon of Scripture and the true meaning of this Canon is most full and unquestionable Yet I must mind you before I proceed further to avoid your mistaking that I hold not all Traditions that we meet with to have an equal certainty or creditablenes one as anther because all circumstances considered they have not an equal evidence but very different and therefore ought carefully to be examined and compared For example The Tradition that such a person suppose Mahomet lived in such an age may have much more certainty than that Mahomet or such a person said or did such or such a thing in that age Neither is the argumentation good The one is believed from Tradition therefore the other ought to be so because caetera non sunt paria and there may not be the same plenitude of Tradition for both and more may bear witness both in that and latter times of the one than do of the other Of Traditions therefore
some there are and those as well within as without the Church much more doubtful obscure and questionable than others For 1. both truths committed to Tradition may fail in successive times vel per omnimodam cessationem vel ex eo quod oppositum introducatur viz. where Tradition is not come to a convenient and due pitch of universality as is granted by the strongest abettors of Tradition See Dr. Hold. Resol Fid. 1. lib. 8. cap. And 2. the unfailing Tradition of successive times may be defective in its first original's being false or els in its having many falsities in its current thro posterity superadded to and mingled with the truth as persons are interested or fanciful As Gentilism did superadd many things to the ground-work of religion received from the Jew and writings of the Old Testament For falsum poterit quodammodo caeteris paribus aeque certo ac verum per traditionem communicari els lies cannot be commonly believed But many such we know were credited amongst the Heathen concerning their Gods and are amongst the Mahometans concerning their Prophet and so it may happen that as undoubting an assent may be given to these as is to the truth for ignorance many times doubts less of a thing than knowledg doth But yet this we contend that it will never be so rational And indeed many disparities there are between the credibility of Heathenish or Mahometan and of Christian Tradition * Such as are in Heathenism these †1. that except some foundations of religion borrowed from the Jews and so free from error there is no constancy or agreeance in the tradition thereof but t is varying according to each city or country whereby any one of them much fails of universality and contradictory Tradition destroys it self And 2ly that †as we have said that falsities under the notion of falsities may be conveyed by Tradition so many of the absurd stories of Heathenism seem not to be believed even by the most or wisest of those who propagated them therefore are their Poets their Divines out of whom chiefly such tradition is learned And * Such as are in Mahometanism these †It s spreading 1. * by the force of the Sword contrary to the nature of Tradition and 2ly * by its plausibility and compliance with carnal lusts both great corrupters of the truth of Tradition whereas Christianity flowing down to all ages in opposition to both these by how much it was less pleasing or less protected seems to be strengthned in all times with so much greater evidence of truth and testimony irresistible †It s wanting that universality which Christianity possesseth never having had so large a circuit the Western part of the world having always bin a stranger to it and the growth of it now for many ages being stopped and it decreasing in the world and this great falshood by little and little giving place as is seen in the Eastern Countreys to its elder the Truth I say these and many other disparities there are but besides these the main thing whereby all such Traditions are convinced of falshood lies in this that they came into the world still later than that of the Truth and so are known to be false by their contradiction to it so that Truth against them may always plead prescription * So Heathenism was younger than the Tradition of God's word in the Old Testament and so indeed than the Gospel which also was contained in the Old Testament and taught from the beginning see Rom. 3. 21 23. So that I may say Heathenism was the Antichristianism of the former Ages springing up after the tradition of God's true worship Again * so Mahometanism was later than the tradition of the New Testament being the Antichristianism of the last times but lest the world I mean that part of it to whom it pleased God to divulge the truth by false traditions should be deceived God hath always provided true Tradition to pre-occupate Faith and to anticipate and antidate error Therefore tho we yeild to the truth also of Mahometan tradition in some things as that there was such a one as Mahomet a Law-giver a Conqueror c. yet we know that Tradition that he received his writings from the Angel Gabriel c. to be false because contrary to that divine Tradition which besides many other advantages ought from its antiquity to be preferred God having given to Truth the Eldership of Falshood And on the same grounds may we reject that Heathen-tradition in the Acts of the Image of Diana falling from God c. III. And thus much be granted concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the external motives or proponents the Scriptures Church and Tradition 3ly Concerning the illumination adherence certitude which this Faith that ordinarily first cometh by hearing receives from the inward operation of God's Spirit 1. First let it be granted that the interior working of the Holy Spirit opening the heart is always required besides the outward means for the conception of all saving Faith that we cannot exercise any act thereof without particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost that it is the infused Gift of God as well as other graces of hope and charity see Jo. 6. 29 44 45 64 65. Matt. 11. 25 26. 16. 17. Act. 13. 48. 16. 14 15. Rom. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 3 9. 2 Cor. 3. 3. Gal. 5. 22 23. Eph. 1. 17. c. 2. 8. 6. 23. See Ben. Spir. p. Whence Faith is said to be supernatural as in respect * of its object things above the comprehension of reason and * of it s ultimate ground it builds upon which is divine revelation so * of its act being caused by the Spirit All the acts of faith being in some kind supernatural for such a degree of adherence as they have both because the relater or proponent thereof is many times not at least known to be infallible and because the object thereof many times tho there be all certainty from the relater is capable of much doubt and vacillancy from its supernaturalness and seeming-repugnancy to reason Therefore we see our first Father or at least his wife see 1 Tim. 2. 