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
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-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
either of these be learnt from Tradition and that of the other from it viz. 1. either the Infallible Authority of the scriptures from that of the Church the Church testifying so much of the scriptures Or 2. that of the Church from the scriptures Or 3. Also the Infallibility of either of these may be rightly proued from its own testimony For whoeuer is proued or granted once infallible in what he saith the consequence is clear without any Circle or Petitio Principii or identicall arguing that whateuer he doth witness of himselfe is true I say all these Consequences are naturall and necessary 1. The Testimony being granted euident that the one bears to the other or either to its selfe and 2. the infallibility of one of these either of the scripture or of the Church being first learnt not from its own or the others testimony but from Tradition 2. When a Catholick then first receiues an assurance of the Truth or Canon of scripture from the Infallibility of the Church or its Gouernors he may learne first this supernaturall Diuine assistance and Infallibility of these Gouernors which is made known by Diuine Reuelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity from Tradition descending from age to age in such manner as the Protestant saith he learneth his Canon of scripture from Tradition To which tradition also may be committed by our Lord or his Apostles whateuer is to scripture 3. Neither may we think that this Diuine Assistance or infallibility of these Guides of the Church in necessaries should either not haue been or not haue been a thing well known to or belieued in the Church by this to use the Doctors terms Deriuatiue and perpetuated sensation of Tradition if there had been no Diuine Writings for soe the Christian religion Without such writings would haue been no rationall and well grounded no stable and certain Religion which surely the Doctor will not affirme And this that is said here of the Churches Infallible Authority may be also of other necessary Articles of the Christian faith For as the Doctor saith It is euident from the Nature of the thing that the Writing of a Diuine Reuolation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith as to that Reuelation Because men may belieue a Diuine Reuelation without it as is euident in the Patriarchs and Christian Beleiuers before the Doctrine written 4. Such Infallibility in necessaries then being so settled in the Gouernors and Pastors of the Church the Apostles and those others ordained by them by whom the World was conuerted as that had there been no scriptures it should not haue failed for so the Church would haue failed too The successors cannot be imagined to become disenabled or depriued of it because the Apostles afterwards wrote what they taught but rather by such Writings more secured in it Because the Belief of this Infallibility of these successors receiues a second euidence from the Testimony thereof also found in these Writings Thus both written and vnwritten Tradition-Apostolicall attesting it 5. Now that these Gouernors of the Church who hauing an apparent succession their Testimony must haue been vnquestionably belieued by Christians in what they taught in case there had been no scripture alwayes reputed and held themselues Diuinely assisted and infallible for all necessaries and that this was the Traditiue Faith of the Church grounded on our Lords Promise in all ages sufficiently appears by their inserting from time to time as they thought fitt their Decisions in the Creeds and by their Anathematizing Dissenters the Churches stiling them Hereticks For no Authority if we belieue the Doctor but that wich proues it selfe Infallible and therefore which is Infallible can justly require our internall Assent or submission of Iudgment And Protestants allowing only an externall obedience or silence due to Councills Fallible inferrs that Councills Fallible can justly require no more and consequently that such Councills are Infallible as do justly require more as did the fowr first Councills with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an Authority assumed by them We find indeed subordinate Councills also stating sometimes matters of Faith censuring Heretiks and requiring assent to their Decrees but still with Relation to the same Infallibility residing in the Generall Body of Church Gouernors and their concurrence therein They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Iudgment of other Churches and especially of the Apostolick see and a generall acceptation rendring their Decisions authentick and valid 2. For the latter part of this Principle Nothing is more absurd then to pretend that Infallibility in a Body of men is not as lyable to doubts and disputes as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility If the Doctor means here as in his Rationall Account that the sentence of a Body of men Infallible is he saith not in some things lyable to some Doubts but as lyable to Doubts and Disputes as the Infallible scriptures for there he maintains That the Decrees of Councills are as lyable to many Interpretations as any other Writings And again If the scriptures cannot put an End to Controuersies on that account how can Generall Councills do it when their Decrees are as lyable to a priuate sense and wrong Interpretation as the scriptures are Nay more c. I say if this be his sense then not to compare Absurdities here Is not this all one as if he said That a Preacher or Commentator can or doth speak or write nothing plainer then the Text Nor the Judge giue a sentence any more intelligible then the Law That Councills can or haue decided nothing clearer then the thing that is in Controuersy And so no Party is cast by them since it appears not for whom they declare And that the Decree of the Councill of Trent as to Transubstantiation remains still as disputable as the Text Hoc est Corpus meum But then how comes it to pass that Protestants when the Definitions of later Councills are urged against them do not contest them as dubious but reject them as erroneous From the same misarguing the Doctor elsewhere concludes That the argument of the Vnity in Opinion of the Roman Party because they are ready to submit their Iudgment to the Determination of the Church will hold as well or better for the Vnity of Protestants as theirs because all men are willing to submit their Iudgments to scriptures which is on all sides agreed to be Infallible Thus He. Now to consider it Moses his Law prescribed by God for an Infallible Rule yet had Iudges appointed when Doubts and Contentions hapned about the meaning of it to explain the sense Our sauiour accordingly in the Ghospell when any one had a Controuersy against another which Controuersy perhaps might be Heresy or his Brothers teaching something contrary to the Rule of Faith ordered vpon such Person his not being
