D R STILLINGFLEETS PRINCIPLES Giving an Account of the FAITH OF PROTESTANTS CONSIDERED BY N. O. MATTH XVIII 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus PRINTED AT PARIS By the Widow of Antonie Christian and Charles Guillery M. DC LXXI PERMISSV SVPERIORVM A PREFACE TO the Reader DOctor Stilling fleet hauing lately published a Book entitled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome c. being a Rejoynder to a reply of an vnknown Catholick Gentleman engaged in some former Controuersy with him at the end of the Same Book hath annexed certain Principles drawn up as he saith to giue an Account of the Protestant-Faith Now as touching the main Book it would be inciuility and injustice in any other to inuade the Right of his worthy Aduersary by vntertaking an Answer thereto To his Aduersaries Answer therefore as the times permitt and to Gods mercy I leaue him if perhaps he may repent and endeavour some satisfaction 1. For his accusing the whole Catholick Church of God both Western and Eastern for the same Practise as to Seuerall of his Idolatries are in both for so many Ages before Luthers time of Idolatry and this Idolatry as gross as that of Heathens Which surely must Vn-church this Great Body and quite divorce this Adulteress from Christ for we cannot but think but the Doctor will maintain the Teaching so manifold an Idolatry in this Church to be Fundamentall Errour 2. For his representing the Highest Deuotions practised from all Antiquity in the same Church Mysticall Theology Contemplation heauenly Inspirations all those Supernaturall Favours and familiar Communications of the Diuine Majesty to purer soules receiued in Prayer and continued still in his Church as also Miracles are and so attested in her Histories but vnknown indeed to strangers and foolishness to Greeks his representing all these I say as ridiculous Fanaticisms and impostures though he knowes that Catholicks account themselues obliged to submitt all these things to the judgment of Superiours a Duty vnknown to Fanaticks And what may we expect next from such who are to many as make ill use of such Books as his but that the frequent Allocutions of Gods Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture the Visions Reuelations Extasies and Spirituall Vnions of the Saints there our Lords Ego in eis tu in me ut sint consummati in unum and S. Pauls Viuo non ego sed in me Christus will shortly become matter of Drollery and Bouffonry 3. For his making so many of Gods glorious Saints in Heauen quorum causam discernat Deus the subject of his scorn and derision By all which he has fitted his Book for the sport and recreation of the Atheist and Debauched from whose applause with the regret and horrour mean while of all piously disposed he may receive his reward The Reuisall of these not very gratefull Subjects of his Book therefore I leaue to the worthy Gentleman pre-engaged in these Disputes But for the now mentioned Principles separately adjoyned at the end as euery Catholick has an equall Right to apply himself to the examining of them so seeing that from these it is that such bad fruits of forsaking first and then censuring and condemning their Mother the Church doe grow it may with Gods blessing proue a seruice not altogether vnbeneficiall to discouer their weakness especially since by such a discouery his whole preceding Book will be demonstrated vnconcluding against Gods Church And this is here the rather and with greater confidence vndertaken because since it is Impiety to deny in generall that true Christian Faith hath a certain vnmoueable Foundation in case therefore it shall appear that the Foundation here layd by the Doctor is but a meer trembling Quiksand on which a Christian cannot without a dreadfull danger to his soule build his Faith namely An Errability in the Guides of Gods Church and Inerrability in all necessary Doctrins contained in Scripture by Him attributed indefinitely to all sober Christians who without any necessary consulting or depending on such Teachers as haue been instituted by God shall vse their sincere endeauours to find out such Truths this Foundation I say not Scripture but each priuate mans sense of Scripture being ruined it will vnauoydably follow That the only certain way not to be misled will be the submitting our Internall Assent and Belief to Church-authority which those who haue dissented from and refused to stand to before Luthers time haue been always marked with the name of Hereticks Where by Church-authority I mean in generall that Superior and more comprehensiue Body of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which in any dissent and division of the Clergy according to the Church Canons ought to be obeyed and which hath hitherto in her supremest and most generally accepted Councills in all Ages from the Beginning required such Submission vnder penalty of Anathema and justly assumed to her self the Title of the onely authenticall Interpreter of Scripture and authoritatiue Teacher of Diuine Verities A Submission this is which no particular Church diuided from this more Vniuersall can with the least pretence of reason challenge from her Subjects since she her self and particularly the Church of England refused the same to all the Authority extant in the world when she separated her self And this being obserued by M r. Chillingworth a schollar herein of the Socinians and by many other Diuines of late vpon whom hls Book hath had too must influence they accordingly are forced to disclaime that Submission which the Church of England formerly had challenged in her Canons and seuerely euen with Ecclesiasticall death punished the refusers vntill they should repent not their Externall Disobedience or Contradiction but their wicked Errour The 39. Articles being declared in the same 5 Canon to haue been by this Church agreed vpon for the auoyding diuersities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion Now that these later Divines do decline such Submission I need goe no further then to Doctor Stillingfleets Rationall Account for proof where the Lord Primat of Ireland is cited thus The Church of England doth not not define any of these Questions speaking of the 39. Articles as necessary to be belieued but only binds her sonnes for Peace sake not to oppose them And again We do not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we oblige any man to belieue them but only not to contradict them Thus they speake of late and thus M r. Chilling worth hath cleared the way before them in abridging thus the just Authority of the Primitiue Councills The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times might haue just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receiue her Declarations under pain of damnation or Anathema what warrant they had I know not