14. failed in not believing the words spoken by God himself to him and the Disciples when rationally believing our Saviour to be the Son of God and all he said to be truth and seeing his miracles yet desired the increase of their faith and were in it many times not a little shaken thro the contrariety or transcendency which it had to sense or reason And it is reckoned to Abraham as strong faith that he believed the word of God himself in things contrary to nature See Rom. 4. 18 19 20. which Sarah his wife flagg'd in See Gen. 18. 12. 2 King. 7. 2. Thus Faith to make it vigorous and lively comes necessarily to be a work of the Spirit either in regard of the sublimity of its object or
having stronger adherence upon smaller evidence provided no evidence attainable be neglected 1 Pet 3. 15. See Jo. 20. 29. The reason of which is because faith is no way acceptable to God or saving so far as it is by true or by seeming demonstration forced upon the understanding with a reluctance mean-while of the will for then the faith of Devils would be so who doubtles have much more evidence of their faith than many Christians but only so far as it is embraced and accepted of by the will and affections and in some manner becomes our election and choice which election so contrary in many things to the flesh being never made without the power of the Spirit hence chiefly is faith such as is saving said to be its work See Ben. Spirit § 4. Again if men for the sufficiency of their faith depended on the infallibility of the Church or her traditions it follows none can have of any thing true faith which is not first determined by the Church or known from universal Tradition Therefore none can be said fide divina to believe or assent to any of those Theological verities which are ordinarily drawn by clear and necessary consequence from the Scriptures and tho not by the Church decided by the Schools which seems absurd 5. Lastly Let but a rational certainty from the infallibility of Tradition be necessarily required to faith for one point namely this That our Scriptures are God's word for which all sides are agreed in admitting it and I do not see how it can be denied that for many other points i. e. those wherein God's word is clear and which are by no side controverted one may be sufficiently certain from the Scriptures themselves independently on the Church or Tradition fave for the one point above-named For since God's word may be in some things I mean such as are uncontroverted as plain and consonant to it self as any Synod-Catechism if such a Catechism is thought a sufficient ground to one to assure his faith why may not the Scripture Now after all that I may not seem to you in this my judgment heterodox at least to other Catholic writers you may be pleased to view what Estius the famous Divinity-Professor at Doway and what Card. Lugo a Spanish Jesuit have delivered on this subject See Card. Lugo tom de virtute fidei dis 1. § 12. n. 247. c. where he brings reasons for this opinion not much differing from those above-mentioned As 1. Since the belief of Infallibility it self must be produced from some other motives if such motives be sufficient for the begetting the faith of this why may they not be sufficient for some point of faith besides it 2. New converts embrace and truly believe some other articles of faith before they are acquainted with that of Infallibility 3. Rusticks commonly resolve their faith into no further proof than their Parish-Priest and what he relates to them 4ly Under the law of nature before Moses most were believing only upon the authority of their Parents without any Church-proposal His words are these num 247. Probatur facile quia hoc ipsum Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus Sancti creditur fide divina quae docet in Ecclesia esse hujusmodi authoritatem ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis Et experientia docet non omnes pueros vel adultos qui de novo ad fidem accedunt concipere in Ecclesia hanc infallibilem authoritatem assistentiam Spiritus Sancti antequam ullum alium articulum credant Credunt enim articulos in ordine quo proponuntur Hunc autem articulum authoritatis Ecclesiae contingit credi postquam alios plures crediderunt Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri cognoscere res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia concipiendo in Ecclesia secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam quae reperitur in universa fidelium congregatione Again num 252. Probatur Conclusio 1. Quia in primis in lege naturae plures credebant ex sola doctrina parentum sine alia Ecclesiae propositione Deinde in lege scripta plures crediderunt Moysi aliis Prophetis antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur proponerentur quia soil vitae sanctitate rerum convenientia aliis de causis objectum reddebatur prudenter credibile praesertim cum viderent aliqua ex iis quae Prophetiae praedicebant quotidie impleri Denique in lege Evangelica Act 3. 4. c. Beatus Petrus miraculo facto testatus est se illud fecisse in nomine Christi nulla facta mentione authoritatis Ecclesiae vel suae convertit tria millia hominum qui sane prudenter moti sunt licet non conciperent Ecclesiae authoritatem And num 251. Non requiritur ex natura rei Ecclesiae propositio ad credendum In all which note that this Author speaks of sides divina salvifica as appeareth in the first instance naming fides divina in St. Peter's converts c. and all his discourse otherwise were besides the purpose See Estius to the same purpose in 3. sent 23. dist 13. sect where after many considerable arguments he goes on Fidei impertinens esse quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio doctrina constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando adhuc conferri c. Nam antiqui multi ut Abraham Melchisedech Job ex speciali revelatione Apostoli ex Christi miraculis sermone rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione miraculis alii fidem conceperunt alii denique aliis modis crediderunt cum nondum de infallibilitate Ecclesiae quicquam eis esset annunciatum Sic ergo sieri potest ut aliquis non inhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam regulae infallibili quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat quia vel nunc vel olim miraculis confirmata sunt vel etiam quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifeste videt vel alia quacunque ratione inductus licet alia quaedam credere recuset Again Haereticus potest quaedam tenere ea firmitate assensus promptitudine voluntatis qua ab aliis omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Again Nihil vetat quo minus haeretici quamvis in multis errent in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint ut recte credant Where note that Estius also speaks of sides vera and fides donum Dei quo divinitus illustramur such as that was of Abraham Melchisedech and the Apostles converts And note again that tho this Fides vera divina is in no Heretick's integra as to all points of faith perfect because if one failed not in some point of faith he could be no Heretick yet many times it is