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
liue in this Communion or knowing this Obligation persist in a wilfull neglect to re-vnite themselus to it Because all such persons liue in a mortall sin viz. Disobedience to and a willfull Separation from their lawfull and Canonicall Ecclesiasticall Superiors whom our Lord hath sett ouer them And this sin vnrepented of destroys Saluation being the same so heauily condemned by our Sauiour Si non audierit Ecclesiam Now that vnrepented of it is we haue reason to fear so long as they hauing opportunity either neglect to inform their judgment or this being conuinc'd to reform and rectify their practise And this seems a judged Case in the Donatist who pretended some such thing for their security if we will admitt S. Augustins sentiment of it for thus he directs his speech to them Nobiscum estis in Baptismo c. that is You are with vs in Baptism you are with vs in the Symbol or Creed you are with vs in the rest of our Lords Sacraments and I may safely add with regard to some of them at least You are with vs in a good life with the former exception But in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace and lastly In the Catholick Church you are not with vs And so he leaues them to the punishment due to those who are out of it and separated from Christ its head To conclude I ask this Counter-Question concerning a Christian liuing for example In the Fift Age of the Church Why the belieuing of the Apostles Creed as those of the first Age did and leading a good life may not be sufficient for Salvation to such a one vnless he continue in the Communion of his lawfull Ecclesiasticall Superiors of his owne Age requiring of him vnder Anathema or penalty of damnation the belief not only of the Symbol of the Apostles but of all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed as in the beginning and Conclusion of that Creed it is clear they did Here what Answer the Doctor shall make to this Question supposing he will not justify such Separatist I cannot imagin but it must fitt his own Here therefore such a Christians business for knowing whether he stands safe as to his Faith and Life in order to Saluation seems to be That he seriously examin Whether those whose Communion he rejects are the true Legall Ecclesiasticall Superiors who are sett ouer him by our Lord and to whom he is enjoyned Obedience and with whom he ought to liue to vse S. Augustins words in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace XXX PRINCIPLE 30. There can be no better way to preuent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being fallible are subject to then the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their Saluation is concerned And there can be no sufficient reason giuen why that may not serue in matters of Faith which God himself hath made vse of as the means to keep men from sin in their liues vnless any jmagin that errors in Opinion are farr more dangerous to mens souls then a vicious life is and therefore God is bound to take more care to preuent the one then the other Whereas the Doctor says That the best way to preuent mens mistakes in the sence of Scripture is the considering the consequence of erring in a matter wherein their Saluation is concerned Our dayly sad Experience shews that though our seeing or considering the dangerous consequence of a mistake affords vs how good soeuer yet no certain way to preuent it but our being directed by an Infallible Externall Guide certainly doth And the consideration of such Consequence should hasten euery one to prouide this only certain Remedy I mean in committing himself in such matters of Faith as are much disputed to the Guidance of men more studied and experienced in the Diuine Laws and that are also sett ouer him by our Lord for this very thing to instruct him in them Where in case these Guides shall disagree yet euery Christian may easily know whose judgments among them he ought to follow namely always of that Church-Authority that is the Superior which in most cases is indisputable This Ecclesiasticall Body being placed by the Diuine Prouidence in an exact Subordination As here in England it is not doubted whether we are to pay our Obedience rather to a Nationall Synod then to a Diocesan to the Arch-Bishop or Primat then to an Ordinary Bishop or Presbiter And then He who hath some experience in Church affairs if willing to take such a course cannot but discern what way the Major part of Christendom and its Higher and more comprehensiue Councills that haue hitherto been do guide him And the more simple and ignorant who so can come to know nothing better ought to follow their example As touching the following Clause in this Principle That the same means may serue to keep men from Error in matters of Faith as is vsed by God to keep men from Sin in their liues Hereto I add That here God hath taken care by the same Church-Authority to preserue his Church in Truth and to restrain it from Sin giuing them an equall Commission to teach the ignorant and to correct the Vicious And since their Doctrine directs our manners as well as Faith their infallibility is as necessary for things of practise as of speculation Error in Opinion also may be such as may be much more dangerous to vs then for the present a vicious life supposing our persistance in a right Faith because we haue our Conscience still left vncorrupted to reclame vs in the later but not so in the former And there is more hopes of his recouery who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgment Some erroneous Opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of euill practises and the Doctor cannot but acknowledg this who hath spent a considerable part of the Book to which he hath annexed these Principles vpon pretending to shew how Roman Errors do induce an euill life and destroy Deuotion III. The Doctors Consequences examined I. CONSEQUENCE 1. There is no necessity at all or vse of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things of which they may be certain without and cannot haue any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them 1. This Consequence here is voyded because the Supposition if applied to Diuine Reuelations and matters of Faith in the former Principles is not prooued 2. But if the whole were granted This concludes the vselesness as well of any Ecclesiasticall Authority to teach men as of an Infallible to assure men of the truth of those things which by vsing only their owne sincere endeauour according to the Doctors pretence Principle 13. they may know without them II. CONSEQUENCE 2. The Infallibility of that Society of men who call themseleus the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in man the same
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