Dr. Stillingfleets principles giving an account of the faith of Protestants / considered by N.O. Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674. 1671 Approx. 154 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 59 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A34966 Wing C6892 ESTC R31310 11887004 ocm 11887004 50386 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A34966) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50386) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1000:4) Dr. Stillingfleets principles giving an account of the faith of Protestants / considered by N.O. Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674. [12], 100, [5] p. Printed at Paris by the widow of Antonie Christian and Charles Guillery, [Paris] : MDCLXXI [1671] Errata begins on p. 100 and continues on p. [5] at end. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. Protestantism -- Controversial literature. 2003-07 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-08 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-09 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2003-09 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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-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 things of great consequence , as he says afterwards ) in our times are grown in number so many , and in matter so intricate , that few haue time and leasure , fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them ; Vvhat remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence , but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Company of Holy Ones , that Houshold of Faith ▪ that Spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God , vvhich is ihe Pillar and ground of Truth , that so he may embrace her Communion , follow her Directions , and rest in her Iudgment ? Thus doctor Field ; who in his last words ( rest in her Iudgment ) speaks home enough , and discouers the only efficacious way of curing Sects . And see also vvhether this doth not confront the Doctors 29. Principle , Church-Infallibility there being changed into Church-Auctority , and the Principle being applyed to priuate mens Practise . And what need is there of Bishops , Presbyters , or any Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants , as to the Office of teaching or expounding these Writings , if these in all necessaries are clear to all Persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them , I mean , exclusiuely to their repairing to these Pastors for the learning of it ? And doth not the Doctor here to euacuate the infallibility of the Churches Gouernors introduce an infallibility or Inerrabillity of euery particular Christian in all points necessary , if such Christians will , that is , if only he shall sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them ? And moreouer of the sincerity of this his endeauour also I suppose the Doctor will allow any one may be certain ( else how can the mind of a poore illiterate Countrey-man be at rest , who can neyther trust to the Faith of his Guides , nor the sufficiency of his own industry ) For surely this sincere , is not all possible , endeauour ; such as is learning the Languages , perusing Commentators , &c. But as Mr Chillingworth ( who anchored his whole Religion vpon it ) states this Point , namely , such a measure thereof , as humane Prudence and ordinary Discretion , ( their abilities and opportunities , and all other things considered ) shall aduise . And thus , such a clearness in necessaries must the Scriptures haue as suits with the very lowest capacities . Such a Clearnesse , I say , euen to all Articles of the Athanasian Creed , if these be esteemed Necessaries ; and euen as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father . In which notwithstanding the whole Body of Socinians dares to oppose all Antiquity , vpon pretence of cleare Scripture to the contrary . But then the Doctor is desired to consider , That if euery Christian may become thus Infallible in Necessaries from 1. a clear Rule , 2. a due Industry vsed , 3. and a certainty that it is so vsed ; May not the Church-Gouernors still much rather be allowed infallible , and so retain still their infallible Guide-ship ; and the People also , the more clear the Rule of Faith is proued to be , the more securely be referred to their direction ? And haue we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church ( euen a General Councill of them , or if it be but a major part of this Councill , t is sufficient ) in their consults concerning a Point necessary to saluation deliuered in Scripture , vse at least so much endeauour ( for more needs not ) as a plain Rustick doth , to vnderstand the meaning of it ; and also the like sincerity ? For what they define for others , they define for themselues also , and their Saluation is as much concern'd , as any other mans is , in their mistakes . And next : Why may not these Gouernors , vpon such certainty of a sincere endeauour and clearness of the Rule , take vpon them to define these Points , and enjoyn an assent to , and belief of them to their Subjects ; especially since it is affirmed , that all those , from whom they require such Obedience , if they please to vse a sincere endeauour , may be certain thereof , as well as they ? And are we not here again arriued at Church-Infallibility , if not from extraordinary Diuine assistance , yet from the clearness of the Rule ? Only we must suppose such sincere endeauour in the Church , as the Doctor allows may be in euery priuat man. And thus does not his conditionall Infallibility of particular persons in necessaries , the condition being so easy , necessarily inferr a Morall Impossibility of the Churches erring in them ? Which ought the rather to be admitted by them : Since some of their Divines , to make this their Problem the more iustifiable , that the Scriptures in all necessaries are clear to all persons ▪ , think it a safe way in the next place to contract these necessaries to the Apostles Creed . But after all , supposing these Gouernors in stating some Points fallible enough : I cannot hence gather any just relaxation of their Subjects submission of their judgment to them , vpon pretence of clearness , because such Fallibility of their Superiors in some Points can , reasonably , be supposed to arise from nothing else , but some obscurity in the Rule , which must be greater still to their Subjects : and then , what more fitting and ordinary , then in matters of consequence to follow a prudent and experienced , though fallible , persons Direction , rather then our own ? Lastly , suppose this granted , That the Scriptures may be vnderstood by all persons , in all things necessary ( and so an infallible Guide vselesse ; ) yet I see not what aduantage the Doctor can make of this Principle for the Protestant Religion . For since the sence of Scripture is now de facto debated between Catholiks and Protestants about so many necessary Points of Faith , the Doctor cannot with truth or charity affirm the sense of these Scriptures clear to be vnderstood on the Protestants side to all those who sincerely endeauour to know their meaning , where the Major part of Christendom vnderstands their meaning contrary , as he must grant they doe in all those hee accounts the common Errours both of the Greek and Roman Church : ( a large Catalogue of which may be found in many Protestant Authours ) And will he charge all these as defectiue in a sincere endeauour ? But rather such sincere endeauour being indifferently allowd to all parties , he ought to pronounce the sence of Scripture to be clear , if on any , on that side as the Major part doth apprehend it : Which certainly is not the Protestant . For Example : How can the Doctor rationally maintain this Text Hoc est Corpus meum , so often repeated with out any variation of the Terms , to bear a sense clear on the Protestants side ; that is , That the Eucharist is not in a litterall or Proper sence the Body of Christ ; when as they are vnderstood in a litterall sence by much the Major part of the Christian world , not onely the Western but Eastern Churches also ( as Monsieur Claude concedes to his worthy Aduersary Monsieur Arnaud ) to which also may be added half the Body of the Protestants , namely , all the Lutherans . Now all these haue vsed their senses , and weighed the 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 of Moses , Let the like absolute Obedience be now yielded to the supreme Ecclesiasticall Courts ; Let their sentence be so conformed to , so assented to among Christians , for none is obliged to do a thing ( as the Jewes were by those Judges ) but is , by the same decree , obliged to assent and beleeue the doing it lawfull , and more is not required . XVI . PRINCIPLE . 