He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to haue this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired he that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the Iudgment of a Councill though not infallible yet so far Directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for Publick Peace sake Now by this way our late English Diuines seem to haue brought the Authority of their Church into a great disreputation and wayning condition and to haue excused yea justified all Sects which haue or shall separate from her For indeed what fault can it be to forsake the Doctrine of a Church whose Teaching none is bound to belieue or obey out of conscience and which quietly suffers yea liberally rewards her sons while they thus disparage her These Principles therefore layd by the Doctor which by aduancing the Clearness of the Rule so as to inferr the vselesness of a Guide do seem to supplant what soeuer Authority of any Church are here weighed in the following Considerations The great importance of which Subject requiring Expressions serious modest and euery way vnlike those made vse of by the Doctor in his Book such haue been studiously endeauoured here without the least resentment of seuerall vnciuill and vnmerited Aspersions which in the sayd Book the Doctor hath cast vpon seuerall among vs and the more moderate any haue bene the more immoderately haue they bene traduced God Almighty inspire into all our hearts a sincere loue of Peace and Truth Amen D r. STILLINGFLEETS PRINCIPLES Giving an Account of the Faith of Protestants CONSIDERED 1. THe Principles c. which Doctor Stilling fleet has thought expedient to expose at the end of his Book to render an Account of the Protestants Faith are sett down in three ranks The first consists of Six Principles agreed on both sides The second contains Thirty Propositions for enquiring into the particular ways which God hath made choyce of for revealing his will to mankind of which Propositions some are also Principles partly agreed on and partly not and some are Deductions from them But we following the generall Title will call them all Principles In the third rank six Corollaries or Inferences are deduced from the fore-going Propositions to the advantage of the cause of Protestants against Catholicks To all which we here offer the following Considerations I. PRINCIPLES Agreed on all sides 1. That there is a God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their beginning 2. That the Notion of God doth imply that he is a Being absolutely perfect and therefore Iustice Goodness Wisdom and Truth must be in him in the highest perfection 3. That Man receaving his Being from God is thereby bound to obey his Will and consequently is liable to punishment in case of disobedience 4. That in order to Mans obeying the will of God it is necessary that he know what it is for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that Man may know what he hath to do and that God may justly punish him if he do it not 5. What ever God reveals to Man is infallibly true and being intended for the Rule of Mans obedience may be certainly known to be his Will 6. God cannot act contrary to those essentiall Attributes of Iustice Wisdom Goodnesse and Truth in any way which he makes choyce of to make known his Will unto Man by It were impiety to question any of these Principles which are or ought to be presupposed not only to the Christian but all manner of Religions We will therefore proceed to the second Rank consisting of 30. Propositions which we will sett down singly and separatly annexing to each a respective Examination or Consideration II. An Enquiry into the particular ways which God hath made choyce of for the revealing his Will to Mankind I. PRINCIPLE 1. An entire obedience to the will of God being agreed to be the condition of mans happinesse no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to that end then such whereby Man may know what the will of God is This is granted II. PRINCIPLE 2. Man being fram'd a rationall creature capable of reflecting vpon himself may antecedently to any externall Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependence vpon him and those things which are naturally pleasing to him else there could be no such thing as a law of Nature or any Principles of Natural Religion This may be granted III. PRINCIPLE 3. All Supernaturall and externall Revelation must suppose the truth of Naturall Religion for vnlesse we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his will to vs by any supernaturall means Let this be granted IV. PRINCIPLE 4. Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which ouerthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation For that were to ouerthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation Let this also be granted V. PRINCIPLE 5. There can be no other means imagined whereby we are to judg of the truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in vs of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of Divine Reuelation we must be imposed vpon by euery thing which pretends to be soe Here if the Doctor means That every Christian hath a faculty in him which as to all Revelations what soeuer proposed to him can discern the True and Divine from others that are not so and when a Revelation certainly Divine is capable of several senses can discern the true sense from the false all this exclusively to and independently on the Instruction of church-Church-authority This Proposition is not true For then none will need as experience shews they do to repayre to any other Teacher to instruct him when a dubious Revelation or when the sense of any Divine Revelation is controuersed which is the true revelation or which the sense of it It is abundantly sufficient that eyther Wee our selues or some others appointed by our Lord to guide vs and more easily discouerable by vs have a Faculty ayded by the Divine assistance to discern Truth and Falshood in those Revelations proposed wherein wee our selues cannot that so particular Christians in their following these Guides may not be imposed vpon by every thing which pretends to be Divine Revelation VI. PRINCIPLE 6. The pretence of Infallibility in any person of Society of men must be judged in the same way that the truth of a Divine Revelation is for that infallibility being challenged by vertue of a
supernaturall assistance and for that end to assure men what the will of God is the same means must be vsed for the tryall of that as for any other supernaturall way of Gods making known his will to men Here if the Doctor means That by the same way or means as we come to know the truth of other Divine Revelations we may come to know the truth also of this viz the Infallibility in Necessaries of a Society or Church I consent to it But not to this That by all or only the same ways or means by which we may come to know one Divine Revelation we may or must come to know any other or this of Church-Infallibility For some Divine Revelation may come first to our knowledg by Tradition another first by Scripture another by the Church see below Consid. on the 17. Principle VII PRINCIPLE 7. It being in the power of God to make choyce of severall ways of revealing his Will to vs we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinit Iustice Wisdom Goodness and Truth This is granted VIII PRINCIPLE 8. Whatever way is capable of certainly conveying the Will of God to vs may be made choyce of by him for the means of making known his will in order to the happiness of mankind so that no Argument can be sufficient a priori to prove that God cannot choose any particular way to reveal his mind by but such which evidently prooues the insufficiency of that means for conueying the Will of God to vs. This likewise is granted IX PRINCIPLE 9. There are severall ways conceaveable by vs how God may make known his Will to vs eyther