OF FAITH Necessary to SALVATION, And of the NECESSARY GROUND OF Faith Salvifical; Whether this, always, in every Man, must be INFALLIBILITY.  
OXFORD, Printed in the Year, M DC LXXXVIII.   

FIVE SHORT TREATISES,  

I. Concerning Faith Necessary to Salvation.  
II. Of Infallibility.  
III. Concerning the Obligation of not Professing or Acting against our Judgement or Conscience.  
IV. Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors, and Trial of Doctrines.  
V. Concerning Salvation possible to be had in a Schismatical Communion.    
Estius in Sent. 3. d. 23. §. 13.— Utrum in haereticis vera sit Fides Articulorum in quibus non errant, Quaestio est in utramque partem probabiliter a Doctoribus disputata.— Ibid.— Fidei impertinens est per quod medium primae veritati credatur, id est, quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum Fidei.— Ibid.— Nihil vetat, quo minus haeretici, quamvis in multis errent, in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint, ut recte credant.  

Courteous Reader,  
THese Treatises by divers passages may seem to have been written before the Author was fully united to the Catholic Church. So that some things in them are not so cautiously and clearly explained; as, had himself lived to publish them, they would have been. But we thought it our duty, rather to represent them as he left them, than to make any breach in the Discourse itself; or to pull any threads out of so close and well wrought a contexture.   

CORRIGENDA.  
Page 8. Marg. such points very few. p. 9 l. penult. necessary, besides the assent. p. 32. l. 18. and is in some. l. 38. some degree of incredulity.  
Of Infallibility. Pag. 15. l. 12. (though this can never. p. 20. l. 1. pertaining to Faith methinks sufficient. ibid. l. 9 in Doctrinals pertaining to Faith certain of truth. p. 28. l. 17. But I say he shall never be so.  
Of Submission of Judgement. Pag. 30. l. 7. that it was generally practised.  
Trial of Doctrine. Pag. 21. l. 18. by most of differing. p. 28. l. 5. He may be free. l. 7. from the sin of Schisin, and invincibly ignorant of the errors which are professed in his Communion, he may attain in such a Church life everlasting, because in desire he is hoped to be of the true Church. l. 22. sufficient thro' God●s infinite goodness. l. 23. crimes and invincibly errs in not-fundamentals, errors unknown to them. l. 30. we may hope.  
Danger of Schism. Pag. 3. l. 13. and if she deny it. l. 14. which are accounted.   

THE CONTENTS  

PART I  
1. COncerning Faith necessary for Salvation. § 1. 

1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith.  
2. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of Faith. §. 2. 

1. That it is necessary to our salvation to believe, whatever is known by us to be God's word. Where, 

1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be God's word, which knowledge obliges us afterward to belief. § 3.  
2. And concerning sufficient proposal. §. 6.    
2. That it is not necessary to our salvation, that all that is God's word be known by us to be so, or, in general, be known by us to be a truth. §. 10. Where, 

1. That it is necessary to salvation, that some points of God's word be expressly known by all Such points very few. Not easily defined. §. 13. In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large.  
2. That it is highly advantageous to salvation, that several other points of God's word, besides these, be known. §. 14.  
3. And our duty (each one according to his calling) to seek the knowledge of them. In respect of which the Apostles Creed is too narrow. §. 15.  
4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons, etc. And §. 17. That the Decrees of Councils not obligatory (at least to some) against a pure nescience, but only opposition thereof: and not any opposition, but only when known to be their Decrees.         

PART II.  
II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical; whether it must be in every Believer an Infallibility; that the matter of such Faith is a Divine truth, or God's word. § 20. 

Concessions. § 21.  
I. Concerning the object of Faith; that this is only God's word.  
II. Concerning the Act of Faith, and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures, Church, Tradition. § 22.  
That the Authority of Scriptures and Church is learned from Universal Tradition. § 23.  
Concessions concerning Tradition. § 25. 

1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition (whether infallible or no) to ground a firm Faith upon.  
2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty, though such Tradition be not absolutely Universal. § 28.  
3. That no one Age of the Church is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition. §. 29.  
4. That the testimony of the present Age is sufficient to inform us therein. § 30.  
5. That Tradition of the Church is easier to be understood (in some things expounded by her) than the Scriptures. § 31.  
6. That the Church is a sufficiently-certain Guide to us in Doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary. § 32.  
Digr. 1. That all Traditions carry not equal certainty. § 33.  
Digr. 2. The difference between the Church's, and Mahometan, and Heathen, Traditions.    
III. Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit. § 35.  
Concessions concerning the Spirit. 

1. That it is always required, besides outward means.  
2. That all Faith wrought by the Spirit is infallible. § 36.  
3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science. § 37.    
IV. That from these Concessions it follows not, that all, who savingly believe, have, or must have, an infallible, or such sufficient certainty, as may possibly be had, of what they believe. § 38. 

Neither from the evidence of Scriptures. § 39  
Nor of the Spirit. § 40.  
Nor of Church-Tradition. § 41.  
For these following reasons. § 43.  
Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons. § 51.        