applies a divine revelation which really exists in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith The reason of this seems clear because altho a truth which I know only by probable assent is not certain to me yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that time for which it is c. Thus he The sum of which is That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent but only from God's concourse See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36 37. de resol fid saying the like 2. Again in the 2d place it may be inferred * That receiving of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not necessary to true faith or * That one may truly believe some who doth not believe all the points of faith which the Church proposeth or any for or upon her proposal or lastly * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof I willingly grant here 1. first That he who believes aright any divine truth must believe that it is revealed by God or that God hath said it and That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God can believe no other thing at all as he ought that is as from divine revelation he must believe all such or none at all aright 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation as of the Scriptures or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition I accord that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God but such as he knows to be proposed to him by the Church or Tradition to be such either immediately in her exposition of obscure Scriptures or mediately in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture and therefore that who denies this authority in some points suppose in those points where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points according to the Schools Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae i. e. in omnibus quae proponit omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult quae non vult non tenet non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae sed propriae voluntati But note that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati because he may hold such tenents not quia vult but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point That Scripture is God's word So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture because containing something opposite to their opinions could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest because that Scripture they refused came recommended to them by as much and the same authority as that they accepted But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition because for the former concession it is one thing to believe such a truth to be divine revelation another to be rationally assured thereof the first we grant is the second I think we have proved not to be necessary to all true faith For the second tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit nor upon that principle can believe one thing unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe as I think is before-proved And hence it follows that one may truly believe some other points of faith who doth not believe this point in particular That the Church or Universal Tradition is infallible Thus much * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in every believer to render his faith true divine and salvifical * and of the erring in some one article it s not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest But to conclude this Discourse Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed 1. First that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense that is in rendring his faith in other points tho not false yet non-salvifical to him 2. Again he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church known to him to be so in some point not absolutely necessary I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation as some points there are so necessary tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife yet this opposition in that error is by the common doctrine of the Church accounted so great a crime as that unrepented of it renders his true faith being destitute of due obedience and charity unprofitable for his salvation which I thought fit here to mind you of that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries as long as he stands tho in some as he accounts smaller points after sufficient proposal in opposition and disobedience to the Church i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters See before § 50. 3. And lastly if this Article of Faith That the Church'es authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed or at least so supreme that none may in any wise dissent from her determination can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation to be by every Christian believed then since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article it must follow That every one that opposeth the Church is also from his disbelief of this Article excluded from salvation FINIS OF INFALLIBILITY CONTENTS PART 1. COncerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed § 1 2. 1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant writers § 3. Where How far points necessary are to be extended § 4. That the Church not private men is to define what points be necessary § 6. If these points be necessary at all to be defined and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals § 7. 2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all § 8. 3. Infallibility Universal in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth is not affirmed by the Roman writers §