by immediate voyce from Heaven or inward Inspiration to every particular person or inspiring some to speak personnally to others or assisting them with an infallible spirit in writing such Books which shall contain the Will of God for the benefit of distant persons and future Ages To these seuerall ways by which God reveals his Will the Doctor might have added this one more as a Truth And in case such Writings in some things be not clear to all capacities as the Writings of Moses his law were not nor any Writings though possibly yet hardly can be when written at seuerall times by seueral persons on seuerall and those particular occasions in different styles c. By our Lords giuing a Commission to and leauing a standing Authority in the Successors of these holy Pen-men to expound these their Writings to the people and by affording them for euer such a Divine Assistance as in nothing necessary to misinterpret them X. PRINCIPLE 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by Writing it must eyther be because no Writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can neuer be known to be written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for Words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the later ouerthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God This is granted XI PRINCIPLE 11. It is agreed among all Christians that although God in the first Ages of the World did reveal his mind to men immediatly by a Voice of secret inspirations yet afterwards hee did communicate his mind to some immediatly inspired to write his Will in Books to be preserued for the benefit of future Ages and particularly that these Books of the New Testament which we now receaue were so written by the Apostles and Disciples of Iesus-Christ The Doctor declaring how God after the first Ages was pleas'd to communicate his mind by the Writings of Moses c. might and ought to haue added as a Truth That he also left a Iudge in case of any Controuersy arising about the sense of those Writings to whose sentence the people were to stand and do according to it vnder paine of death as the same Writings inform vs. XII PRINCIPLE 12. Such Writings hauing been receiued by the Christian Church of the first Ages as Divine and Infallible and being deliuered down as such to vs by an vniuersall consent of all Ages since they ought to be owned by vs as the certain Rule of Faith whereby we are to judge what the Will of God is in order to our Saluation vnlesse it appear with an euidence equall to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God that they were neuer intended for that end because of their obscurity or imperfection Here these words whereby we are to judge being vnderstood not vniuersally of all Christians but of those to whom amongst Christians this Office of judging in dubious cases is delegated by our Lord Or vnderstood vniuersally that is so farr as the sense of these Scriptures is to all men clear and vndisputable This Proposition is granted XIII PRINCIPLE 13. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Reuelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as Writing being made choyce of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God to giue infallible assurance to persons in writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be vnderstood by all persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their saluation This Principle is vnsound Because if God who according to the Doctors 7. Principle may reueal his Will in or without Writing after what manner he pleaseth may reveal it in these Writings so as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more versed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them and more assisted from aboue according to their employment which Persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest and these to learne it of them in those places or Points wherein to these persons Gods Will is obscure then I say though these Writings be not such as that euery one may attaine the understanding of them by his owne endeavours yet if he may by others namely his Instructors this also consists very well with the Diuine designe with his Wisdome and Goodnesse as also it would had he left no Writings at all but only Teachers to deliuer his Will perpetually to his Church Concerning these Vvritings pretended by the Doctor to be intelligible by all Persons c. I find as it seems to me a contrary Principle aduanced by Doctor Field a person of no small authority in the Church of England in his Preface to the large Volume he thought it necessary to write on the Church Seeing sayth he the Controuersies of Religion that is in
which it proposeth Yet it signifies much for his hauing a right and sauing Faith in all those matters proposed by this Church which cannot misguide him see the Consideration on the nineteenth Principle which right and sauing Faith children and other illiterate country people in the Catholick Church haue without any such infallible assurance concerning the Proponent as is abundantly declared by Catholick writers In like manner the Protestants also affirme That the Holy scriptures may signify much to the begetting a true and sauing Faith euen in those who cannot from Vniuersall Tradition certainly proue them to be the word of God XXII PRINCIPLE 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our infallible assurance without an equall infallibility in our selues in the belief of it If no particular person be infallible in the Assent he giues to matters propos'd c. Here Matters is left indefinite If the Doctor means to any matters at all proposed the Proposition and Consequence thereto annexed are true and granted But on the contrary a particular person may be infallible in the assent he giues to some matter proposed viz. to this That the Church is infallible If he means to all matters proposed then it is faulty and denyed For though no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to all matters proposed by others to him yet may he be so in this the Churches Infallibility And so the Consequence also is voyd and the Churches Infallibility will signify as much as is expected to mens infallible assurance in those matters it proposeth Here then Catholicks affirm That though euery person is not so any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or what euer Certainty that may be called which Vniuersall Tradition can afford assured of this Diuine Reuelation the Churches Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motiues of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally-infallible and certain means of belieuing the scriptures to be the word of God On which word of God or Diuine Reuelation the seuerall Articles deliuered by it in the sense their own priuate judgment apprehends the Protestant grounds his Faith Again on which word of God or Diuine Reuelation in the sense this Infallible Church interprets the same Articles the Catholick grounds his Faith But as the Protestants except here from being primarily grounded on or proued by the same scriptures this Fundamentall Point of Faith That the scriptures are the true Word of God so they must giue Catholiks also leaue to except here this their Point of Faith the infallibility of the Church from being primarily or as to the first means of Knowing it grounded on or learnt