CONCERNING FAITH necessary to SALVATION, AND Of the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether This always in every Man ought to be Infallibility:  
SIR,  
YOU have importuned me to communicate to You my opinion on these four Queries, as being (you say) the chief subjects which are debated by our modern Controvertists; and in which, if one side should gain the victory, there would follow a speedy decision of most other Theological Controversy. The First concerning FAITH, What, or how much is necessary for our Salvation? The Second concerning Infallibility in this Faith; Whether it be necessary in every Believer to render his Faith Divine and Salvifical? The Third concerning the Infallibility of the Church; Whether this is, at all, or how far, to be allowed? The Fourth concerning Obedience, and submission of private Judgement, Whether this be due to the Church supposed not, in all her decisions, infallible? For the two latter I must remain for a while your Debtor. On the two former I have returned you, as briefly as I can, my Conceptions, no way swerving, that I know of, from any general Decree or Tenent of the Church Catholic.  
And First, concerning the former of these; What, or how much Faith is necessary to Christians for the attaining of salvation. 
PART. I.   
1. Faith, as it respects Religion or things Divine, in general 
§. 1. 1. Concerning Faith necessary for salvation. 1. Concerning the object or matter of Faith.  seems to be an assent to the Truth, Goodness, &c of any thing that is God's Word, or Divine Revelation. And all truths whatsoever revealed by God, even every part and parcel of God's word, are the object, and so many points or articles, of our Faith; i. e. are not to be denied, but believed and assented to immediately, when ever we know them, or when ever they are sufficiently proposed to us, that we might know them, to be God's word. Amongst these therefore, all precepts of Manners are also matters of Faith; in as much as they must first be assented to, and believed by us, to be God's commands, lawful, good, holy, just, and most fit to be obeyed; or else we cannot, as we ought, obey them. And he that should practise them, misbelieving them, either to be things evil, or things in themselves indifferent; in the first way would sin, in the second would perform a service utterly unacceptable, by reason of an error in his faith. See Rom. 14. 23. Surely every one of the fundamental rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God; and therefore virtually includes an Article of Faith. Again, all necessary deductions, and consequents of any part of God's word, or of any point or article of faith, are also so many points or articles of faith. (See Discourse of Infallibility §. 12.) So that the articles of faith taken absolutely are almost infinite; for whatever is, or necessarily follows that which is, divine revelation, may equally be believed, and so is an object of faith; and, when it is believed, is a point of faith. Consequently also all controversies concerning the sense of any part of Scripture, are concerning matter of faith taken in this general sense; even those concerning Grace and freewill; as well as those about the Blessed Trinity.  
2. Next, concerning the necessity of believing all such points of faith. We must say, in the first place: That it is fundamental, 
§. 2. 1. Concerning the necessity of our belief of such object of faith. 1. That it is necessary to our salvation, to believe what ever is known by us to be God's word.  and necessary to our salvation, That every part of God's word, (fundamental or not fundamental it matters not) supposing that we exercise any operation of our understanding about it, be not dissented from, but be believed or assented to, when we once know and are convinced, that it is God's word. Else we knowing that it is God's word, and not believing, or assenting-to, it to be truth, must plainly make or believe God, in some thing to say false: which (if perhaps it be possible) is the greatest heresy, subverting the very first principle of faith, that God is Truth, and so necessarily excludeth from heaven.  
And here also, first, concerning our knowing a thing to be God's word, it must be said, That we know, or at least ought to know, 
§. 3. Where 1. Concerning our obligation to know any thing to be God's word, which knowledge obligeth us afterward to belief.  a thing so to be, whensoever either so much proof of it is proposed to us, (by what means soever it comes,) as actually sways our understanding to give assent to it, (for which assent it is not necessary that there be demonstration or proof infallible, but only generally such probability as turns the balance of our judgement, and outweighs what may be said for the contrary; for where so much evidence is, either none can truly deny his assent, or cannot, without sin, deny it); or else, when so much proof of it is proposed to us, as (consideration being had of several capacities, according to which more things are necessary to be known to some stronger, than to some others weaker) would certainly sway our understanding, if the mind were truly humble and docile, and divested of all unmortified passions, (as addiction to some worldly interest, covetousness, ambition, affectation of vainglory, self-conceit of our own wit and former judgement,) and of all faultily contracted prejudice and blindness by our education, etc. which unremovedfirst do obstruct and hinder it from being persuaded.  
In which obstructions of our knowledge in things so necessary there are many several degrees of malignity, which it will not be 
§. 4.  amiss to point at. For 1. it is always a greater sin caeteris paribus, i. e. the matter of the error being alike, obstinately to maintain a known error, and to profess a thing against conscience convinced, than to have the conscience unconvinced by reason of some lust that hinders it: because there is more ignorance of my fault in this latter; and ignorance always aliquatenus excuseth another fault, even when it cannot excuse itself. 2ly, In holding the same error not against conscience, though from some culpable cause, some may be in very much, some in very little, fault, according to many circumstances (which none can exactly weigh to censure them) of capacity, condition, obligation to such duties, accidental information, etc. varying in several persons. 3ly. The sinfulness of the same man's erring in two things, though both equally unknown to him, and neither held against conscience, may be very different: for the grosser and more pertinacious that their error is, the more faulty in it is the erroneous. Both (1.) because the necessary truth opposed to such error hath more evidence, either from Scriptures, or from Ecclesiastical exposition thereof; which exposition in the greatest matters we must grant either never, or seldom errs; and to whose direction all single persons are referred; whence any one's ignorance in these is much more faulty and wilful. And (2ly) because such an error is the occasion of some miscarriage in manners; so that though formally he sinned no more in this than in his other errors, yet consequentially he sins more in many other things by reason of it, than he doth in truth mistaken in some smaller matter. And hence 4ly, it follows, that an error doing great mischief to manners, or to the purity of the Faith, on which (though this foundation doth not always appear to support them) good manners are built, can hardly be held without a very guilty ignorance; because such points are, by God's providence and the Church's care, to all men sufficiently proposed. Indeed it is so hard a thing for a man to divest and strip himself of all irregular passion, and especially from prejudice contracted by education, that an error in some things of less moment, even out of some faulty cause, is very often incident to men good and honest. But when our passion shall grow so high, and our interest so violent, as to darken the light of truth in matters of moment, especially if recommended to us by authority, and as it were openly shining in our face, in such case there is but little difference between our * denying a thing to be God's word when known to be so, and (by our own default) * not knowing it to be so; between knowingly gainsaying truth, and wilfully being blind; between shutting the door against knowledge, or affronting it being entered; between conscience witnessing against us, or by violence silenced.  
Again, concerning this removal of all passion and interest; as, 