controversies not discussed or heard-of in precedent ages which the Church decides by the judgment and learning of her Bishops considering * texts of Scripture wherein such points seem to be included and * other doctrines of former and present times to which they seem to have some relation All which points I believe few Catholicks will agree * that they should be excluded from necessaries if not found to be of evident Tradition or * that in new controversies nothing ever is determined by the Church and that under Anathema but only what was formerly evident Tradition which new determinations if there were not sometimes then what need is there of the superassistance of the holy Spirit that the Church err not This * concerning the first Concession by both parties That the Church is infallible in her directions touching Necessaries and * concerning some consequents thereof 2. Secondly it must be and I think is granted by all that own Christianity That the Church is sufficiently infallible in all points that are of Universal Tradition or at least of Tradition so general as that is which we have of the Scriptures tho such points were not necessary at all els they must deny that we have certainty enough from Tradition that the Scriptures are God's word And this undeceivableness of general Tradition is the only or chief ground that some Catholick writers of late build the Church'es infallibility upon not that they deny her infallible in all necessaries too but that they make all Necessaries to be eminently and beyond all mistake traditional 3. Thirdly it is granted I think generally by those of the Catholick Church That the Church is not absolutely infallible in all things whatsoever that she shall say or propose but only in such things as she proposeth to her children tanquam de side or necessario credenda whether they concern speculatives or practicals and manners Concerning this matter I will give you the several limitations as I find them set down in some of their latest writers To begin with Bellarmin one who is thought sufficiently rigid in vindicating the Church'es infallibility Thus he de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Concilia Generalia non possunt errare nec in fide explicanda nec in tradendis praeceptis morum toti Ecclesiae communibus I may add out of another place de verbo Dei 4. l. 9. c. nec in ritu cultu divino for the present times of such Councils For saith he as Ecclesia universalis non potest errare in credendo so neither in operando recteque August Ep. 118. docet insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare non recte sieri quod ab universa Ecclesia sit tale est Baptisma parvulorm licet actu non credant c. But then he saith again in conciliis maxima pars actorum ad sidem non pertinent i. e. non proponitur ut necessario credatur non enim sunt de fide disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum illustrandum adferuntur nothing incidently spoken and without purpose to define it sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantum quae proponuntur tanquam de fide Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile Vide Concil Viennense parvulis in Baptismo conferri gratiam He grants ibid. That Concilia in Judiciis particularibus i. e. ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale toti Ecclesiae commune errare possunt So he grants 2. l. 7. c. quoad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora sed non quoad dogmata fidei i. e. such as are once proposed by an Universal Council tanquam creditu necessaria Emendari saith he therefore they may err He goes on quod confirmatur ex verbis Augustini qui dicit tunc emendari Concilia quando experimento aliquo aperitur quod clausum erat clausum i. e. in the time of the former Council experimento enim aperiuntur saith the Cardinal quaestiones de facto vel de moribus non quaestiones Juris universalis And I suppose Bellarmin also will not deny the same of Speculative doctrines of which it appeareth not that in the former Councils they are peremptorily defined ut certa tanquam de fide necessaria for this well accords with what is but now recited out of him de Concil authoritate 2. l. 12. c. According to which c. 8. in his answer to the 10th Objection concerning a difference between two Councils about the number of Canonical Books of Scripture and so pertinens ad fidem he writes thus Concilium Carthaginense esse majoris authoritatis quam Laodicenum quia posterius And Concilium Laodicenum posuit in Canone eos libros de quibus Episcopi ejus Concilii certi erant alios autem omisit non quidem negans eos esse Canonicos sed nolens rem dubiam definire Concilium autem Carthaginense re magis discussa definivit id quod prius Concilium reliquerat sub dubio Where we see that latter Councils may discover something even in rebus pertinentibus ad fidem which former have not and may define the others doubtings Again tho he numbers amongst points of faith in which the Church cannot err not only quae expresse continentur in but also quae evidenter deducuntur ex Scripturis Prophetarum Apostolorum and so makes it the business of a Council as declarare quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum so praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducere conclusiones which conclusions also he numbers amongst dogmata sidei yet he grants that in some deduction as he calls it and ratiocination the Council may err in saying neque rationes quae adduntur quoted before affixing the Church'es Inerrability only to those deductions quae deducuntur evidenter and to such deductions only as are her express decreta and as are proposed tanquam de fide See the former quotations out of him de Concil Authoritate 2. l. 12. c. Like things much-what you may read in our learned Country-man Stapleton See in his Principia fidei doctrinalia 4. controv and 2. quaest his septem notabilia where he saith first that Ecclesia non expectat doceri a Deo immediate solis Enthusiasmis novis afflatibus sreta sed utitur certis mediis ad dubii dogmatis determinationem quia docetur nunc non per Apostolos aut Prophetas quibus immediat a revelatio frequens erat sed per Pastores Doctores 2ly That Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilem peculiarem Spiritus sancti directionem quae necessaria erat Apostolis omnia de novo docentibus fundament a ponentibus sed non succedenti Ecclesiae sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti But 3ly That Ecclesia nihilominus
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
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