from the testimony of this Infallible Church For this Point may first come to the Belieuers Knowledge either from Tradition or from the Holy scriptures as is explained before in the Considerations on 17. Principle § 28. From the scriptures I say as the sense of them is now learnt not from this Infallible Church but either from their owne sufficient Clearness in this Point or from Tradition Nor are Catholicks necessited in arguing against Protestants who grant the scriptures to be Gods Word to vse any other Testimony then that of these scriptures for a sufficiently clear Proof of Church-Infallibility For I think I may call that a clear Proof euen according to the Doctors common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Yet whilst they deny a sufficient Euidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in scripture if they would allow a sufficient Euidence of Church-Authority established to decide Ecclesiasticall Controuersies with Obligation to Externall Obedience by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much Major Part may be admitted as it ought to giue Law to the Whole In the Belief and Profession of Which Church-Infallibility and submission of priuate mens judgments to her sentence passed in her synods the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controuersies and establishing Peace For he tells them That those Points which haue been determined or commanded synodically after a Legitimate way of Councills they are receiued by all Faithfull Christians as consonant to the Diuinely-Inspired scriptures And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith It is not lawfull for vs confiding in our own priuate Explication to vnderstand to obserue or interpret any saying of Diuine scripture any otherwayes then as hath seemed good to those Theologues who haue been approued and receiued by Holy synods directed by Gods spirit least that declining from the right Euangelicall Doctrin the Conceptions of our minds should be carried about hither and thither like a Proteus But some wilt aske How shall those things be reformed How Euen thus by Gods Assistance if we take not into our hands nor giue credit to any things besides those which haue been instituted and ordained by the Holy Apostles and Holy synods He who obserues this limit is our Companion in celebrating Diuine Mysteries he is of the same Communion and Faith with us Again in his Preface to the same answer he saith We will giue our Answer not alledging any thing of our own but from the seauen Oecumenicall synods the last of these is that so much persecuted and befoold by Doctor Stillingfleet in his last Book And from the sentence of Holy Doctors interpreters of Diuinely inspired scriptures whom the Catholick Church hath by an Vnanimous consent receiued since the Holy Ghost hath breathed forth by them and spoken in them such things as shall foreuer remain unmooued as being founded on the Word of God For the Church of Christ is the Pillar and ground of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail as God has promised Here we see in the East the same Zeale for Councills and for Fathers taken collectiuely as an Infallible Guide as is in the West and the like endeauour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgment and humble submission of Judgment XXIII PRINCIPLE 23. The Infallibility of euery particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other vseless for if euery person be infallible what needs any Representatiue Church be so too and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if euery Person be not infallible in the belief of it we are further to enquire what certainty men may haue in matters of Faith supposing no
against it ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the Knowing what things are reuealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to vse the Doctors Expression to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority Else a mistaken and culpably ignorant belief herein will no way justify his disobedience No more then the Socinians contrary belief justifies him against the Decrees of the Church in those Points which yet he belieues not to be founded in Gods word and rejects as contrary And the Doctor els-where to express and curb such extrauagant and capricious beliefs is glad to call in for the interpreting of Scripture to them the concurrant sense of the Primitiue Church the common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and learned men And on their side who disbelieue this Authority he calls for no less then Demonstration and this not some improbable Argument miscalled so but which being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent thereto that is that euery reasonable man vnderstanding the terms assents to But how this and seuerall other things which haue fallen some times from the Doctors pen do consist with these Principles and some other Tenēts of his Or how the true sense of Scripture in all Necessaries is so clear and intelligible to euery sincere endeauourer as that he hath such Demonstration for it as that no rationall man hearing it can dissent from it I cannot vndertake to giue a Satisfactory account Mean while such Protestants as perhaps may cast their eyes on these Papers may do well to consider whether vpon such a Demonstratiue Certainty in the Points controuerted as this it is that they oppose Church-Authority teaching them otherwise Likwise the Common Reason of MankindChristian the Common consent of Wise and learned men named by him before what are they indeed but where all are not vnited in the same judgment the most common Suffrage and testimony of the present Vniversall Church whom also we ought sooner to credit then any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitiue Church in case this suffers any debate And if as he says Particular persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they haue Demonstration that is their own certainty and Infallibility as to such Point to shew against it then we need not seek for our Lords Patent of the Churches Infallibility for their or our submission to it tell the Opposers of its judgment for the Points they dissent in produce theirs Here then we see the Doctor getts as near to an Internall Infallible or at least Authenticall Proponent as his cause and interest will permitt him Hoping by his requiring Demonstration and introducing Common Reason and Wise and learned men and Primitiue Church to shake his hands of so many Sectarists who molest his owne Churches peace vpon the account of this his Proposition or something like it viz. that no Christian is bound vnder what euer pretence of Church Authority to belieue that which is not reuealed in Gods Word and is bound to reject what euer is offred to be impos'd vpon his Faith that is contrary or hath no ground in Gods Word c. And you must lett them judg of both these For the last part of this 29. Principle That such Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith I grant that a rejecting of the imposition of a Belief of such a Positiue Point or the refusing to admitt it as an Article of their Faith which may be done whilst they eyther suspend their judgment concerning it or also acknowledg the truth of it supposed no Diuine Reuelation if this were all the Protestants do is not therefore making the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith But mean while the rejecting any such Positiue from their Faith as not only vntrue but contrary to the Scripture is making or declaring the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith because it makes this Negatiue a thing reuealed in Scripture and so a matter of Faith though I do not say an Article necessary to Saluation And therefore perhaps it was that the Doctor in the Reason he annexeth That they only apply the Generall grounds of Faith to particular instances c. mentions indeed such Positiues as are neyther in nor may be deduced from the Scripture but warily omitts such as are pretended contrary to Scripture Now that Protestants declare many of these Positiues they reject contrary to Scripture See for Purgatory Adoration of Images Inuocation of Saints Indulgences in the Article of the Church of England 22. For Works of Supererogation Art 14. For Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not vnderstood by the people Art 24. Sacrifice of the Mass. Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. And to this Belief of the Negatiues of them as contained in Scripture all the Members of the Church of England or at least the Clergy seem to be by their Canons as strictly obliged though some of their Diuines appear not well satisfied with it vnder these terms To allow and acknowledg all the Articles and so these fore-cited agreable to Gods Word To declare their vnfeigned assent to them and this for establishing Vnity of Opinion and consent as those of the Roman Church are obliged to the Positiues who are no such way obliged by that Church to such a necessary Belief of all her Positiues as that a Person nescient of them cannot be saued or that the explicit knowledg of them is necessary though always in some measure beneficiall it is to Saluation But this indeed is necessary to Saluation that any Subject of the Church knowing them to be determined by her obey her Definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such Disobedience being conceaued a breach of Gods Command And from this if I may be indulged to trangress a little an Answer may be giuen to that Quaere of the Doctors in his Book Roman Idolatry p. 52. which he says he could not hitherto procure from Catholiks though he hath often requested it viz. Why the belieuing of all the Ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Saluation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome Where if he will allow me here for auoyding by disputes to change these Words Communion of the Church of Rome into the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church and 2. will giue me leaue to vnderstand a good life here restrained to all other duties of a Christian saue those which respect this Communion else if a good life be generally taken the Doctors supposition must not be allowed Then I answer That such Belieuing and Leading such a life cannot be sufficient for Saluation to so many persons as persist without repentance eyther in a wilfull ignorance of their Obligation to
arguments drawn from them as well as Protestants But if the Doctor put this Text so much controuerted among Obscure Scriptures which therefore not containing any Point necessary to saluation saluation is not endangered by it if a Christian should err or be mistaken in their sense then how comes this great Body of Christians meerly by the mistake of its sence in thinking that our Lord meaneth as the words sound that the Eucharist is his very proper Body and so in adoring as they ought should it be so how come they I say to committ such grosse Idolatry as the Doctor in his Book chargeth them with and so all without repentence miscarry in their Saluation And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church pretended to interpret them on the Protestants side neither will this relieue the Doctor because since this also on what side Antiquity stands is a thing in Controuersy for deciding of it we are to presume here likewise that a sincere endeauour being allowd to all Parties to vnderstand the sense of the former Church this also stands on that side as the Major part apprehends it Now the present Catholick Church being a Major part professes to follow the sence of the Ancient in interpreting Scripture XIV PRINCIPLE 14. To suppose the bookes so written to be imperfect that is that any things necessary to be heleeued or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not deliuering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it downe and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in belieuing the fullnesse and perfection of the scriptures in order to saluation The two inferences made here by the Doctor are faulty For 1. Neither can the first Author of scripture be charged with fraud if he haue deliuered part of his mind only by writing and part some other way as the Doctour Prop. 7. 8. 9. acknowledges he might vnless it be manifest that he hath obliged himselfe by a Promise of delivering his whole mind by writing which is not shewed 2. Neither can the Writers of scripture be charged with insincerity if so much as they were inspired with to set downe and register there they haue done it Meanwhile as touching the Perfection of Holy scriptures Catholiks now as the Holy Fathers anciently do grant that they contain all Points of Faith which are simply necessary to be of all Persons belieued for attaining saluation And of this Doctor Field may be a Witness who saith For matters of Faith we may conclude according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our Adversaries themselues that there is nothing to be belieued which is not either expresly contained in scripture or at least by necessary consequence from thence and by other things euident in the Light of Nature or in the matter of Fact to be concluded XV. PRINCIPLE 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober enquirer can misse of what is necessary for saluation there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible society of men either to attest and explain these Writings among Christians any more then there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iewes to attest and explain to them the Writings of Moses or the Prophets The Consequence here is good viz. That supposing the Will of God is so clearly reuealed in these Writings that no sober Enquirer can misse of knowing what is necessary to saluation there can be then no necessity of any Infallible society But the supposition of such a clearenesse fayles as the 13. Prosiosition on which it is grounded doth It failes I say in the sense the Doctor deliuers it who referrs his sober enquirer only to the Writings themselues for information in all Necessaries Without consulting his spirituall Pastours for the right explication of them Nor doth the Doctors Language any where run thus That the will of God is so plainly revealed in these Writings for then he should say so obscurely rather that no sober man not who repairs to the Writings but who enquires of and learns from his spirituall Pastours the right sence of them shall miss c. But if the supposition in the Doctors sence be allowed for true there seems to follow something more then the Doctor deduceth and which perhaps he would not admit viz. the non-necessity of any society at all fallible or infallible to explain these Writings as