§. 5.  when we have used our uttermost endeavour to find out, and lay them aside, we are sufficiently excused; so we are not to presume, that when ever we are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and know nothing by ourselves, that we are therefore presently clear therefrom, (when as we have used no great examination or pains to discover or remove them): for most men that are obstinate and self-biassed do not think (though they have reason to think) that they are so; and not without great diligence it is that men espy the corruption of their own intentions; but yet certainly this may with much vigilance be found out, and removed: else such men, who can no way discover it, would be in their obstinacy as excusable, as in an incapacity. Now in this search of our own integrity I can advise nothing so necessary, as 1. to rectify our manners, where viciously inclined, before we trust much to our own reasoning, (for the vicious seldom judge aright in divine matters.) 2. Then, to cast a jealous eye still upon the inclinations of our education: And 3ly, lastly, * to mortify the self-love we have to our own reason; by subduing and bending it to other men's, in the particulars which we doubt of, or would learn, whom it once acknowledgeth in the general learneder and wiser than we, and this especially when our judgement leads us to oppose common doctrines; and * to employ our understanding, not so much to find out, by itself, what is the true sense of disputed Scriptures, as what is the most universal exposition of the Church concerning the sense thereof, wherein it may soon be satisfied. But of this see more in Trial of Doctr. §. 14. etc.  
2. Next, our passions being rightly ordered concerning sufficient 
§. 6. 2. And concerning sufficient proposal.  proposal; we may not think it enough to behave ourselves passively, i. e. to receive from time to time what happens to be evidenced to us; and till then (concerning sufficient knowledge of divine truths) to think ourselves in a safe condition. We may not rely on the security of believing some few things, in which all Christians agree; and on an implicit faith, and the preparedness of our mind, whereby in general we assent that all God's word is true, and are ready to believe with all willingness any thing whereof we shall be convinced that it is so. By which implicit faith of the Scriptures we may also truly be said to believe the contrary to what we believe. This, I say, frees not our conscience from all guilt. For there lies a duty on all, not only willingly to entertain knowledge in divine matters, when brought as it were to their door, and infused into them, but to seek diligently and continually after it all the days of their life, (due respect being had to their secular vocations); as being the only foundation of a right obedience and service of God, which is the unum necessarium for this world and the next. And certain it is, that the most of men are much more obliged to the study of Divinity, (soberly undertaken, not for the teaching of others, but the informing of themselves,) than (by reason of their secular condition) they think they are. By want of which study it is, that men become so fatally addicted to the doctrines, practices, religion of the place wherein they are bred, though these never so gross and easily discernible for erroneous, and damnable to their souls.  
Neither may we become careless in this search of divine truth by relying on a general repentance (as too many do) of our errors; 
§. 7.  as if it were, though not for all other sins, yet for these, a sufficient remedy; and this because, though many of our errors are sins, (as proceeding from not an unavoidable, but a culpable ignorance, which so far as it is culpable, so far it is also voluntary,) yet those errors in which we err for the present (of which we speak) they are always wholly unknown; nor can any man live a minute in a known error: profess it afterward he may, but hold it any longer he cannot, but that the very knowing or judging it to be an error is the very act of forsaking it: and then if errors be unknown, a general repentance of them only can be made. I say this plea, though it serves the turn for some smaller, yet not for grosser errors; because such, though actually undiscovered, yet may be easily known, for we suppose sufficiently perspicuous revelation and proposition of the truths contrary to these. In such therefore the first and not very difficult business or act of repentance is, to endeavour to know and discover them, and so to make particular confession of them, nay further, public recantation, if by them we have done much hurt to others; for many times errors are more pernicious than lusts, when ever they tend to patronise a lust: and so one heretic may do more mischief in the world, than a thousand otherways grievous offenders. It follows therefore, that errors are forgiven after no other manner, than other sins are. Some smaller sins and errors, because less discernible, may be remitted to a general repentance; but greater, as well sinful errors, as sinful lusts, we are to acknowledge and forsake, the tenant of the one as well as the practice of the other. Only this difference there is, 1. That the errors so soon as known are ipso facto forsaken, though not so other sins. 2. That, caeteris paribus, i. e. if the error by some ill consequences of it be not more mischievous, a gross error undiscovered hath less guilt in it, than a known and wilful sin; because the more knowledge, the more guilt.  
What is our duty then? We are never to be secure of ourselves 
§. 8.  in the search of Divine Truth, but are obliged according to, our several conditions, the opportunity of teachers, the times of manifestation we live in, etc. (for there lies a necessity or duty of knowing more of divine things, as upon some capacities, so upon some conditions of life, and upon some times of revelation, more than in others: and that knowledge is necessary to one man's salvation (that is, he shall stand guilty before God, and be called to a severe account for the want thereof) which is not to another's): we are obliged, I say, all our life to seek earnestly further knowledge of divine truths; and not to acquiesce in our present knowing, no more than in our present working; but from milk to ascend to strong meat, and to grow in faith, as in grace and holiness. (See Rom. 1. 17. Jo. 16. 22. 1 Cor. 3. 2. Heb. 5. 12. 14. Eph. 1. 17. 4. 13. Col. 1. 10. Phil. 1. 9, 10. 2 Pet. 1. 5. 3. 18.) And then upon our using such constant endeavour both for knowing, the wisdom of God to praise him, and will of God to serve him, our implicit faith is accepted; whether in our defects, or also errors, in matters of faith: implicit faith being then only serviceable to us, where faith explicit (considering due circumstances) cannot be attained by us.  
Now what is said hitherto concerning knowledge of the Scriptures, 
§. 9  may be applied to the knowledge of the Church, (our guide in the Scriptures,) and the obedience due to her. For he who believes, 1. Either that the Church is infallible in her proposals to him what is the word of God; or 2. That, though fallible, in some things, yet she is appointed in those things to be his Judge, and the final determiner of them; 3. or, at least that, in the exposition of the sense of Scriptures, her judgement is better than his own; such a one is bound to believe any thing to be God's word, if she affirm it to him to be so. And he who doth not believe any of these things of the Church, is not presently therefore unobliged to her proposals, unless he hath unpartially examined this matter, and so finds no just cause to believe any such thing of her wisdom or authority, as is pressed upon him. For when some argue thus: There is no danger to me in so or so disobeying the Church where she ought to be obeyed, if having used the uttermost examination I can, both of the point, and of my own disinterest, I can find no such obedience due to her; 'tis well reasoned, though such obedience were indeed due to her, if we grant the Supposition, that he hath examined to the uttermost, who yet after all remains mistaken: for a mistaking examination, where there is no further power to discover it, is no more unblamable than a true one, and in this case invincible ignorance or incapacity excuseth. And God doubtless imposeth nothing to be believed by us under the penalty of sinning, but that he gives sufficient arguments to evidence it to all men endued with the use of reason, and void of prejudice and passion. But hence is our error, that we take an imperfect trial and examination, for a complete, and suddenly rest in the dictate of our conscience un- or misinformed, which is virtually a going against it: and to God must we answer both for such a blind conscience, and all the acts of disobedience that flow from it.  