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
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
or God's word §. 21. Concessions 1. Concerning the object of Faith that this is only God's Word §. 22. 2. Concerning the act of faith and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures Church Tradition §. 23. That the authority of Scriptures and Church is learn'd from universal Tradition §. 24. §. 25. Concessions concerning Tradition 1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition whether â—â—fallible or no to ground a firm faith upon §. 26. §. 27. §. 28. 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty tho notabsolutely un versal §. 29. 3. That no one age of the Ch. is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition §. 30. 4. Thaâ— the testimony of the present age is sufficient to inform us therein §. 31. 5. That Tradition of the Ch. is easier to be understood in some things expounded by her than the Scriptures §. 32. 6. That the Ch. is a sufficiently certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary §. 33. Digression That all traditions carry not equal certainty §. 34. Where concerning the Church'es and the Heathen and Mahometan Traditions §. 35. 3 Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit Concessions concerning the Spirit 1. That it is always required besides outward mean. §. 36. 1. That all Faith wrought by the Spâ—rit is infallible §. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science c. §. 38. 4. Thâ—t from these concessions it follows not that all who sâ—vingly believe have or must have aninfallible or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had of what they believe §. 39. Nâ—iâ—ther from the evidences * of Scriptures §. 40. Nor * of the Spirit §. 41. Nor * of church-Church-Tradition §. 42. §. 43. For these following Reasons §. 44. §. 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. §. ◠§. 2. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church how far this is to be allowed §. 3. 1 Infallibility of the Church in Necessaries granted both by Catholic and Protestant writers §. 4. Where How for Points necessary are to be extended §. 5. §. 6. That the Church not private men is to define what Points be necessary §. 7. If these points be necessary at all to be defin'd and exactly distinguished from all other her proposals §. 8. 2. Infallibility of the Ch. in matters of universal tradition tho they were not necessary conceded likewise by all §. 9. 3. Infallibility universal in whatever the Ch. proposeth delivereth is not affirmed by Catholic writers §. 10. But only in those points which she proposeth tanquam de side or creditu necessaria §. 11. Where conc the several sences wherein points are affirmed or dâ—nied to be de fide §. 12. That as only so all divine revelations or necessary deductions from them are de Fide. i. e. the oâ—jects and matâ—ters of Faith. And that the Ch. can make nothing to be de Fide i. e. to be divine Revelation c. which was not so always from the Apostolick times §. 13. §. 15. That all divine revelation or necessary deductions therefrom are not de Fide i. e. creditu necessaria §. 16. And that the Church lawfully may and hath a necessity to make de novo upon rising errors such points de fide i. e. creditu necessaria which formerly were not so §. 17. §. 18. Or as some other of the Catholick writers usually express iâ— only in points clearly traditional §. 19. §. 20. §. 21. §. 22. §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. §. 27. Whether and by what marks those points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de side or creditu necessaria or which are proposed as constantly traditional are clearly distinguished by her from her other proposal §. 28. §. 29. Anathema no certain Index thereof PART II. §. 30. Concerning obedience and submission of private judgment whether due to the Ch. supposed not in all her decisions infallible §. 31. §. 32. §. 33. â—â— That no submission of Our judgment is due to the proposal of the Church where we are infailibly certain of the contrary §. 34. 2. That no submission is due to an inferior person or court in matters whereof I have doubt when I have a Superior to repair to for resolution §. 35. 3. That submission of judgment is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever short of infallible certainty §. 36. §. 37. Submission of judgment proved 1. From Scripture §. 38. 2. From Reason §. 39. Several objections and scruples resolved §. 40. §. 41. §. 42. §. 43. §. 44. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants § 45. §. 46. §. 47. §. 48. §. 49. §. 50. §. 51. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholicks §. 52. §. 53. §. 54. Conclusion §. 55. §. 56. §. 57. §. 58. §. 59. §. 60. §. 1. §. 2. n. 1. In what sence it may be lawful to believe or do a thing against our own judgment §. 2. n. 2. §. 2. n. 3. §. 4. 11. 2. §. 3. §. 4. Concerning the church'es lawful authority to excommunicate dissenters in non fundamentals §. 5. §. 6. §. 7. As likewise to decide which points are fundamental which not §. 8. 2 Tim. 4â— 1 Cor. 12. 7 8. §. 9. Several exceptions against obedience of non-contradiction only for non-fundamentals §. 10. §. 11. And that all at least not infallibly certain of the contrary are bound in non fundamentals to anobedience of assent Therefore the most are so bound §. 12. Replies to several Objections 1. Concerning an inferior Council's decreeing some new dangerous error which no former Council superior hath condemned §. 13. 2. Concerning faith salvifical that it is to be infallible §. 14. 3. Concerning union of Charity sufficient §. 15. 4. Concerning tryal of Doctrines necessary §. 16. 5. Concerning what Churches determinations when several contradict one another we are to adhere to §. 17 §. 18. Conclusion §. 19. Concerning infallible certainty §. 201 1. Infallible certainty excusing all submission of judgment to anyother §. 21. Infallible certainty to be had in some things §. 22. Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain §. 23. §. 24. §. 25. §. 26. 3. The plea of infallible certainty at least not usable against any general contrary judgment of the Church §. 27. An instance in the controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only AEn Sylv bâ—st Bohem 35. c. §. 28. §. 29. 4. The greatest probability short of infallible cer tainty not excusing one dissenting from the judgment of the Church §. 30. §. 31. An explication of Rom. 14. 23. §. 1. Sufficient truth alway to be found in the Church Yet false Doctors must be 1 Cor. 11. 19. §.