16. There can be no more intollerable Vsurpation vpon the Faith of Christians , then for any Person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance , as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles , without giuing an equall degree of euidence that they are so assisted , as Christ and his Apostles did , viz. by Miracles as great , publick and conuincing as theirs were : by which I mean , such , as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility , and with a design for the conuiction of those who do not belieue it . Notwithstanding the Doctors Assertion in this Proposition , That a society pretending to Infallibility is obliged to confirm such a pretention by Miracles as great as Christ and his Apostles did : yet himself and the Archbishop whom he defends , do hold that there is after the Apostles times a body or society Infallible in Fundamentalls , viz. such Oecumenicall Councills as are vniuersally accepted by the Catholick Church ; which Church , they say , from our Lord's Promise , can neuer err in Fundamentalls . Now it is certain this society is not equally assisted with miracles , as our Lord or his Apostles were . Therefore the Doctor may do well to reuiew this Principle . 1. But its failings being of no difficult discouery , I shall not let it pass vnexamined . First , then I see no reason , that those equally assisted by God in deliuering a Truth , must also be enabled by him to giue an equall euidence of such Assistāce , where there is not the same necessity of it ; as there is not , when the later deliuer no new thing from the former . 2. Again , Though none can pretend to be Infallible , or actually not erring in what he proposeth , but that he must be as infallible , as to the truth of that wherein he erreth not , as our Lord , or his Apostles ; for one , or one persons truth , is no more true then any others : yet in many other respects the Churches Infallibility is much inferiour to that of the Apostles ; in that it is . 1. Neither for its matter so farr extended , the Apostles being affirmed infallible in all they deliuered , as well in their Arguments as Conclusions , both in their relating things heard from our Lord , and things anew inspired by the Holy Ghost : whereas the Church-Gouernours are acknowledged infallible only in their Definitions in matters of necessary Faith ; and , not in their receiuing any new matters inspired by God , but in faithfully deliuering the Inspirations of the former . 2. Neither for the manner are the Church-Gouernours so highly assisted , by reason of the other knowledge and euidence they haue of that Doctrine , first deliuered by the Apostles , and so from them receiued , which vnchanged they conuey vnto Posterity . Of which degrees of infallibility see Archbishop Lawd pag. 254. and 140. 3. And in the third place , hence it follows , that Miracles hauing been wrought by the first in confirmation of that Doctrine which both deliuer , are not now alike necessary to , or reasonably demanded of the second . 4. Yet , since our Lord and his Apostles time , Miracles haue been , and are continued in the Church : of which see irrefragable testimonies giuen by S. Augustin : In that Church , I say , that pretends Infallibility ; and only in that Church , not any other , departed from it , pretending thereto : And vniuersally to deny the truth of them is to ouerthrow the faith of the most credible Histories . But these are done in these later , as in former , times , only when , and for what ends God , and not man his Instrument , pleaseth , and many times without such persons precedent knowledge , in making his Requests , what the Diuine Majesty will effect . Neither are the Apostles themselues to be imagined to haue had the Operation of Miracles so in their power , as as to do these in any kind , when , and upon what Persons they pleased , or others demanded . For such a thing would be of such a force vpon mens wills to compell them into Christianity , or to reduce unto the Catholick Church Christians strayed from it , as the Diuine Prouidence , perhaps for the greater tryall of mens hearts , and merit of their Faith , hath not ordinarily vsed . 5. Lastly , Miracles remaining still in this Church , though they be not professedly done for conuincing a Dissenter in this or that particular Truth , yet do sufficiently testifie in generall a security of saluation in the Communion and Faith of this Church , if God only honours with them the Members of this Communion , and no others that liue out of it : as we see no other Christian society diuided from it that layes claim to them , or shews any Records of them , or euer did : at least such as may be any way equalled , either for frequency , variety , or eminency with those of this Church ; I mean , although so many of these be rejected and layd aside , where appears any rationall ground of suspicion . That the Doctor and the Archbishop do hold such Generall Councills as haue an vniuersall Acceptation from the Church Catholik diffusiue , to be Infallible , seems to me clear from the places forecited in them . For in those both the Doctor and Archbishop admitt , That the Church diffufiue is for euer preserued Infallible in all Fundamentalls , or Points absolutely necessary to saluation ; and this by vertue of the Diuine Promise , that the Gates of Hell shall not preuail against her , and other Texts : And therefore such Councills whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusiue , must be so too . I say , as to Fundamentalls , though as to other Points not fundamentall they affirme these Councills also lyable to errour and fallible , because the Church Catholick diffusiue ( say they ) is so also . Among the Conditions also that render any Generall Councill obligatory they require this for one , that they be vniuersally accepted , or haue the generall consent of the Christian World. such Councills then there may be . And then , such Lawfull Generall Councils , and so approued , and consequently obliging the Christian World , they confess the first four Generall Councils to haue been ; To which Councills therefore they profess all Obedience . Now wee see what kind of Obedience it was these Councils exacted , in the Athanasian Creed , accepted by the Church of England , which contains the summ of their Decrees , viz. no less then assent and belief and submission of judgement , and all this vpon penalty of eternall damnation . And this , if justly required by them , inferrs , vpon the Doctors arguing , their Infallibility . For ( saith he , where