Thus much concerning our obligation to seek after the knowledge 
§. 10.  of all divine truth, and concerning sufficient proposal; and 
2 That it is not necessary to our salvation, that all that is God's word be known by us to be so, or, in general known by us to be a truth.  that upon this whatever appears to be God's word is necessary to our salvation, to be assented to, and believed. But, this granted, in the second place you are to observe; that it is not necessary to our salvation, that all that is God's word be known to us to be so, or be known by us to be a Truth. For of these parts of God's word which are proposed to us, some there are which concern the business of our salvation; and again, some others which do not, (as some passages of history, and perhaps some subtle consequences of some beneficial point of Faith, &c:) Hence therefore ariseth a twofold necessity of belief; either only in respect of proposal, because we know they are God's word; or, besides proposal, in respect of our salvation, because they are some way advantageous thereto.  
Now concerning the first of these; though such things, once evidently 
Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of God's word be expressly known by all.  proposed are necessary to be assented to, or rather not dissented from; yet it is not necessary at all that they should be either proposed to us, or known by us: but we may be ignorant of or also err in them without any sin, any danger. Concerning the second; Divine Truths necessary to be believed with relation to our salvation, may be taken either in a more strict, or in a more large sense. Taken in the most strict sense, they are such articles or points of faith, as without which actually known and believed none at all can possibly enter into heaven, and escape damnation; and of which not only the denial or opposition, but the pure nescience and ignorance is a defect of faith, to all adulti absolutely irremissible. And these must needs be very few; since we must make 
〈◊〉 points very few.  them no more, than the knowledge whereof may be attained by the most illiterate, indocile, and the lowest conditions of men. And likely, according to the several degrees of the proposal, and revelation of the mysteries of salvation, fewer of these are required in some times (as those before the Gospel) than in some others, as those since it. Yet, that now also, in the greatest illumination, there are but few, we may gather, both * from the short abridgement of faith the Apostles proposed in their Sermons to the people, commonly including the Articles of the Passion and Resurrection, and Kingdom of Jesus the Son of God and of David, and the remission of sins to the penitent thro' his Name: and * from the yet shorter Confessions of Faith, which the Apostles accepted as sufficient for bestowing of Baptism, i. e. for admitting men to salvation, and the Kingdom of Heaven; so that in that instant had they died, (as the good Thief also did,) doubtless upon such a small stock of faith they had entered into life eternal. See Act. 8. 37.— 16. 31, 33. Act. 2. 38.— 10. 43.  
Now these absolutely necessary points are either 1. of pure 
§. 11.  faith; or also 2. of practice, 1. Again; those are either, * such, wherein we more expressly give honour and glory to God; in acknowledging Him, and his wisdom, and his works such as they are, (and that is much better and more wonderful than any lie can make them,) or, * such whereby we * nourish our hope concerning good things belonging to ourselves obedient; and * quicken our fear concerning evil things appertaining to the disobedient: Yet are not those amongst them, which are most speculative, to be thought useless or unprofitable to us, even in respect of our practice; they all generally conducing to the advancing of our admiration, love, and affection to God; and of our confidence, and reliance upon him; and so to the animating of our endeavours and obedience accordingly to his commands. Nullum est dogma Christianum quod non sit quodammodo necessarium ad praxim. So that an orthodox faith in Speculatives is a main ground of a right practice; and a strong faith of a zealous practice. 2ly. Those points of faith which are also of practice, are such wherein we learn our duty to God.  
To particularise something in both these. 1. Pure faith absolutely necessary to all in general, even to those under the law of 
§. 12.  nature, perhaps * is that faith only, Heb. 11. 6. (made evident evident enough to all by the works of God.) Again, faith absolutely necessary to those within the Church before the times of the Gospel, is perhaps, besides the former faith, * a general trust and hope in the Messias to come. (See Jo. 4. 25.— 1. 21. Mat. 2. 5. Jo. 7. 42.) Again, absolutely necessary to those under the Gospel is * perhaps that faith Jo. 3. 18, 36. 1 Jo. 4. 2, 15. Jo. 11. 27. Act. 17. 18. Rom. 10. 9, Mat. 16. 16, 17. Act. 8. 37. (both these last kinds of faith being evidenced sufficiently to all where the sound of the Prophets, or the Gospel, hath been heard.) And 2ly, for matter of practice and of holiness (in which there are as undispensable fundamentals for attaining salvation, as in pure credends: for as without faith, so without holiness none shall see God,) there is absolutely necessary perhaps, besides the assent to the most clear laws of nature, (which were also afterward the law written) repentance from dead works, and the interior acts of Sanctification (in loving God and our neighbour.) See Heb. 6. 1.  
Now the set number of these, the pure nescience or non-practice 
§. 13. Not easily defined.  whereof certainly excludes from Heaven there where ever is the preaching of the Gospel, I do not see what way it can be certainly known: but the Apostles Creed seems too large a Catalogue (I 
In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large.  mean in respect of pure Credends, not Practicals) of necessaries or fundamentals taken in this sense.  
This being said of Necessaries taken in the most strict sense. 2ly, Fundamentals and Necessaries to salvation are taken in a 
§. 14. 2. Other points, only highly advantageous to salvation that they be known.  more large sense, for all such divine truths, the knowledge of which (and practice, if they be practicals) is very advantageous and beneficial to salvation; though amongst these there are degrees of more and less necessary, and some approaching nearer to fundamentals absolute, some further off removed.  
These points are also said to be necessary, both * 1. because they (especially if they be points relating to some practice) are such helps to our performing the conditions of our salvation, and have such influence upon our lives, that they much facilitate our way to Heaven, which would be either much more coldly pursued, or much more difficultly proceeded in, without them. Concerning the danger of erring in which points, methinks Mr. Chillingworth speaks very well. There be many errors, saith he, not fundamental, which yet it imports much, though not for the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the probability, that you will be so: because the holding of these errors, though they do not merit, may yet occasion, damnation. So that though a man, if remaining godly, may be saved with these errors, yet by means of them many are made vicious, and so damned: by them, I say, though not for them. Thus Mr. Chillingworth: And this said he; for a necessity of a reformation from the rest of the Church in such points: this say I; for a necessity of the Church's guidance of us in them. And 2ly, * because God, both by a fuller revelation 
3. Yet our duty (each one according to his calling) to seek the knowledge of them.  of them to us in the Scriptures, and by the doctrine of the Church, hath obliged all men, according to their capacity and condition of life, and opportunity of directors, to a certain measure of actual knowledge, belief, profession thereof, and obedience thereto. So that, though they are not absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation, ratione medii, strictly so taken; yet they are so ratione praecepti, and it is our duty to know and believe them, (and doing of our duty is a thing necessary to Salvation): and we sin if we do not learn and use all diligence (competent with our calling) for to acquire the knowledge of them: and so also our teacher's sin, if they neglect to instruct us in them. (Act. 20. 26, 27.) Neither can we be saved in the ignorance of them, but only by God's first forgiving us, both this sin of our faulty ignorance, and our negligence or obstinacy that caused it, and our disobedience in practicals that followed it: and then again, this forgiveness is not obtained where our fault, so far as we ourselves have discovered it, is not first repent of; and, according to the time we have in this world after such our repentance, rectified.  