to Necessaries all Christians being herein clearly taught from God in these scriptures or this their Rule vnless perhaps these Teachers may be said to be left by our Lord for others to supersede their endeauours or for instructing them in non-necessaries As touching that which the Doctor in the clause of this Princ. speaks of Moses and the Prophets certain it is that Moses his Writings and the Law were not penned with such Clarity But that Doubts and Controuersies might arise concerning the sence of it so we find mention made of doubts between Law and Commandement statutes and Iudgments And 2. such Doubts arising their address was to be made to the supreme Iudges appointed for deciding them 3. Whateuer their sentence was according to the sentence of the Law that these should teach them and according to the judgment that they should tell and inform them they were to do and that vpon pain of death To do I say according to such sentence not only when they were to vndergo some mulct or punishment imposed by these Judges for a fault but when they were enjoyned the obseruance of some Law formerly misunderstood by them and so broken and disobeyed This seems clear enough from the words of the Text for who can reasonably interpret them thus Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the left vers 11. that is Thou shalt not decline in not paying the mulct in which they shall fine thee or not vndergoing the corporall punishment they shall inflict on thee Thou shalt obserue to do according to all that they shall informe thee and according to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee vers 10. that is thou shalt suffer what they impose but not obey what they enjoyn Again they were to do according to such sentence vpon pain of death not then only when the Litigants do aknowledge their sentence to be juxta Legem Dei conformable to Gods Law for then what sentence of the Iudge would stand good but so often as the Judge should declare it to be conformable to Gods Law And when will a Judge declare his sentence to bee otherwise Lastly not to debate here the Infallibility of these supreme Judges as to all necessaries in the Law
Externall Proponent to be infallible The Obseruations made vpon the three immediatly foregoing Propositions the matter of which is repeated in this do shew that they no way serue him for the vse he would here make of them The sense of which Propositions as far as they haue any truth in them may be returned vpon him thus since the Infallibility af any particular person as to the assent he either doth or may giue to this Point of the Churches Infallibility is asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church And since such infallibility of a particular person as to this point doth not therefore render at all the Infallibility of a Church vseless to him viz. as to his learning still from her all those other Points of Faith of which he hath no infallible knowledge or certainty otherwayes in which therefore he not being infallible that he may not erre in them it is necessary that the representatiue Church be so And so since the Infallibility of the Church is still of most important effect both to those who haue and to those who as yet haue not any infallible certainty of this her Infallibility toguide both these in a true right and sauing Faith as to those Points where of they haue no certainty Therefore there needs no Enquiry after a further Certainty for that our Faith in which we haue one already from this Infallible Proponent the Church XXIV PRINCIPLE 24. There are different degrees of Certainty to be attained according to the different degrees of Euidence and measure of Diuine Assistance but euery Christian by the use of his reason and common helpes of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the conuincing arguments of the Christian Religion and authority of the scriptures that on the same grounds on which men doubt of the truth of them they may as well doubt of the truth of those things which they judge to be most euident to sense or reason Here if the Doctor means That euery Christian by the use of his Reason and common helps of Grace that is as he hath expressed it already Principle 13. and 18. by his perusing the scriptures and sincerely endeauouring to know their meaning exclusuely to his necessary repair to any externall infallible Guide or Proponent as he pretends in Principle 13. 15. 23. may attain to so great a degree of certainty as to all necessary Points of Faith ONELY from the conuincing arguments of the Verity of the Christian Religion and Authority of scriptures as that such a person may as litle doubt of them as of the things most euident to sense or Reason This Principle is denyed And for the reason of this denyall I referr to what is said before to Principle 13. and 18. And I appeal also to what Doctor Stillingfleet himselfe elsewhere tells us in his Rationall Account It seems reasonable saith he that because Art and subtilty may be vsed by such who seek to peruert the Catholick Doctrin and to wrest the plain places of scripture which deliuer it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselues of such Mists as are cast before their eyes the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding times may be a very usefull way for vs to embrace the true sense of scripture especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith as for instance in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity c. Now should not the Doctor instead of saying the sence of the Catholich Church in succceding Ages may be a very vsefull way for vs haue said is very necessary for vs if his cause would permit him And will not the Socinian thank him for this his mitigation But if according to this Principle euery Christian without this externall Guide can not in some perhaps but in all these Points of Faith attain such certainty as he hath in things most euident to sense or Reason how doth he stand in need of consulting or conforming to the sense of the Primitiue Catholick Church XXV PRINCIPLE 25. No man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertain any suspition of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and vncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that those who are certain of what they belieue may at the same time not know but that it may be false which is an apparent contradiction and ouerthrowes any faculty in vs of judging of truth or falshood 1. This Principle is euident and granted But such certainty is not applicable to the belief of euery Christian as to all Points of Faith if he be supposed not assisted by any Externall Infallible Guide 2. It is true also that a full and firme Assent free from doubting as where no Reasons offer themselues to perswade vs to the contrary may be yielded to a thing as true which is really false and at the same time no suspicion be entertained of the falshood of it XXVI PRINCIPLE 26. Whateuer necessarily proues a thing to be true doth at the same time proue it impossible to be false because it is impossible the same thing should be true and false at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrine of the Ghospell as true do therby declare their Belief of the Impossibility of the falshood of it This Proposition is granted But one who assents firmly in generall to the whole Doctrine of the Ghospell what euer it be as true and so to the impossibility of the falshood of it or any part of it doth not therefore being vnasisted by any Externall Guide know what this Doctrine is in euery such Point of Faith where the sense of the Letter of this Ghospell is controuerted and to vse the Apostles Phrase hard to be vnderstood and that in matters too hazarding damnation if mistaken Therefore me thinks the Doctor should here allow thus much at least That all those who after their perusing the scriptures think themselues not certain of its sense are obliged notwithstanding the silence of these Protestant Principles herein to repair to the Direction of these Externall Guides and these too not taken at aduenture and to follow their Faith Now such non-pretenders to Certainty according to the Doctors tryall of it sett down below in Consid. on Princ. 