Councills challenge an internall Assent by vertue of their Decrees ( or , because their Decrees are in themselues infallible ) there must be first proued an Impossibility of error in them , before they can look on themselues as obliged to giue it . And therefore He and the Archbishop , so farr as any such Councills , are fallible , allow only an Externall Obedience , or silence , to them . Now for Obedience to these first four Generall Councills in a submission of judgment to them , vpon such an Vniuersall Acceptation of them , the Doctor in another place thus writes , The Church of England looks vpon the keeping the Decrees of the fower first Generall Councills as her Duty : and professeth to be guided by the sence of scripture as interpreted by the vnanimous consent of the Fathers , and the fowr fist Generall Councills : that is , shee professeth to take that which such Counciils deliuer , for the sence of scripture : Not then , to admit their Definitions , if first they accord with the scripture taken in our own sence . So also else where he saith , The Church of England doth not admit any thing to be deliuered as the sense of scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick sense of the fowr first Ages ( that is ) in their Oecumenicall Councills , as he expresseth it in the preceding page . And here also he giues the Ground of such submission , viz. a strong presumption , that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should be held by the Catholick Church , whose very being depends vpon the belief of those things that are necessary to saluation . And when ( saith he ) those correspondencies were maintained between the seuerall parts of it , that what was refused by one , was so by all . In another place also speaking in generall of Councills vniuersally accepted , he saith , That both the Truth of Gods Promises , the Goodness of God to his People , and his peculiar care of his Church seem highly concerned , that such a Councill should not be guilty of any notorious errour . Here you see he saith , that the Truth of Gods Promises is concerned that these Councills should not fall into any notorious Errour ; Therefore ( such Promises are made absolute to some Church-Gouernors after the Apostles . ) And then , where the Errour is not intollerable , ( saith the Archbishop ) at least Obedience of Non-contradiction will be due to all such Councills . Now a notorious Errour it must needs be , if an Errour in Fundamentalls . And such notorious Errour in particular would this be , If they should hold themselues ( when they are not ) infallible in their Decrees , and so should require a Generall Assent ( such as that in the Athanasian Creed ) from Christians to them , as to Diuine Reuelations , and make them DE FIDE , thereby , in case any Decree be not true , obliging all the Members of the Church to an Vnity in errour . Thus farr then , as to Fundamentall Errours , it seems Gods Prouidence secures both such Councills , and their subjects : And then also for their erring in Non-fundamentalls , both He and the Archbishop put this among the RARO CONTINGENTIA . The Archbishop also is much in justifying the Catholick Church infallible not only in its Being , but Teaching , and that must be by its Councills . Doctor White , saith he , had reason to say , That the Visible Church had in all Ages taught that vnchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Fundamentall . And again It is not possible the Catholick Church ( that is , of any one Age ) should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to saluation . Where the word ( teach ) shews , that he intends the Gouernors of the Church in euery Age. Likewise in another place , If we speak ( saith he ) of plain and easy scripture , the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it . And , If A. C. meane no more , then that the whole Vniuersall Church of Christ cannot vniuersally erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to mens saluation , be fights against no Aduersary that I know , but his own fiction . Where it follows , But if he mean that the whole Church cannot erre in any one point of Diuine Truth in generall , if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide , the scripture , then perhaps it may be said , that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point . Here then the first , of the whole Church not erring in Fundamentalls , as well as the second , are spoken of the Church determining . And so is that saying of his , viz. That though the Mother-Church Prouinciall or National , may erre , Yet if the Grand mother , the whole Vniuersall Church ( that is , in her Generall Councills vniuersally accepted controlling the other Prouincial or National ) cannot erre in these necessary things , all remains safe ; and all occasions of disobedience ( that is , to the Grand-mothers commands ) taken from the possibility of the Churches erring . ( namely , as to all necessaries ) are quite taken away . Thus he . But safe , &c. it could not be , if the Catholick Church , the Grand mother , as she held , so could not also witness , all the necessary Truths against such inferiour Councills . But how these things will te reconciled with what the Doctor saith else where I know not : Let him take care of it : as name ly where he writes thus : You much mistake , when you think we resolue our faith of fundamentalls into the Church as the infallible witness of them . For though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fundamentall ( for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not belieue them ) it doth not follow thence necessarily , that the Church must infallibly witness what is fundamentall and what not . And again That all infallible assistance makes not an infallible Testimony , or makes not the Testimony of those that haue it infallible surely Teaching , declaring its consent , condemning Doctrins contrary to Fundamentalls , is Witnessing , or giuing Testimony . XVII . PRINCIPLE . 17. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the Truth of these Writings , and to interpret them , and at the same time to proue that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced , such an assistance not being supposed ; or to pretend , that infallibility in a Body of men is not lyable to doubts and disputes , as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infallibility . I. For the former part of this Principle ( viz. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of , &c. ) If the Doctor in the words ( at the same time to proue that Commission from these Writings ) means here , to proue such Commission or Assistance only , or in the first place from these Writings , the truth of Which Writings are first or onely proued from such Commission , &c. the Absurdity vrged by him I grant . 