Now taking Necessaries in this sense, the Apostles Creed, as it 
§. 15. In respect of these the Apostles Creed too narrow.  was before too large, so now is much too narrow to comprehend them all: as being * a Catalogue (at least for the most of the Articles thereof) 1. only of pure credends without practicals; in which practicals our Salvation mainly and fundamentally consists, as well as in speculative faith. By fundamental points of faith [saith Dr. Potter Char. mist. 7. sect. p. 215. speaking there only of pure Credends] we understand not the necessary duties of charity comprehended in the Decalogue, nor the necessary acts of hope contained in the Lord's Prayer &c, though both these virtues of charity and hope are fundamentals necessary to the Salvation of Christians. And as we are bound to believe such and such things under pain of damnation; so, to do such and such: which doing still includes belief first that they are God's commands, and aught to be done under pain of being the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 5. 19 And 2ly, in those pure Credends, the Apostles Creed being a * summary not of all, but the chief of them, if we consider the Creed in the express terms, and immediate sense thereof: Else Arrians, Socinians, Nestorians, the Pelagian, or late Anabaptists, &c, may not be said to err in any necessary points, since they confess this Creed. But, if you include all necessary consequences of those Articles within the contents thereof to make it complete; yet neither thus can many necessary points be reduced to it: and could they, yet secondly than where will there be any one found that thus being strictly catechised, may not affirm something contrary to some necessary consequence thereof.  
We find nothing therefore in it expressly concerning some pure credends, and those of great consequence. [For to say nothing of 
§. 16.  the Deity of our Saviour; of his consubstantiality with the Father; of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son; and many other points added in the latter Creeds of Councils: how necessary is the believing and acknowledging the Grace of God empowering us to all good works, against Pelagius, & c?] Much less find we any thing therein concerning many practicals of our duty towards God, or our neighbour; yet is it as fundamentally necessary to Salvation to believe the Ten Commandments as the Creed. For, since the practice of these is granted necessary, to be saved, believing first is also a necessary precedent to all lawful practice; and all acts of obedience are grounded upon a foregoing assent of the understanding to the lawfulness or also divine command of what we practise: and how many of them are not of faith are sin. And to affirm the lawfulness of any thing forbidden in Scripture, (suppose of adultery, or drunkenness,) or to deny the lawfulness and goodness of any thing commanded there, (suppose of marriage, obedience to Parents and Magistrates,) would be as fundamental an error (and perhaps more mischievous) as denying some Speculative article of faith. And many dangerous Heretics have there been in practicals. Again; in the Apostles Creed we find * nothing concerning what writings are to be believed by us to have been heavenly inspired, and the undoubted word of God; and hence the settling of the Canon was no small solicitude of the Primitive Church; a point this of no small consequence, for the attaining of Salvation, to be believed, yet not absolutely necessary; since one may be saved without knowing the Scriptures, and many were so, before these writings. * Nothing concerning Ecclesiastical Orders, Ordinations, Sacraments; the Church's absolving sinners, inflicting censures, prescribing public Liturgies, &c. points fundamental (and so called some of them at least, Heb. 6. 2.) in respect of the essence, and government, and unity of the Church, though not in respect of the Salvation of some member thereof. Yet why not necessary to every person therein, as having reference, one way or other, to their particular good? * Nothing express concerning the obedience due to the Church, and her Governors, (else why do so many deny it, who confess the Creed, and in it the Catholic Church?) and yet this a very necessary fundamental also in respect of Christian duties: for ignorance whereof, whilst especially they will not believe the Church in attesting her own authority, how many deprive themselves of the help of her excellent rules? not to name here the Evangelical Counsels of Celibacy, and emptying ourselves of our superfluous wealth, recommended to us by her; and her many injunctions sovereignly tending to the advancing of piety, and bettering of manners; which we will suppose here not to be contained in Scripture; as frequent confession of sins to the Priest; frequent Fasts; hours of Prayer; Communions, &c. which who knows not of how much moment they are for the abstaining from sin, acquisition of Christian virtues, and so consequently for our Salvation?  
Now the obligation to know and believe these, and such like Necessaries of this 2d. sort, varies according to several persons 
§. 17. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several persons, etc.  and conditions, and according to the more or less evident proposal of them. In this dispute (as Dr. Potter acknowledgeth Char. mistake. §. 7. p. 242.) of necessary and fundamental truths, both truths and persons must be wisely distinguished. The truth may be necessary in one sense, that is not so in another; and fundamental to some persons, in certain respects, which is not so to some others. 1. * More points aught to be known, and believed by one than by another, according as more are made manifest to one than another, by the Scriptures, by the decision of the Church, or any other way. Where note, that, before the Church's determination of some points of faith, one may have an obligation to believe them, when another hath not, if, before this, they be evidenced to him, when not to another, (what I mean by evidence, see before, §. 3.); by what means or author soever it be he receives this evidence. And after such evidence he that opposeth it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and heretical in God's sight, even before that he happens to be declared so by the Church's censure, and is made yet more perversely erroneous after her definitions; and such obstinate error again is more or less dangerous (besides the sin of obstinacy) as the matter of the error is of more influence toward our Salvation: whilst meanwhile others, not having the like evidence of them, are yet free to descent or disbelieve them: but then, after the Church's definition those also, upon this stronger evidence (shall I call it?) or authority, will become obliged to assent to them. Again, * more points aught to be known, and believed by one than by another, according as one hath more opportunity than another, by studying the Scriptures, the Church's exposition thereof and her decrees, to find out and discover such truths. Art thou a Master in Israel (saith our Saviour,) and knowest not these things? See Heb. 5. 12. There are those who are not excused in acquiescing in the tenants of their particular education; but who are bound to examine the general traditions and doctrines of the Church, the ancient Fathers, Ecclesiastical Histories, etc. Again; others there are of another condition, who are not so far obliged. And in the former sort, if they either depart from the foresaid doctrines themselves; or continue a separation first made by others, it will be a damnable Schism; when perhaps the simplicity of the vulgar, their followers, will remain excused (if the error be not in a point absolutely fundamental); or will be much lightlier punished, Luk. 12. 48. [Which common people we must leave to God's secret mercies, in the same manner as we do all those others, who have not believed because they have not heard; which Heathens also, I charitably think, shall not suffer for want of that Faith, of which they had no Teacher, as that Faith mentioned Jo. 3. 36. but for want of that the sound of which hath come to all the world in all times, mentioned Heb. 11. 6. compared Rom. 1. 20, 21.] Thus many truths are necessary to be known by the Pastors and the Learned, 