29. I suppose are the greatest part of Protestants XXVII PRINCIPLE 27. The nature of Certainty doth receiue seuerall names either according to the nature of the Proof or the degrees of the Assent Thus MORALL certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to MATHEMATICALL Euidence but implying a firme assent vpon the highest Euidence that Morall things can receiue Or as it is opposed to a higher degree of certainty in the same kind so MORALL Certainty implies only greater Probabilities of one side then the other In the former
sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be MORALL not in the later This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians haue or may haue a sufficiently certain and infallible Euidence of the Truth of their Christianity But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of seuerall necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that externall Infallible Guide therein And the perpetuall Diuine Assistance and so Infallibility in Necessaries of this Guide being declared in the scriptures a Catholick hauing once learnt this Point of Faith from it Definitions and Expositions becomes secure and setled in the belief of all those controuerted Articles of his Faith Wherein Others another whilst the scriptures in such Points at least to persons vnlearned or of weaker judgments which are which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sence and drawn with much art to seuerall interests XXVIII PRINCIPLE 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firm assent that the scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolued into the scriptures as into the rule and measure of what hee is to belieue as it is into the Veracity of God as the ground of belieuing what is therein contained Both Catholicks and Protestants profess to resolue their Faith into the Word of God and Diuine Reuelation or into the scriptures so as is said on Principle 14. and 29. and make Gods Veracity the Ground of their belief of the things therein contained But the former resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sense of it where disputed is deliuered by the Church whose Faith the Apostle commands vs to follow and to whom Christ himself giues testimony as S. Augustin saith As for Protestants they resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sence of it is ultimatly apprehended and vnderstood by their own judgments None here to vse the Doctors words elsewhere vsurping that Royall Prerogrtiue of Heauen in prescribing infallibly in matters question'd suppose in those Points the Doctor named before the Doctrine of the Deity of Iesus Christ or of the Trinity But leauing all to judge and so the Socinians according to the Pandects of the Diuine Lawes because each member of this society is bound to take care of his soul and all things that tend thereto But here the Doctor will permit vs to aske whether euery one is bound to take care of his soul so as vnder the pretence hereof to disobey their Resolutions and Instructions in Faith or Manners whom God hath appointed to take care of and to watch ouer their soules and will require an account of them for it Here therefore let euery one take the safest course and where there is no euident Certainty always make sure to side with the Church XXIX PRINCIPLE 29 No Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what was reuealed by God himselfe in that Book wherein he belieues his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offered to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no fundation in scripture or is contrary thereto Which rejection is no making NEGATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH but only applying the generall grounds of Faith to particular instances as I belieue nothing necessary to saluation but what is contained in scripeure Therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 1. Here first obserue That what no Christian is obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church Authority And that the Doctors freeing the Churches subjects here from the former doth so from the later It concerns therefore his superiors to look to it whether their Churches and their owne Authority suffers no detriment particularly from this Principle I mean so as it can be applied to priuate mens practice 2. Next obserue That the Expression What is reuealed by God c. as it is applicable to persons must either mean What such person only thinks belieues or is perswaded to be reuealed c. or what such person certainly knows to be reuealed And the same may be sayd of the later expressions what hath no foundation What is contrary Now as either of these two Additions are made a great alteration is made in the Principle and what in the one Addition is true in the other may be false As for example when a culpable Ignorance belieues something that is enjoyned by this Authority not to be reuealed in Gods Word which indeed is so and so rejects it here such act is not justifiable Very necessary therefore it seems here to make an exact distinction that if the Doctor means it here of the one viz. certain Knowledge it may not be misapplyed by any to the other namely a belief or full perswasion For so men set once vpon examining well in such high mysteries their owne Certainty will I conceiue neuer find just cause to reject what this Church-Authority to which they owe obedience recommends to them vpon Her Certainty But to take Expressions as they lye For the first Part of this Principle thus much is granted That no Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what is reuealed by God himselfe in his Word Written or Vnwritten both which the Doctor else where allowes to be of the same Value so it be euident they are his Word Where I adde vnwritten because though it is granted before on Principle 14. that the Word written or Book of scriptures contains all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary to be of all persons belieued for attaining saluation Yet some Articles of a Christians Faith there may be that are not there contained which may be also securely preserued in the Church by Ecclesiasticall Tradition both Written and Vnwritten deriued at first from the Apostolicall as for example this by Protestants confessed That these Bookes of scripture are the Word of God I say thus much is granted For no Church-Infallibility is now pretended but only in declaring what this Word of God deliuers requireth authorizeth and a Catholicks whole Faith is grounded on Diuine Reuelation And where such pretended Infallible Church-Authority enjoyns any thing to be belieued meerly as lawfull it grounds it selfe on this Word of God for the lawfulness of it The Consequence also is granted viz. That a Christian is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offred to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no foundation in scripture or Gods Word as before explained or is contrary thereto that is which is certainly known to such Christian to be so there being no matter of Faith enjoyned by such Authority but what is pretended to be so founded But then such Christian where not infallibly certain