also of the incertainty of the Proponent 2ly Again let it be granted as freely That that Faith which is the Gift of God and work of the Spirit must needs be infallible and exempt from all possibility of error because the supreme verity cannot inspire a falshood 3ly Let it be granted also That the Spirit produceth many times in the soul such a supernatural and undiscursive light and evidence to the understanding and following this such a strong inclination of the will and adherence of the affections to the matter believed as do far exceed all science sense experience demonstration Tho this intuitive rather than argumentative or probative of such truths either to other's or our own reason which this Spirit captivates and brings into obedience * moving us to the strongest faith upon very small evidence and the smaller the evidence the stronger the power of the Spirit against many temptations of infidelity and * opening the heart to such a degree of undoubtedness that we are willing to undergo any Martyrdom rather than quit and renounce our belief See for such certainty 2 Tim. 1. 12. Act. 2. 36. Jo. 6. 69. IV. All this therefore being granted namely That all true saving faith is grounded on God's word which is infallible That all true faith is wrought in us by the Spirit of God which Spirit is infallible That there is a certainty or assurance sufficient if not infallible to be had from universal Church-tradition of both the former namely both * that such writings on which our faith is grounded are God's word and such their meaning and consequently * that the belief of such things contained in them is the work of God's Spirit Yet our Query remains still uncleared Whether I say not some for I grant many have but every one that truly and savingly believes must have an infallible certainty of his faith or must have a known-to-him infallible teacher or motive external as Tradition or internal as the Spirit to ground his faith upon by which he is not fully perswaded but also rationally sure of the truth of that which he believes And this to me notwithstanding the former Concessions seems not at all necessary for the producing of a saving Faith. And first for the assurance we may have from the Scriptures by knowing either in general that they are the word of God or that in such places or points where their sense is doubtful this and no other is the certain meaning of them I have shewed § 23. and 35. That the knowing this must either be devolved upon Ecclestastical Tradition or upon the Spirit And first for the assurance of these Scriptures and so of our faith from the inward testimony of the Spirit to which many fly for succour and first taking this for granted that every believer must be infallibly certain of his faith and then that tradition tho the most full and much more any private instructer being some way liable to errour sufficeth not for to produce such an effect they labour to ground this certainty upon the assurance of God's Spirit None can plead this at all from our faith being caused by this Spirit for it follows not that if the Spirit begets faith infallible in our hearts or also the most unexpugnable adherence thereto therefore we know this faith to be begotten by the Spirit or if it move us that therefore we can certainly tell when it doth so so that we can say to this God's Spirit moveth me to assent to this not For we may have from the Spirit the greatest perswasion or internal evidence if you will of a truth that may be imagined and yet not have any rational or discursive evidence thereof from it neither by other proofs nor by this which is sufficient that we clearly discern the good Spirit to produce it since the like assurance or confidence to some degree is frequently begotten by an impetuous lust or by the evil Spirit for most pernicious errors so nearly imitating the Spirit of illumination as not to be discernable from it by this sign of strong perswasion since many have had it so strong as to dye for them The assurance therefore or full perswasion of a Divine truth by the Spirit is one thing the assurance that this assurance cometh from the Spirit is another And indeed tho in some general things as of the Bible being the Word of God and of some universally-believed points of faith all men are confident of their assurance in them that it is from God's Spirit because indeed all Christians are in these agreed yet in descending to particulars as whether such or such a Book of Scripture be God's Word or be written by an heavenly-inspired author whether such a particular point of faith be to be stated thus or so whether such be certainly the meaning of some particular place of Scripture here I say where there is contradiction and doubt between parties few there are who will offer to plead such assurance from the Spirit as that they cannot be mistaken but labour to inform themselves as well as others the best they can from other reasons And indeed did the Spirit thus always bear witness to it self had we any such internal assurance ordinarily for extraordinary assurances of it happening to some greater Saints of God in very many things I deny not I mean not of the belief of the thing but that such belief of the thing cometh from the Spirit there needed no more confirmation of any point either from Church or universal Tradition or collation of other Scriptures or any other way but this For thus tho some men might profess an error against conscience yet err in very deed in matter of Divine faith none could for knowing that the Spirits operation is necessary to all true faith and knowing again when it operates he may be sure that that which it operates not is no true faith But this sufficiently argues that there is no such ordinary effect thereof in that the pretenders of the Spirit so frequently by this Spirit contradict one another and indeed this arrogant perswasion and ultimate refuge of singularity hath bin the great Source of all Heresie and Schism by reason of mens departing from Tradition and from the Church upon confidence of this Therefore we conclude a man may believe by the efficiency of the Spirit and yet not certainly know its efficiency and may know that by it he believes all which he truly believes in divine matters and yet not know that by it he believes such or such a particular thing So that tho this be laid for a ground That all true Faith is the work of the Spirit yet we must by Scripture or in things doubtful by the Church'es traditionary exposition thereof first know our faith to be true and thence by consequence gather that it is the work of the Spirit not è contra argue that it is the work of the Spirit