1. As all Articles of Faith are not by all Persons learnt at once , so neither by all , exactly in the same order , as is frequently obserued by Catholick Writers . A Christians Faith therefore may begin either at the Infallible Authoriry of scriptures , or of the Church ; and this Infallible Authority of 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 otherwise reclaimed , that in the last place the matter should be brought to the Hearing of the Church , and such Person , if not hearing the Church , to be excommunicated ▪ Now I ask , to what end either of these , if such persons be no nearer to Vnity of Opinion , or conuiction and ending their Disputes by submitting their judgments to the sentence of these Iudges , or this Church , then before they were in the same submission of theirs to the Rule . Infallibility alone ends not Controuersies , but clearness ; Clearness in the Point controuerted : Which if the scripture hath , how comes Controuersy about it ? and Controuersies between so great Parties , Churches , Nations ? In this sense of scripture Catholiks dissenting , repair to the Decision of the Church ( w ch if any way obscure is capable of being made by it afterward more intelligible ) submit to its Iudgment , and so become vnited in Opinion in all those Points the Church decides : wherein Protestants rejoyce in their Liberty still to disagree . Vnited in Opinion , I say ; true or false , here matters not : We speak here of Vnion , not of Truth . But now , when the sense of scripture is the like matter of Controuersy between two sects of Protestants , as frequently it is , What Course do they take for Vnity of Opinion ? Repair they again to the scriptures they controvert ? But these can neuer decide which of the seuerall senses they take them in , is the true . Repair they to synods ? So the Arminians and Antiarminians did ? Then surely this they do , because that Vnity ( prouided there be a submission of Iudgment to both ) is attainable by the sentence of the synod or Church , which is not by that of the scripture . Which is the thing here denyed by the Doctor . And hence it proceeds , that Catholicks must be much more vnited in Opinion or Iudgment , then Protestants ; in as much as they all owne submission of Iudgment to so many Councills , which the other reject ; These not accepting the Decrees of aboue fowr or siue of those Councills , whilst the Catholiks admit of fowr ( or suppose , three ) times so many , and namely of one , the Councill of Trent ; of which Soaue affirms , That in all the Councills held in the Church from the Apostles times vntill then , there were neuer so many Articles decided as in only one session of it . And Protestants aggrauate the Tyranny of the Church of Rome in tying all her subjects vnanimously to belieue , and that as necessary to saluation so many Points of Faith , wherein the Protestants leaue to all men liberty of Opinion . And moreouer , as for those Differences that remain still , or shall arise hereafter , they are also conclusiue among them by the same way of Councills , vpon the acknowledged obligation of a common submission of their judgments . I say not , all their differences whatsoeuer are conclusiue ( which causeth some wonder in the Doctor , that this thing is not done in an Infallible Church ) but so many of them wherein the Church finds on any side sufficient euidence of Tradition ; or , for the grauity of the matter ; a Necessity of Decision : The same Diuine Prouidence that preserues his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined , disposing also , that for all such necessaries , there shall be a sufficient euidence of Tradition , either of the Conclusion it selfe , or its Principles . But as for seuerall other matters of Diuine Reuclation , where what is to be held as de fide is not sufficiently yet cleared , either by reason of the sense of scripture , or of the sense of some Conciliary Decree still disputed among Catholicks , in matters that are called indeed , by the one or other Party , de fide , as they variously apprehend this sense of scripture , or Councill ; No such agreement , I say , in matters of Faith thus taken , is at all pretended : And their accord in the rest sufficiently transcends that of Protestants . But euen these also are capable of the same settlement , when the Church shall pass a new sentence concerning them . Here then may be resumed that Expression selected by Doctor Tillotson to make sport with , viz. That in this their Faith ( namely , as to Points thereof determined by the Church ) it is impossible that Catholiks should differ one from another , and that there should be any Schism among them . The Reason is plain , because in all such Points they vnanimously Submit their judgment to their Mother the Church : or if any doth not , he ceaseth to be a Catholick . Whereas Protestants not acknowledging any necessary Obligation of such Submission to any Superiours among them , it is impossible that debates and Schisms should be auoyded by them . XVIII . PRINCIPLE . 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those Bookes , supposing he use the best means for understanding them , comparable to that which euery one runs who belieues any person or society of men to be infallible who are not : For in this later he runs vnauoydably into one great errour , and by that may be led into a thousand : but in the former God hath promised either he shall not erre , or he shall not be damned for it . God hath made no such Promise concerning any one , who vseth his best endeanours for vnderstanding scripture , that either he shall not erre , or not be damned for it , if such endeauour be vnderstood exclusiuely to his consulting and embracing the expositions of the Church : which if the Doctor includes , then Catholicks also affirme , that in necessaries such persons cannot mistake . Neither can such Promise be pretended necessary , since God hath referred all , in the dubious sense of his scriptures , to the Directions and Doctrine of his Ministers , their spirituall Guides , whom he hath set ouer them , to bring them in the Vnity of the Faith to a perfect man , and that they may not be tossed to and fro and carryed about with euery wind of Doctrine by the sleight of those that lye in wait to deceiue . And , without which Guide , S. Peter obserues that in his time some persons ( for any thing we know , diligent enough , yet ) through want of learning , and the instability of adhering to their Guides , being unlearned , saith he , and vnstable , wrested some places of scripture , hard to be vnderstood , to their own destruction : Therefore these scriptures are also , in some great and important Points , hard to be vnderstood . Now therefore let the Doctor giue me leaue to put these two other Propositions in the other scale to counterpoise his . The first , That a Person in belieuing any society of men to be Infallible that are so , hath a security incomparably beyond that of another Person who is supposed to use the best other means , his condition is capable of , to understand the scriptures , and so follows his own judgment : the capacity of most Christians being very little , abstracting from the Directions of a Guide their mean condition voyd of learning , or leasure , and it being a thing vncertain also , when they haue vsed a due endeauour ; And this a prejudice of it not rightly used , that they do not discerne in these scriptures this Infallible Guide , which ( saith S. Augustin ) the scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate ; and which repaired to , may demonstrate to them what else is necessary . The second Proposition is , That there can be no such hazard to any person in belieuing a society of men to be infallible , that are not . if this society be at least more learned and studied in Diuine matters then himselfe , and also ordained by our Lord to be his Instructors in them ( which Protestants , I hope , allow true of their own Clergy : ) No such hazard , I say , as is comparable to that euery one incurrs in mistaking the meaning of scriptures , though we suppose he vseth his best other means of vnderstanding them , exclusiue to his obeying the Instructions of such a society . [ Witness the vnhappy Socinians , and all other grosser sects of late sprung out of Disobedience . ] For whereas , in following these Guides , such persons may fall into some errours , and perhaps some of them great ones ; in this later way of following their owne fancyes the vnlearned may fall into a thousand , and some of these much greater and grosser , then any such Christian society or Body of Clergy will euer maintain . For God hath made no Promise to preserue in Truth those who desert their Guides ; nor to reward their diligence , who liue in disobedience . XIX . PRINCIPLE . 