And the decrees of Councils not obligatory (at least to some) against a pure nescience, but, opposition thereof: and not any opposition, but, only when known to be their Decrees.  that are not so by the illiterate people. And in respect of some vulgar, I conceive, that form Quisquis non confitetur, or, non credit, Anathema sit, concerning the Creeds drawn up against several heretics by the four first General Councils, is not to be understood to be of force against a pure nescience of some Articles thereof; for there are many subtleties exceeding vulgar capacities, and which they need not distinctly know: but against an opposition of them, or denial, or non-confession of these points, when they come to know the Church hath established them, and condemned the contrary; for thus to oppose the Church, is not to be ignorant of them, but heretical in them. Tho 'tis not necessary to Salvation, that either they should know the Church hath determined such a thing; or that such a thing is a divine truth; if such knowledge be beyond the compass of their moral endeavours (suitable to their capacity and their vocation) in the search of divine truth. (See this matter more largely discussed in the Disc. of Infallibility. §. 15.)  
Nay, if the Learned also should (I say not be ignorant of, but) 
§. 18.  err in, some point of such moment, that by consequence such error destroys some chief principle of our faith; yet, this being supposed and granted possible, that, having used their just endeavour in the search of the truth, they are by no sufficient proposal convinced of it, and that meanwhile they contend for the principle with the same or more pertinacity, than for it, with a resolution to desert it, if once appearing to them any way repugnant to the other; such an error will no way hazard Salvation. Upon such Supposition; Tho the Lutheran is conceived, from his new fancied Ubiquity, by consequence to destroy the verity of Christ's Humanity, Again the Calvinist is conceived, from God's eternal predetermination of all our actions etc. by consequence to destroy God's Holiness and Justice in making him the Author of all sin; points highly fundamental: yet are not these, holding most firmly the principle, and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently repugnant to it, charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation; but are easily admitted to one another's communion. So the Roman, or rather all the visible, Church of God before Luther, whether Eastern or Western, in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived, by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour, upon which ground they worship it, to worship a mere Creature, and so to commit idolatry, and give God's honour to another: yet this Church holding the contrary principle, That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration, is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental; nor are those, unconvinced of their error, dying in the Roman communion and in this practice, by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation. See Dr. Potter sect. 3. p. 78. sect. 4. p. 123.  
But note; That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points, to regulate and guide our belief, 
§. 19  and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal: now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenants, though our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof; because here, contrary to the Supposition made before, we have a sufficient proposal of the truth, or an authorized proposer, what in such doubtful points we are to hold. For if we know, or, being impartial, might know, that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgement, we are convinced by this authority determining, as well as by arguments proving. Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoin them. And thus much of Necessaries or Fundamentals in the second place; the set number of which (varying so much according to several persons, and conditions, yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can, tending any way to their Salvation) can much less be prescribed than of the former.  
The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility, or, Whether 
§. 20. PART. II. Concerning the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether Infallibility; that the matter of such Faith is a divine truth, or God's word.  we cannot savingly, and with such a faith as God requires, believe some divine truth, unless we be infallibly certain, that it is a divine truth.  
1. First then, concerning the object of Saving Faith, It is true 
§. 21. Concessions. 1. Concerning the object of Faith; that this is only God's Word.  and granted, that the object thereof is only God's Word; and that this Word is infallible: and that, since God cannot lie, fidei non potest subesse falsum. Which saying refers not to the act, but the matter of faith: i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false; because it is the Word of God, which is apprehended by this Faith: Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on (or ultimately resolved into) something which is infallible, i. e. God's Word, (whether this be written or not written,) and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter (though we may unfeignedly for the act) believe any thing but what is certainly true.  
Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believed be God's word: and 2. that it be believed by us to be so; So the Schools, Fides non assentit alicui, nisi quia est a Deo revelatum: And 3ly, that this word be believed to be utterly infallible. From whence this therefore follows: 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith. 2ly. That Faith believing any thing which is true, yet not as divine revelation or God's word, or this word not to be infallible, is no divine or saving faith. So that there is always an infallible object for faith to rest upon. But our Quaere goes further: Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith, that we not only believe what is God's infallible word, but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe.  
2. Concerning the act of faith, and the certainty and assurance 
§. 22. 2. Concerning the act of faith, and the certainty which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures, Church, Tradition.  which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures, Church, and Tradition. 1. First it seems, that whatever certainty our faith may receive from these, these again, both the authority of the Scriptures, and of the Church, do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition. By which I mean * a Tradition so universal, as these things are rationally (considering all circumstances) capable of; i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them, and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth; and * a Tradition so full and sincere, as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute.  
1. For first, supposing the Church infallible, yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition, which universal 
§. 23. That the authority of Scriptures and Church is learned from universal Tradition.  Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof, and not from the testimony of Scripture, and so escapes a circular proof. The series then of proof is this; The Church is proved infallible (at least in Necessaries) from our Saviour's promise of assisting her &c testified in Scripture. These Scriptures are proved to be God's word, and so infallible, from universal Tradition; and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible, from the evidence and nature of itself: because it is morally (i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature) impossible for so many men of so many ages, so disinterested, to conspire to deliver a lie in such a matter. Or, as some others express it, such Tradition (though it were not so plenary) as is delivered to us by that congregation of men which is called the Church, must be allowed to be infallible, from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs, (amongst which are Miracles,) as it is contrary to the veracity of God (supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship) to permit that they should be fallacious. The series of the probation runs thus. The Scriptures are proved to be God's word, and so infallible, from the testimony of the Church: which testimony of the Church, or of so many people so qualified, is proved to be infallible, not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture, (for thus the proof would run in a circle: though to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid; I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid; though it be true also, that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony:) but as being so universal a Tradition, or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed, as it is morally impossible, especially considering God's veracity and providence, that it should deceive us. But, as I said, to prove the Church the other way to be infallible, i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures, which Scriptures (to be divine) we learn only from the Church: Or more plainly thus; to prove the Church to be infallible in all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures, (our Saviour's promise etc. delivered there,) and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible, because this is one of her traditions or doctrines, is granted, even by some of the Roman writers, to be a circle. See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9 c. Non audentes fidem divinam in certitudine & evidentia naturali (i. e. in universal tradition, and he gives the reason, because they cannot be persuaded, quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas) fundare, in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur, & in orbem turpissime saltant etc. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it, than this of Mahomet, If he should first write a law, which tells the people, that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth, and then prove to them that law to be, or to say, to them an infallible truth, because he delivers it. A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition, that Scriptures are the word of God: otherwise to men as to Protestants) supposing the verity of Scriptures, though unproved by the Church, 'tis no circle, if any one (suppose a Catholic) from them being granted, attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility, though the same Romanist also doth affirm, that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony, or from tradition. Only where both these (Scripture and Church-infallibility) are denied; neither can be proved by the other, till one is either supposed as true, or proved by some other medium; which medium is received to be tradition: and if so, than I say there can be no more certainty, that the Church is infallible, than that certainty which lies in universal Tradition.  
2. And secondly, the same may be said for Scriptures: which being supposed to be infallible, because God's word; yet if they are 
§. 24.  proved only by the same tradition to be God's word, all the certainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradition. For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath. Again; suppose I were (without tradition) infallibly certain, that such Books are God's word; yet can I not, for all this, quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith. For my faith being grounded not on the bare words, but sense of those books; and the sense of the same words being divers, (especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other; and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression, by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary, notwithstanding this clearness, become very ambiguous) and that in some necessary points of faith; as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense, some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and matters of faith: to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense (as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity, Grace and Free will, Justification, etc.) upon which first known I must ground my faith; I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word. Here therefore, though the Scripture for the Words should not, yet my Faith, for their Sense would, have a dependence upon, and repair unto, universal Tradition: and wherever the Sense is doubtful to me, as the Scriptures may be doubtful to one, where perspicuous to another, the chief certainty I can have for that Sense, which my Faith ought to embrace, will be from the universal Church-tradition.  
Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore, on which 
§. 25. Concessions concerning Tradition,  as the Final assurer of the Scriptures, or of the Church's Infallibility, the act of Faith must rest, let it be granted; 1. First, (without disputing whether it be absolutely infallible, because it is needles to the stating of our business,) That there is in it certainty 
1. That there is sufficient assurance in Tradition (whether ●●fallible, or no) to ground a firm faith upon.  or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon. For though 'tis willingly assented to, that Tradition, being in its nature a relation of a thing, gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance, as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible, (for 'tis not absolutely impossible for all men in the world, from the beginning thereof till this time, to have lied in every thing they have said; but yet he were no ordinary madman, that, upon this nonimpossibility, would believe no relation at all; only because 'tis not absolutely impossible that they may err, and himself hit the right:) yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein; or else, that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures, that they are God's word. Which, granting that some few learned and studied men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture; yet for this, the most of men, especially as to some of the books thereof, depend on the certainty of Tradition. And indeed it were impious to affirm; that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledge of good and evil, upon which our eternal happines is to be acquired, or misery sustained; or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths, whereby we are to direct our lives to that end, for which he hath created us. But this can be assigned no other, at least to most men, than Tradition. Therefore it is the interest of all Christians, as well those who submit themselves only to the Scripture, as those who submit also to the Church, unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty therein; lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathematical or sensible demonstration, they be made Scepticism and Quodlibets.  
2. But 2ly, we must either hold certainty in Tradition; or that 
§. 26.  we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent. Yet, transfer this discourse to any other temporal matter, and who can wish to be more sure of any thing, than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them. As for example: that there is such a City as Paris; or was such a man as Henry the 8th. But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters, that are of the same distance of time from us, there seems to be much more certainty; in that the providence of God hath appointed a selected company of men, successively in all ages, to be the Guardians, Conservers, Divulgers, thereof to the world for ever.  
3. Lastly, if this Tradition, and the doctrines we acknowledge divine, were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men, 
§. 27.  not in all, but some determinate, time and place; (see Christ's Ben. p. 35.): say how posterity can receive these from any other evidence; unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven, Christ's preaching, miracles, death, to be presented before us; and that before every one of us; excluding all relations from others, because these may be fallible. But such a ground of our faith destroys the nature of faith; and it will be no more belief, but sight, and science; which are opposed to faith properly so called. See 2 Cor. 5. 7. Jo. 20. 29. The knowledge and assurance then of things passed for time, or far distant for place, must be conveyed either by relation; only or extraordinary revelation.  
2ly. Again; let it be granted, That Tradition may be certain 
§. 28. 2. That Tradition may have a sufficient certainty; though notabsolutely universal versal.  enough, though contradicted by some, (for what is there also in nature or sense, that hath not by some been opposed?) and not absolutely universal: Else the Scriptures themselves are not received by sufficient tradition; for most of the sacred books have been opposed by some, and that for a long time; and some books by many. But if, notwithstanding this, they be thought sufficiently attested, so also may many other things, whereof hath happened some contest.  
3ly. Let it be granted likewise; that the universal Church of no one age can be mistaken in the delivering of any eminent and 