charity to other Churches i. e. with not condemning them to be no Churches so may his Considering these things may not such a one say Whether it is better to obey God than men judge ye 2. Again I ask If the power in the Church of Excommunication of private men binds them not to contradict her why doth not the same power in superior Councils to excommunicate Bishops and to annul the acts of inferior Councils bind such inferior Councils also to Non-contradiction 3. Again the obligation of Non-contradiction of private men to their Bishop or to his Synod in not-fundamentals will signifie little because an Episcopal or a National Synod may err in fundamentals and the judgment of this Synods erring in a fundamental is by the reformed left not to It which will never judg such a thing to be but to its subjects and they may misjudge a point not-fundamental to be fundamental and so may break their due silence neither can there be of this any remedy For none hitherto have contradicted the Church-decisions but they have made that which occasioned their contradicting to be a thing of great consequence Here therefore again in the yeilding of our obedience of Non-contradiction to a Provincial or National Church the Queries concerning Fundamentals will return Who is to determin what are such both for agends and credends which it is extream necessary to know that in such we may be sure to vindicate God's truth against that particular Church wherein we live Is not idolatry an error against a fundamental truth and doth not the Roman Church then err in fundamentals in worshipping bread as the Protestants think they do for Christ So that tenet of the Greek Church à Patre per filium is said to destroy the Trinity and so the Lutheran's Consubstantiation is said by consequence to destroy Christ's Humanity the Trinity and Christ's Humanity fundamental truths In such points and the like therefore none must be tied in obedience to their Bishop or Church-National to a Non-contradiction 2ly In respect of the Church in general the obedience of sole-Non-contradiction is limited by the reformed as we have said before to Non-fundamentals wherein the Church may err whereas in fundamentals wherein this Church cannot err here they also allow an obedience of assent But I ask again Who shall determin both in credends agends which are fundamental And why in these fundamentals especially are we wished in our judgment to conform to the Church'es since these are the points most clear in Scripture and such as without the Church'es direction we cannot mistake And methinks those places of Scripture concerning Tryal of Doctrines which we have learnt to turn against the injunctions of the Church hold as well or more for trying her Doctrines in Fundamentals than in any thing els because the rule by which we try is the most plain in these points Again I ask Are all the necessary consequences of fundamentals to be accounted fundamental If so then who knows how far these points may extend in which we are to consent to and not only not-to-contradict the Church'es decisions 3ly This obedience not of yeilding assent but solely of Non-contradicting is allowed and secured by the reformed only to those persons who upon examination of Scripture and Tradition are certain of the contrary surely then it must extend to very few persons and in very few things for how few are there that are able to compare the Scriptures or search Traditions Therefore the Scripture seems to make rules of our obedience to our present Spiritual Governors as if we were void of writings and not according to the extraordinary skill and learning of some few that are not rulers but according to the general capacity and knowledg of the flock of Christ. 1. Therefore it were well if these men who would not have their own knowledge restrained by authority would yet let the people know That only those who by long studying the Scriptures and Fathers have arrived to infallible certainty are tied only-to Non-contradiction to the Church-decisions but that all the rest to assenting For doth it not make our hearts yet to bleed to see so many thousands of the common people amongst us upon this mistaken priviledge even to disbelieve and not to yeild consent to the Church in fundamentals 2. When this is done how few are there of the learned that can say they are certain without some doubt that what the Church proposeth is false Are not all the rest then who are not infallibly certain to be taught that they must in Non-fundamentals subscribe to the Church-decisions Why labour we then more to free then subjugate mens judgments 3. But then for a private man's being infallibly certain upon which the reformed opinion seems to build much methinks this concession of the Scriptures which he reads to be the infallible word of God is not enough for his certainty almost in any point because there must be a comparing of Scriptures and a not interpreting of some places so that other places contradict and because the sence of the words may be diversly taken tho he were to judge only of one place by it self Besides there are many degrees of seeming certainty and t is hard to know when it is a presumption only and when a true certainty That men are ordinarily deceived in making this judgment is plain because two contradicting one another will often both affirm that they are infallibly certain The thinking ones self infallibly certain mostwhat ariseth from knowing no objections of any difficulty to the contrary which objections as one afterward discovers so his former certainty by degrees abates Hence we see the greatest Scholars many times dubious when the ignorant are either certain or strongly confident Four texts of Scripture that seem plainly to say a thing make one sure as it were and then two texts suggested to him that seem to say the contrary reduce him to doubt and make him begin to deliberate of the sense of the former I speak not this to affirm we are certain in nothing at all but that we have almost always reason to doubt where the same certainty that we have appears not to others But then if private men may be infallibly certain much more may the Church and so many Doctors be so they also all agreeing in their certainty So that all proofs of certainty to be had in divine truths rather strengthen the argument for obedience to the Church And she deals but with us in our own kind if she plead infallibility to require our submission to her even in Non-fundamentals as we do plead infallibility to avoid it As for those objections which the Reformed opinion makes 1. That possibly a National or Provincial Synod may or also hath broached some new mischievous tenet the contrary to which tenet neither the Creeds expresly nor former Councils have decreed into which error therefore my too secure obedience may betray me