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will , may giue them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture , then it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do , supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility . 1. First obserue , that whateuer Diuine assistance is aduanced here against the assurance that can be receiued from Church-Infallibility , the same is more against any assurāce that may be had from Church-Authority . Thus it happens more then once in these Principles , that in too forward a Zeale in demolishing the one , the other also is dangerously vndermined . 2. The Doctor hath all reason here to suppose , him that repairs to , and is instructed by an Infallible Guide , though not knowing him to be such , as well as him , who seeks for an assurance of his Faith , without one , sincerely to desire to know Gods will , and vpon this to enjoy his promised Assistance , so far as God engageth it . And then if the Question be , which of these two takes the more prudent course , he that consults , or he that lays aside this Guide , for his assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture ; I should think , the former . Whilst the one relyes on the judgment of such Guide thought wise and learned , though not infallible ; the other on his own : On the judgment of which Guide the one hath much more reason to be confident , then the other on his own , who neglects the advice of the Wise man [ Ne innitaris prudentiae tuae ] Lean not on thy own Prudence . At least the Doctor must grant the former ( of the two ) to be de facto in a much safer condition . For it must be acknowledged a great benefit to haue an Infallible Guide to shew us our way , though we doe not know him to be Infallible : for so we keep still in the right way , though belieuing only , and not infallible certain , that it is so ; so we walke in Humility and obedience . And if God hath directed us , for learning our right way , to a Guide , surely he will take no prudent course , who committing himselfe to Gods immediate Assistance , shall neglect it ; and break his commandement in hope of his fauour . XX. PRINCIPLE . 20. No mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible : because the nature of Assent doth not depend vpon the objectiue Infallibility of any thing without us , but is agreable to the euidence we haue of it in our minds : for Assent is not built on the nature of things , but their evidence to us . This Proposition is granted , viz. That no person is infallibly certain of , or in his Faith , because the Proponent thereof is infallible , vnless he also certainly know , or haue an infallible evidence that he is infallible . Only let it be here remembred , That , for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed , it is sufficient if we haue an infalliblé euidence either of the thing proposed , or of the Proponent only : Because if we are infallibly certain that he cannot ly in such matter who relates it to us , we are also hence infallibly certain , that what he says is truth . XXI . PRINCIPLE . 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent , that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued : so that the ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted , must rather make euery particular person infallible , if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent ; and so renders any other Infallibility vseless . This Proposition , That therefore it is necessary , in order to an infallible assent , that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued , is not well deduced from the precedent Proposition rightly vnderstood : Neither is it true : and so the Consequence also faileth , viz. [ so that the Ground on which a necessity of some externall Infallible Proponent is asserted , must rather make euery particular person infallible , if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent ; and so renders any other Infallibility useless . ] Because ( as was now said ) for the yeilding an Infallible assent to the things proposed , it is not necessary that the person haue an infallible euidence of the truth of the things proposed , that is , from the Internall Principles that proue , or demonstrate them : But it is enough ( though the things proposed remain still in themselues obscure to him ) that he haue an infallible , or sufficiently certain Euidence only of the Infallibility of the Externall Proponent . The Ground therefore vpon which the necessity of some externall infallible Proponent is asserted for begeting such infallible assent is , because the Person hath by no other way any infallible euidence of the things proposed : Which if he had , then indeed the Proponents Infallibility , for such Points , is rendred vseless . And by this , I hope , sufficiently appeareth that misarguing that seems to cause a great confusion in the Doctor 's Principles : whilst , vpon an infallible assent requiring an infallible Euidence ( layd down in the Twentieth Proposition , and Conceded ) he concludes as necessary to our yielding an infallible assent to all that the Church proposeth , an infallible Euidence of the things proposed ; and then , hence inferres the vselessness of such infallible Proponent . And here note , that though the Churches Infallibility to such a person as is not infallibly assured of it , signifies nothing as to his infallible assurance of that 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 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 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 Rules of tryall , the same Motiues by which the Infallibility of any Diuine reuelation is . This Consequence , couched only in generall terms , is granted in the same manner as the 6. Principle is , changing ( must ) here into ( may . ) But then of many things examined and discouered by the same way or means , some are much more easily by euery one examined and discouered then some others , as the Euidence for them in this means are greater . So Holy Scriptures belieued such from Vniuersall Tradition , may be much clearer in some Articles of our Faith , then in others : And some Diuine Reuelations may be so obscurely expressed there , or inuolued only in their Principles , as that some weak capacities cannot discern them , which yet in the same Scriptures may discouer the Authority of the Church and its promised Diuine Assistance and Infallibility in necessaries , and so from thence learn those other . Of which Church and its Infallibility clear in Scriptures , for all necessaries , and for deciding other Points more obscure therein , thus writes S. Augustin in his Dispute with the Donatists concerning the obscure Point of Rebaptization : Quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest , &c. Since the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue ( vs ) let whosoeuer is in fear of being deceiued by the obscurity of this Question , consult the same Church about it , which Church the Holy Scripture doth without all ambiguity demonstrate . And before , Earumdem Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas , cum , &c. That is , The truth of the Holy Scriptures is held by vs in this matter ( or Point of Rebaptization ) when we do that which has pleased the Vniuersall Church , ( that is which had been stated concerning that Point by the Church ) which the Authority of the Scriptures themselues does commend ; that since , &c. Thus