a Hill in the most extended Vnity of an Externall Communion which no other Christian Society can equall a Candle on a Candlestick a Perpetuall erected Visible Pillar and Monument of Truth frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus Where also according to the disparity of seuerall mens capacities I suppose nothing more necessary then that this Euidence receiued eyther from all or only some of these Notes to those who haue not ability to examin others be such as that it out-weigh any arguments mouing him to the contrary and the like Euidence to which is thought sufficient to determin vs in other Elections And then this Church thus being found he may be resolued by it concerning the Sence of other Diuine Reuelations more dubious and generally all other Scrupules in Religion to witt so farr as this Church from time to time seeth a necessity of such Resolution and the Diuine Reuelation therein is to her sufficiently clear only if such person not spending so much of his own judgment will afford instead of it a little more of his Obedience III. CONSEQUENCE 3. The less conuincing the Miracles the more doubtfull the Marks the more obscure the Sence of eyther what is called the Catholick Church or declared by it the less reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of any who call themselues by the name of the Catholick Church All this is true vpon supposition that matters stand as the Doctor would pretend but such supposition being groundless he must giue me leaue to inuert his Consequence and say The more conuincing the Miracles if any credit for these may be giuen to Church-History the more euident the Marks euen now giuen by S. Augustin and modern Catholick Writers the more clear and manifest euen to simple persons who with much difficulty in seuerall places comprehend the Sense of controuerted Scripture is the Catholick Church whose Representatiue are the subordinate Councills and whose Gouernors the seuerall Degrees of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy ascending to the Prime See of S. Peter and the more clear also the Points declared by it viz. in these Councills whose Decrees suppose that of Trent if questioned for their Truth are not for their perspicuity and particularly in the Points of Controuersy they assembled to determin between Protestants and Catholicks the more reason hath any Christian to belieue vpon the account of those who call themselues by the Name and challenge the High Priuiledges which no other Separated Socityes of Christians do of the Catholick Church IV. CONSEQUENCE 4. The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and Reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men the greater reason men still haue to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture The Higher any Points of Faith be and the more remote from Sense and naturall Reason or not comprehensiue by them which such Church as is named before and in the highest capacity of it Generall Councils proposeth to the Faith of Christians the more noble exercise they haue of their Faith whilst they haue an abundant certainty also that such Leaders can misguide them in nothing necessary to Saluation And no reason haue they vpon such improbabilities or contradictions to Sense or naturall Reason to suspect or be jealous of the Churches Infallibility as an Imposture which Church they see through what euer obstacles faithfully adheres to the Diuine Oracles how incredible soeuer to Nature and may be thought because it seems not swayed or hindred by these at all to vse more integrity in her judgment and fidelity to the Diuine Reuelations Yet this is not sayd as if the judgment of our Sences appointed by God the Instruments by hearing or reading them of conueying Faith and his Diuine Reuelations to vs affords not a sufficient Naturall Certainty or Infallibility whereon to ground our belief in all those things subject to our Senses wherein the Diuine Power doth not interpose But only 1. That where the Diuine Power worketh any thing Supernaturally that is contrary to our Senses as it may no doubt here we are not to belieue them And this I think none can deny 2. And next That we are to belieue this Diuine Power doth so so often as Certain Diuine Reuelation tells vs so Though by the same senses if tells us so we belieuing our Senses that it tells vs so when we do not belieue the same Senses for the thing which is contrary to what it tells vs The truth of which Diuine Reuelation we are to learn from Gods Church infallibly assisted in necessary Faith For otherwise Lot and his Daughters were not to credit the Diuine Reuelation supposing that Diuine History then written and extant that the seeming Men who came to Sodome were Angells because this was against their Senses Now here would he argue well who because Lots sight was actually deceiued vpon this Supernaturall accident in taking the Angells to be Men as certainly it was from hence would inferr that the Apostles had no sufficiēt Certainty or ground from their seeing our Lord to belieue him risen from the Dead Or that no Belief could euer be certainly grounded vpon our Senses Nor that Christians haue any certain Foundation of their Faith For a Naturall or Morall Certainty though such as is per potentiam Diuinam fallible and errable and is to be belieued to err where euer we haue Diuine Reuelation for it not else I say a Certainty though not such an one as cannot possibly be false but which according to the Laws of Nature and the common manners and experience of men is not false is sufficient on which to ground such a Faith as God requires of vs in respect of that Certainty which can be deriued from humane Sense or Reason and which serues for an Introductiue to the relyance of this our Faith vpon such Reuelation as is belieued by vs Diuine and which if Diuine we know is not possibly fallible In respect of its relying on which Reuelation an infallible Object and not for an Infallible Certainty as to the Subject it is that this our Faith is denominated a Diuine Faith Now this Naturall or Morall Certainty is thought sufficient for the first Rationall Introductiue and security of our Faith not only by the Doctor in his 27. Principle but also by Catholick Diuines in their Discourses of the Prudentiall Motiues V. CONSEQUENCE 5. To disown what is taught by such a Church is not to question the Veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of loue to their souls reject what is so taught To disown what is taught by such a Church as we have here represented it will be to desert what God hath reuealed in the Scriptures the true meaning of which Reuelations when controuerted we are to receiue from it And so men ought not