I answer That from this judgment of such a Church so often as it is suspected by me I will not retreat to my private judgment but I will appeal to a more general judgment of the present Church which judgment I can either have conjunctim or divisim as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time and by the reformed opinion I shall be secure if I part not from the present Church for in fundamentals she shall in no age err but hold forth to me visibly the truth and if this error be in Non-fundamentals it amounts not as the reformed say to a heresy therefore will I still cleave to her i. e. the present Church and the supremest Authority I can find therein neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures or Fathers against her because she cannot be at least in points of great consequence opposit to them And if that religion as it might have bin had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2 and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures nor writings of Fathers then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church neither needed she for this to have bin made more infallible than now she is and doubtles my faith should have bin nevertheles sufficiently grounded i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her neither could any have made an argument that my faith was not salvifical for this reason because fidei non potest subesse falsum for she must then in defect of all writings have bin confess'd the pillar and ground of truth and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. the same then must she be still and Nations now as at the first before writings are still converted by her by her preaching before they come to peruse those Scriptures And so are we all also taught our faith first by her neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers But yet besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority any help that is from these writings enjoyed by any other is also by her that no body may boast over her in these advantages 2. It is objected That our faith to be salvifical must be grounded on something that is infallible and therefore only on God's word See this answered at large in the Treatise of Necessary faith § 43. c. Surely the Church groundeth her faith which she recommendeth to us on the Scriptures as well as private men think they do theirs when they leave hers to follow their own judgment And if the Church'es judgment is not neither is their own infallible for which they desert the Church'es But tho it is most true that true faith is always grounded on the word of God which word of God is infallible yet is it not necessary that every one who hath true faith do know that it is infallible or be infallibly certain of it For many have saving faith doubtles that learn this word of God only from a fallible man suppose from their Father or from their Pastor Neither is it necessary that this faith should be received from another person infallible besides God nor that it should be received from a writing at all There may be a strong adherence beyond evidence neither can it be unsufficient if it be so strong as to produce obedience to God's commands 3. T is said That one is for his salvation secure enough where ever these two are Unity of faith with the Church in fundamentals and then Charity toward the Church in the points not-fundamental wherein I disagree from her Charity i. e. not condemning her for them to be no Church c. I answer 1. First such a one must know well what are Fundamentals that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations Heb. 6. 2. if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth I know not how many other points may be brought in And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism Bishops Ordination c. 2ly Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith than only in fundamentals unles all points of faith be fundamental and if so then Churches that differ in any point of faith differ in fundamentals 3ly If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides doubtles are set over us to build us up in the unity also of this faith and not only of fundamentals See Heb. 5. 11. c. 6. 1. And therefore why Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13. should be restrained only to fundamentals as it is by some it seems to me strange I cannot think that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals see 1 Cor. 1. 4. c and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions and exhorts them to be all of one judgment which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment each one of their private reason but of the Apostle and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16 18. Rom. 15. 5 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where speaking the same thing and being joyned in the same judgment contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind glorifying God with one mind and one mouth c. argue an unity required not only of charity but of opinion and judgment and that not only in fundamentals in which as I said all the factious Corinthians or most of them accorded but other beneficial truths which union how could so many judgments undependent of one another attain but by all of them retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor or Pastors 4ly If these points wherein the reformed recede from the authority of superior Councils be not very necessary tho not fundamental how can a separation for them be justified but if necessary why should we say that God requires not an unity of faith in them 5ly Again as faith and charity secure not our salvation if we be guilty of some other vice adultery c so they do not secure it if there be any denial of obedience where t is due especially to the Church disobedience towards whom is in a more special manner disobedience to Christ and to God himself and why may not this then endanger us if God hath provided teachers to keep us in the same judgment and we to the great hurt both of the Church and of our selves too by these divisions will every one follow his own judgment especially since
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.
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