writes S. Augustin . All which is false and sayd to no purpose , if the Scripture be not clear in this , That this Church can determine nothing in such important Contests contrary to the verity of the Scriptures , and that we ought to giue credit to what he decides ; for then it would not be true what he says , The truth of the same Scriptures in this matter is held by vs : and , He who is in fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of this Question , is no way relieued in following the sentence of the Church . Now if it be further asked , Amongst those seuerall Modern opposit Communions , which do equally inuite men into their Society by the Name of the Church , Which of them is so Diuinely attested ; there are beside the Description made of it in Scripture , not applicable to other pretended Churches , and frequently vrged by the same Father against the Donatists , There are , I say , sufficiently certain rationall Euidences and Marks thereof left to Christians , whereby the sober Enquirer after it , cannot be mistaken . I mean not here those Marks of the true Church ( though true Marks also ) the quest of which men are sett vpon by Protestants , viz. True Doctrine , and a right administration of the Sacraments , A Quest or Tryall that can neuer be made an end of , being a task to know all the Truths in Christianity first , before we can know the Church : When as the Enquirer seeks after the Church , which as S. Augustin sayth , the Scripture demonstrates , that by it he may come to know the Truths . But I mean those other Marks mention'd by S. Augustin in the Book he wrote of the Benefit of belieuing the Church , viz. Sequentium multitudo , &c. The multitude of her followers , the Consent of Nations , her Antiquity , &c. Which Church hath descended ( visibly ) from Christ himself by his Apostles vnto vs , and from vs will descend to posterity , &c. And which by the Confession of Mankind from the Apostolick See by succession of Bishops hath obtained the supreme top of Authority , whilst Hereticks on all sides barked against her in vain , and were still condemned partly by the judgment euen of the common people , partly by the ( venerable ) grauity of Councills , and partly also by the Majesty of Miracles , ( that is , by Miracles done in this Church after the Apostles times ; of seuerall of which , S. Augustin himself was an eye-witness , and of some an instrument . The same Father repeats much-what the same in another Book of his , De Vnitate Ecclesiae against the Donatists , a Sect in Africk . Non est obscura Quaestio , &c. It is no obscure Question , says he , ( viz. which is the true Church ) in which those may deceiue you , who according to our Lords prediction shall come and say , Behold here is Christ , behold he is there , behold he is in the Desart , as in a place where the multitude is not great . ( The time was , when the Reformation were constrained to vse the like phrases , and also to apply to themselues that Text , Fear not little Flock ) But you haue a Church ( described in in the Scripture ) to be spredd through all Regions , and to grow still ( in Conuersion of Nations ) till the haruest : You haue a City concerning which he that was the Founder of it , sayd , A City built on a Hill cannot be hid . This is the Church therefore , not in some corner of the earth ; but euery where most known . Now I hope none will think fitt to apply these Scriptures more to S. Augustins time then to any other , or to the present : For , by the same reason , the Donatists might here haue counter-applied them to some other , and not to S. Augustins times . Much what the same is iterated again by this Father ( and three Testimonies , I hope , will establish this matter ) where he tells the Manicheans what retained him in the bosome of that Church from which they stood separated , Vt omittam Sapientiam , &c. that is , That I may omitt that Wisdome , ( viz. the Mark of true Doctrine ) which you do not belieue to be in the Catholick Church ; there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosome . The consent of peoples and Nations keeps me there . Authority begun by Miracles , confirmed by Antiquity keeps me there . The Succession of Pastors , from the Seat it self of S. Peter ( to whom our Lord after his Resurrection recommended his Sheep to be fedd by him ) vnto the present Bishop , keeps me there . And lastly , the very Name of Catholick heeps me there , &c. Here are S. Augustins Marks to find our the Church from which men were to learn the Truth , whilst proposed to seuerall persons and Sects , always the same . And these are the Euidences in Tradition , and in those other commonly call'd Motiues of Credibility , which in themselues seeme not justly questionable , that will afford a sufficient Certainty to euery Sober Enquirer , whereby he may try and discern that present Church , to which now also , if in S. Augustins time , Christ affords a testimony : and which lyeth not in Corners , nor starts vp after some Ages , and vanishes again , but is fixed ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum ; a City sett on 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 , out of loue to their souls , reject what is so taught . VI. CONSEQVENCE . 6. Though nothing were to be belieued as the Will of God , but what is by the Catholick Church declared to be so : Yet this doth not at all concerne the Church of Rome , which neyther is the Catholick Church , nor any sound part or member of it . This may suffice to shew the validity of the Principles on which the Faith of Protestants stands , and the weakness of those of the Church of Rome . From all which it follows , that it can be nothing but willfull Ignorance , weakness of judgment , Strength of prejudice , or some sinfull passion , which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England , to embrace that of the Church of Rome . If nothing is to be belieued as the Will of God , but what is by the Catholick Church declared to be so : and the Declarations of the Catholick Church be taken from her Councills ; and , in Concills dissenting , from the more Vniuersall and Generall , ( the constant way of the Churches Judgment , ) this Church Catholick , as to such Councills and Courts Ecclesiasticall hath neuer been seuered from the Roman and S. Peters Chair . And this may suffice to shew the weakness of those Principles on which the Faith of Protestants stands , and the Validity of those of the Church of Rome . From which it follows , that if there be no willfull Ignorance , nor sinfull Passion , nor strength of prejudice and secular interest in our Countreymen , Yet it must be at least much neglect of examining things which most concerne them , and diuerting their thoughts vpon other employments , or conuersing with such Authors and Teachers as confirm to them those Opinions in which they were educated , and the like , that detains them still in a Communion diuided , and this not very long since , from the Catholick . As to the Doctors imputing only to Ignorance , sinfull Passion , &c. that any forsake the Communion of the Church of England : It is plain that his former Principles do no more support the Religion of the Church of England , then of any other Protestants Sect condemned by it : All which Sects for the Doctrines they hold , and Controuersies they maintain with others , equally appeal to the Clearness of the Infallible Scriptures , sufficiently intelligible vnto their sincere endeauours , and decline , as fallible , all other Ecclesiasticall Authority . So Wolketius for the Socinians ( as the Doctor for the Church of England ) sayth , Quae de Fide , &c. Those things which are to be established touching Faith in Christ , are manifest in the Scriptures . And Again , Deus qui Religionem Christianam , &c. God hauing determined that Christian Religion shall continue till the end of the world , has taken care that there should be always extant such a Mean by which it may be certainly known , as farr as is necessary to Saluation , But no such Mean is extant , except the Holy Scriptures . To the same purpose Crellius another Socinian , says , Hac sententia , &c. This Doctrin ( by which Christs Diuinity is denyed ) is supported by very many , and the most euident , Testimonies of Holy Scriptures . It is needless to cite more . From whence is manifest , That such Principles as here appear only in the Defence of the Religion established in the Church of England , make the same Apology for all those other Protestant parties , and most blasphemous Sects , disclaimed by it : the Doctor in the mean while omitting that by which the former Learned Defenders of his Church vsually haue justified it against them , namely , the Church of Englands adhering to the Traditionall Exposition and Sense of Scripture receiued from the Primitiue Church : This , I say , he omitted , perhaps because it may be thought to relish a little of Church-Infallibility . Neyther do the Principles here layd down , afford any effectuall way or means in this Church of suppressing or conuicting any Schism , Sect , or Heresy , or reducing them eyther to submission of Judgment , or Silence . For where both sides contend Scripture clear for themselues ; the Clearness of such Scripture , how great soeuer on one side , can be made no Instrument of Conuiction to the other . Here therefore all things must be prosecuted further then Scripture , to a ( Dic Ecclesiae ) Tell the Church : and so to a ( Si autem Ecclesiam non audierit ) But if he will not hear the Church , let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican . If then it is the Churches Authority that must rectify such diuersity of Opinions , one would think that this ought to haue been first established , instead of leauing euery Fancy to perspicuity of Scripture for the attaining Vnity and Peace in the Points controuerted . And the prudent may consider , Whether the Authority of the Church of England is not much debilitated and brought into contempt , and dayly like to wane more and more by this new-taken-vp way of its Defence ; Where he thinks himself it's best Aduocat and Defender of its Cause , who doth most endeauour to sett forth the Defects and faylings of all such Ecclesiasticall Societies , Prelats , and Councills , and best proues no Scripture-Promises made to them . Nay where , to the end to euacuate the Infallibility of any Society or Church in necessaries , is set vp a Counter-Lay-Infallibility of priuate men , if only sincere Endeauourers of Vnderstanding Holy Writt , in all the same Necessaries . This is done , which causeth still more Sects , instead of that which , if done , would cure them , namely , The Recommending ( especially to the illiterate and less intelligent common sort of people ) Humility , Obedience , Submission of judgment to their Spirituall Pastors and Gouernors , whom our Lord hath ordained by due Succession to continue to the end of the world on purpose to expound the Scriptures , and out of these to teach them all Necessaries for their Saluation , and to heep them stable and fixed from being tossed to and fro with euery wind of Doctrin , that Capricious Fancies may imagin there , or malicious pretend : Informing them , that they are to learn of these Pastors , the true Sense of Gods Word according to former Church-Tradition , to follow their Faith and to rest in their Iudgment . Lastly , not to vsurp their Office , and become their owne Guides : inasmuch as the same Diuine order that appoints the others to Guide , enjoyns them to be Guided . And supposing these Guides should err too ; better it is that all err one Error , which is the Error of their Guides , for there will be at least some Vnity and Peace in that , some Excuse for Inferiors ; yea also , in probability more verisimilitude ; then that euery one should err a seuerall , and his own , Error , to the vtter ruine uf Peace , and a greater deuiation from Truth . But whilst these things are so little spoken of , it is no great wonder if vnder the protection of such contrary Maximes spread abroad , which were first made more current and common by M r Chillingworth ( forced to it as the last Refuge left to shelter him from Obedience to a just Church-Authority ) the Broachers of New Sects and extrauagant Fancies in Religion , the Contemners of Church-Authority and of the Clergy , ( who first contemned and vilified themselues ) do dayly in these parts so exceedingly multiply and encrease ) Sed tu , pastor bone , reduc in ouile tuum istas oues perditas , vt audiant vocem tuam : & sic fiat vnum ouile & vnus Pastor . Amen . ERRATA . PRef p , 6. l. 1. his . l. his . l. 2. must . l. much . l. 20. d. not . P. 35. l. 31. te . l. be . p. 48. l. 23. incnrs . l. incurs . p. 78. by disputes . l. by-disputes . P. 81. l. 12. consideration . l. consid . P. 99. l. 29. heep . l. keep . P. 100. l. 14. uf . l. of . COurteous Reader , Because the necessity of making use of a forreign Press hath so multipled the Errata of this small Piece either in Words , or Pointing , as to render several places of it hardly intelligible , You are desired to amend with your Pen , at least , those grosser faults that are distinguished here with a Star ; and , where else the sense may seem obscure , to repair to this Table . PREFACE . Pag. 21. Marg. read See p. 69. * Ibid. l. 6. r. cannot think Ibid. l. 9. r. be a p. 4. l. 11. r. and unmoveable p. 6. l. 2. r. much BOOK . Pag. 1. l. 2. r. Principles , Giving p , 2. l. 11. Marg. § . 1. p. 4. l. 6. Marg. § . 2. p. 6. l. 10. Marg. § . 3. * l. 17. r. and all l. 25. r. controverted p. 7. l. 13. r. or Society l. 22. Marg. § . 4. * p. 9. l. 23. Marg. § . 5. p. 11. l. 24. Marg. Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 10. p. 15. l. 28. r. Christian p. 18. l. 20. Marg. Tillots . Rule of faith p. 113. Ibid. l. 27. Marg. dele Tillots . p. 113. p. 20. l. 30 dele , ) * l. 31. r. sense ) * p. 21. l. 6. r. repentance of it , l. 19. r. present much major part of Christianity , professeth l. 20. r. this Scripture * p. 23. l. 13. r. or p. 25. l. 9. r. Iudgments . 2 Chr. 19. 10. * p. 32. l. 21. r. any can * p. 33. l. 6. r. taken in her sense * l. 10. r. Catholick Church l. 11. r. [ that is , in l. 13. r. page , ] l. 18. r. salvation , And , * l. 31. r. ( Therefore such p. 35. l. 32. r. be * p. 36. l. 13. r. infallible [ the Infallibility in question . ] Surely , l. 15. r. Fundamentals , & Marg. See Rat. * l. 26. r. not as liable p. 38. l. 2. r. necessary , The * p. 39. l. 16 r. too , these Successors p. 40. l. 10. r. And the Protestant's allowing l. 28. rendring such their p. 41. l. 4. r. Account ) * l. 9. Marg. r. Ibid. p. 512. p. 42. l. 16. r. Scripture , l. 23. Marg. r. Matt. 18. 17. p. 45. l. 9. r. in some matters * l. 12. r. Council , but are not as yet stated such by any clear Decision p. 48. l. 2. r. Guide : their l. 16. r. are not , if p. 51. l. 8. r. infallibly certain * p. 55. l. 17. r. matter at all * p. 56. l. 20. r. Revelation , as to the * p. 57. l. 4. dele , their l. 13. r. Consideration * p. 58. l. 7. r. established there , to * p. 68. l. 24. r. As for the other , the Protestants , * p. 70. l. 4. r. as , because I p. 73. l. 13. r. so ) : there * l. 21. Marg. See before § . 27. * l. 28. r. contrary to it p. 74. l. 20. dele , that * p. 75. l. 15. r. External p. 77. l. 4. dele , in the * l. 30. r. when knowing * p. 78. l. 1. r. digress l. 2. r. Book of l. 13. r. Church ] l. 16. r. ( else p. 79. l. 18. r. and so separated p. 80. l. 13. r. bond of peace . * p. 81. l. 6. dele , though * p. 86. l. 6. r. she decides * p. 86. l. 11. See below * l. ult . r. know these Truths p. 87. l. 12. r. have barked * l. 29. r. as if in p. 89. l. 3. r. Evidences , in * l. 22. r. more to be necessary * p. 96. l. 23. r. conversing only with p. 97. l. 6. r. Protestant Sect l. 17. r. Volkelius Marg. r. uno Deo * p. 98. l. 13. r. omitteth p. 100. l. 3. r. Iudgement ; Lastly l. 28. r. increase . Sed * P. 86. l. 11. After the Church , r. Nor had St. Augustin any reason to presume ( as he doth ib. c. 4. ) that St. Cyprian would have corrected his Opinion concerning this Point ; or to charge the Donatists with Heresie for dissenting from it , after the Determination of such a Council : Nor had the Second General Council any just ground to put it in the Creed [ Credo unum Baptisma in Remissionem peccatorum ] if such Universal Councils in their Stating Matters of Faith , are errable and amendable . ERRATA In the Discourse concerning Devotion : ( those of mis-pointing being mostwhat omitted . ) The principal Errata ( noted with a Star ) the Reader is desired to Correct with his Pen. Pages . line 21. marg . read 8. 26. p 6 l. 27 r. became a * p 9 l. 24 r. long-continued * p 10 l. 10 r. thus * l. 16 r. thus * l. 22 r. 2. It p 11 l. 9 r. abscondi p 13 l. 24. marg . r. Act. 16. 6 , 7 , 9. - 20. 22 , 23. - 8. 19. - 19. 21. 1 Tim. 1. 18 - 4 14. - p 15 l. 17. r. Hysterical — p 18 l. 25 r. this inhabitation p 19 l 5 r. And , Phil. 3. p 21 l. 2. r Where , * after p 24. ●l . 20. marg . r. S. Thom. 1. Q. 1 Art. 8. l. penult . r. 5. But there p 25 l 22 r. Spirit , pretends p 26 l. 21 r. ( See l. 22 r. 2. 6. ) p 28 l. 2 r. sin , especially * p 29 l. 30 r. those * p 30 l. 25 r. and it , if p 31 l. 17 r. Counsels * p 32 l. 18 r. leaves us * p 34 l. 27 r. inconsiderable * p 38 l. 5 r. 6. Having * p 39 l. 26 r. also frequently return * p 40 l. 17 r. and rovings about p 41 l. 21 r. thereof . Treat 3. p 42 l. 24 r. them happen to fall p 43 l. 1 r. works in us p 45 l. 22 r. left somtimes * l. 32 r. A●olatiomentis p 46 l. 16 r. primary p 48 l 16 r. mundanis ) * p 50 l. 21 r. Si cui p 51 l. 3 r. Canting p 52 l. 31 r. meae — Suble● a us * p 53 l. 33 r. utcunque p 55 l. 13 r. peccatis * l. 21 r. quia , si l. 34 r. immerito * p 56 l. 17 r. Elsewhere , * — Fortasse ne * l. 22 r. praecesserat l. 23. r. esse l. 26 r. Sanctuarium Dei , si l. 31 r. quidem hic * p 58 l. 16 r. ellae bullienti substraxeris , p 61 l. 27 r. cogit , nec cogitur * p 62 l. 25 r. unexperienced * p 63 l. 10 r. understand * p 66 l. 21 r. as they are — ib. apprehends l. 31 r. Christi , And * p 67 l. 4 r. such persons , as l. 23 r. virtute * l. 28 r. retractation p 69 l. 22 r. Cand * p 70 l. 17 r. because , to any p 74 l. 29 r. lest I should incur his censure * p 75 l. 2 r. cited § . 13 l. 13 r. ipse * p 76 l. 25 r. lumen p 77 l. 5 r. phantasmes l. 33 r. ( for , now , p 78 l. 1 r. Contemplation ) l. 5 r. when our * l. 27 r. stamp them * l. 32 r. li●que * p 79 l. 16 r. contemplatur l. 21 r. — Sponsa l. 22 r. ipsam l. 32 r. Beginners : and p 80 l. 1 r. the other , l. 7 r. before § . 25. p 81 l. 8 marg . r. See § . 32. &c. * p 82 l. 1 r. laudable * p 83 l. 4 r. Deiforme Fund p 84 l. 3 r. 1 Cor. 13. 12. p 86 l. 13 r. by — intentions * l. 32 r. tuumque spiritum * p 95 l. 21 r. to God. * p 97 l. 12 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * l. 30 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * p 98 l. 9 r. passage of his . * p 99 l. 3. marg . r. § . 49. & 51 * p. 100. l. 20. r. gestures , * p 102 l. 28 r. ( which they * p 104 l. 28 r. before § . 14. * p 106 l. 2 r. lawfulness of which is l. 15 r. in two lawfull p 109 l. 8 r. impulses of the p 110 l. 33 r. praying for his p 111 l. 21. r. himself to de — dele , indifferent p 112. l. 7 r. before § . 20. &c. p 113 l. 15 r. those who are judged ERRATA In the Discourse concerning Repentance and Indulgences . PAge 43. line 7. read Third , the p. 48 l. 10. r. fragilitatem * page 78 l. 19. read the Calf l. 31. r. purgandum p. 83. l. 27. r. superfluas Indulgentias l. 29. r. inanes , & * p. 123. l. 14. r. to Father them . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A34966-e100 Rom. Idol . p. 557. 1. Ib p. 69. 134. &c. 142. 159. 161. 2. 3. Synod . A. D. 1603. c. 4. 5. 36. &c. Stat. 13. Elizab. c. 12. Ration . Account . P. 55. Chillingw p. 200. Notes for div A34966-e560 Principl . Confideration . 1. Princ. Consid. 2. Princ. Consid. 3. Princ. Consid. 4. Princ. Consid ▪ 5. Princ. Consid. Additional . 6. Princ ▪ Consid. 7. Princ. Consid. 8. Princ. Consid. 9. Princ. Consid. 10. Princ. 11. Princ. §. 6. Consid. 12. Princ. §. 7. Consid. 13. Princ. §. 8. Consid. §. 9. §. 10. Chilling . p. 19. §. 11. Tillots p. 113. §. 12. §. 13. Claud. in his last . Reply . l. 111. c. 13. 14. Princ. Consid. §. 14. §. 15. Field of the Church p. 377. 15. Princ. Consid ▪ §. 16 ▪ §. 17. §. 18. 2. Chron. XIX . X. Deuteron XVII . X. XI . XII . §. 19. 16. Princ. Consid. §. 20. see . Ap. Laud. p. 139. 140 compared vvith p. 160. 195 258. 346 see also Rationall Acc. p. 53 59. 537. §. 21. §. 22. §. 23. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei 22. book . 8. Chapt. §. 24. See. Rat. Account . p. 536. See Rat. Account . p. 50. 6. Ib. p. 539. §. 25. Ib. p. 59. Ib. p. 537. Ap. Lavvd , p. 227. Rat. Account . p. 535. §. 26. Ap. Lavvd . §. 37. p. 318. Ib. §. 21. p. 140. Ib. 25. n. 4 Ib. Ib. Ib. p. 258. Rational Account p. 154. p. 252. The infallibility in Question . see Ration . Account p. 58. 59. 17. Princ. Consid. §. 27. §. 28. § 29. §. 30. see Ration . Account p. 2●…5 . it . p 204. 208. 209 And the places 〈◊〉 cited out of the Archbishop . Ib. p. 108. §. 31. §. 32. Ib. p. 506. §. 34. Ib. p. 101 Deuter. 17. Math. §. 35. Hist. of the Counc . of Trent . p. 228. Roman Idolatry . p. 7 449. 453. § 36. Tillots . in Rule of Faith. p. 92. 93. 18. Princ. Consid. §. 37. Ephes. 4. 11. 13. 14 2. Peter . 3. 16. §. 38. Contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 33. §. 39. 19. Princ. Consrd . §. 40. §. 41. Prov. 3. 5. 20. Princ. Consid. §. 42. 21. Princ. Consid. §. 43. §. 44. See suarez de Fide Dispu - . 4. §. 5. n. 7. 8 9 Lugo de virtute Fidei Disp p. 1. §. 12. Vasquez . 1. 2. Disput . 120. n. 15. Esti . in 3. sent . d. 25. §. 13. south wall Analys . Fidei Disp. 3. c. 8. 22 Prine . Consid. §. 46. Resp. 1. cap. de Abusibus . Act. 〈◊〉 . l. w●rt . p. 56 Rom Idol . p. 78. &c. 23. Princ. Consid. §. 47. 24. Princ. Consid. §. 48. §. 49. Rat. Acct p. 58. 25. Princ. Consid. §. 50. 26. Princ. Consid. §. 51. 27. Princ. Consid. §. 52. 28 Princ. Consid. §. 53. Hebr. 13. 7. De Vnit. 19. Rational . Account . p. 133. 16. p. 58. Hebr. 13. 17. 29. Princ. Consid. §. 54. §. 55. §. 56. Rat. Account p. 162. 208. 210 §. 57. §. 58. § 59. Rationall . Acc. p. 539. §. 60. §. 61 ▪ See Synod 1603. Can. 36. and can . 5. Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12 and Title of the Act. §. 62. Roman . Idol . p. 52. Aug. Ep. 48. 30. Princ. Consid. §. 63. §. 64. §. 65. 1. Conseq . Consid. §. 66. 2. Conseq . August . contra Crescon . l. 1. c. 33 Ibid. §. 67. See. Rat. Account . p. 7. Aug. cont . Epist Fundam . c. 4. Id. de Vtil . creden . c. 11. 14. 16. 17 Aug. de Ciu. D. l. xxii . c. 8. Confess . l. 9. c. 7. Possid . in vita Aug. ● . 29. Id. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 25. Idem cont . Ep. Fund . c. 4. 3. Conseq . Consid. §. 68. 4. Conseq . Consid. §. 69. §. 70. See Stilling . Roman . Idol . p. 540. It. Rat. Account p. 117. 567. Tillatson . p. 275. 5. Conseq . Consid. §. 71. 6. Conseq . Consid. §. 72. §. 73. §. 74. Volket . de vera Relig. l. 5. c. 7. Crell . l. de vno Dei Patre . in Praefat. §. 7.