§. 29. 3. That no one age of the Ch. is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition.  more material tradition, wherein her care is interested. For who so denies this, must either affirm, that no Tradition can be certain to us; or, that it is so only by the records and histories of former, and those the very first, times, (for if the present age may fail in these, so might any present age before it, except the first,) whereby the traditions of the present must be confirmed. But, since these records and writings of former times were casual, and since our Saviour established his doctrine only in a succession of his messengers, (and from them only, without any writings, for a time, the Church learned her faith;) surely Christians, according to this tenant, if destitute of writings, would have been left uncertain in their religion, notwithstanding the provision made by our Saviour of Teachers of his Gospel to the world's end.  
4ly. Let it be further granted; 1. Not only that he, who diligently 
§. 30. 4. Tha● the testimony of the present age is sufficient to inform us therein,  searcheth after the truth of a Tradition, cannot ordinarily err or mistake that for a Tradition that is not; or that for no Tradition that is: but 2. that the general testimony of the present age is enough to warrant a Tradition to him; from which he may receive a sufficient certainty, without examining a succession of the same doctrine from the first age; or searching the conformity of the present with former times; as well as he is sufficiently assured that there was such a man as William the Conqueror, or is such a City as Rome, only by the general undisputed accord of all of the present time, namely, amongst whom he converseth; without reading the Chronicles up to the Conqueror, or consulting the several interjacent Provinces between his abode and Rome. Nay 3ly, let this also be yielded concerning the present age, That though quo universalior (as well universalitate loci, as temporis) traditio, eo certior; yet one, without searching the universality of the present age, may have sufficient assurance of what he believes from the public Liturgies, Canons, Articles, Catechisms, and other common writings, such as come to hand, where they all or most accord one with another; of which books also that such Fathers and Synods etc. are the Authors, as are pretended, let it be likewise granted, that he may learn from the same sureness of Tradition, as he doth, that such an one was an Emperor &c. (for so he believes the same Tradition for Tully, or Livy being the author of such books, as for Caesar being Emperor of such a people; and then the same assurance which he hath of Secular Authors, he may have of Sacred); or as he doth, that such are his Prince's Proclamations or Edicts, which he submits to without any signed testimony, or any scruple that they are such; nor doth any venture to transgress them upon the not absolute impossibility that they are forged.  
5ly. Let it be granted, (which we know by experience,) That 
§. 31. 5. That Tradition of the Ch. is easier to be understood (in some things expounded by her) than the Scriptures.  the Tradition of the Church is easilier understood in those points which she undertakes to expound, than the Scriptures themselves, which are by her explained. For supposing the contrary, then were Creeds, Catechisms, and all the Church's teaching needles; since of two things equally obscure, the one can never illustrate or explain the other. Therefore men may be more assured in many things of the doctrine and meaning of the Church, than of the Scriptures. As for example, 'tis easier (especially when not some single text is considered apart, but all those, which both sides urge, are confronted together) to understand what we are to hold, concerning the Trinity, from the Nicene Creed; and concerning Grace and freewill, from the decrees of the Milevitan Council; than from the Scriptures. So, in Luther's time it was easy for those to know the Church's tenant and practice concerning Adoration of the Eucharist, Auricular Confession, Invocation of Saints, etc. who were not able to examine the doctrine of the Scriptures in such points; so that it must be yielded, that Tradition is a more evident Guide for many things, than those Sacred writings are.  
6ly. Last; since this Tradition of divine things, in which 
§. 32. 6. That the Ch. is a sufficiently certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary.  above we have pleaded sufficient certainty to be, is contained in the Church, and delivered as it were from hand to hand by the successive Guides thereof; therefore let it be granted, That the Church (which pretends not to make any new Articles of Faith at all, but to recommend to her children what is delivered to her) is infallible, or a certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary, in the same manner as Tradition may be said to be infallible or certain. For to say Tradition is certain, is to say we have some way to know Tradition (suppose that Tradition of the Scriptures being God's word) without being deceived in it. and this way is the testimony of the Church; therefore is this also certain.  
Having made these Concessions concerning the evidence of Church-tradition, and the sufficient testimony it affords us to 
§. 33. Digression. That all traditions carry not equal certainty.  ground our faith on, at least in all the principal points of our religion, wherein such Tradition (both as to delivering a sufficient Canon of Scripture, and the true meaning of this Canon) is most full and unquestionable: Yet I must mind you, before I proceed further, to avoid your mistaking, that I hold not all Traditions that we meet with to have an equal certainty or creditableness, one as another; because, all circumstances considered, they have not an equal evidence, but very different, and therefore ought carefully to be examined and compared. For example. The Tradition, that such a person (suppose Mahomet) lived in such an age, may have much more certainty, than that Mahomet or such a person said or did such or such a thing in that age. Neither is the argumentation good, The one is believed from Tradition, therefore the other aught to be so; because caetera non sunt paria, and there may not be the same plenitude of Tradition for both; and more may bear witness, both in that and latter times, of the one, than do of the other. Of Traditions therefore some there are (and those as well within as without the Church) much more doubtful, obscure, and questionable, than others. For 1. both truths committed to Tradition may fail in successive times, (vel per omnimodam cessationem, vel ex eo quod oppositum introducatur) viz. where Tradition is not come to a convenient and due pitch of universality (as is granted by the strongest abettors of Tradition: See Dr. Hold. Resol. Fid. 1. lib. 8. cap.) And 2. the unfailing Tradition of successive times may be defective, in its first original's being false; or else in its having many falsities, in its current thro' posterity, superadded to, and mingled with, the truth, as persons are interested or fanciful. As Gentilism did superadd many things to the groundwork of religion received from the Jew and writings of the Old Testament. For falsum poterit quodammodo, caeteris paribus, aeque certo ac verum per traditionem communicari: else lies cannot be commonly believed. But many such we know were credited amongst the Heathen concerning their Gods, and are, amongst the Mahometans concerning their Prophet: and so it may happen, that as undoubting an assent may be given to these, as is to the truth, (for ignorance many times doubts less of a thing than knowledge doth.) But yet this we contend, that it will never be so rational.  
And indeed many disparities there are between the credibility of Heathenish or Mahometan, and of Christian, Tradition: * Such 
§. 34. Where concerning the Church's and the Heathen and Mahometan Traditions.  as are in Heathenism these; † 1. that (except some foundations of religion borrowed from the Jews, and so free from error) there is no constancy or agreeance in the tradition thereof, but 'tis varying according to each city or country; whereby any one of them much fails of universality; and contradictory Tradition destroys itself. And 2ly that, † as we have said, that falsities under the notion of falsities may be conveyed by Tradition; so, many of the absurd stories of Heathenism seem not to be believed even by the most, or wisest, of those who propagated them, (therefore are their Poets their Divines, out of whom chiefly such tradition is learned).  
And * Such as are in Mahometanism, these. † It's spreading, 1. * by the force of the Sword, contrary to the nature of Tradition, and 2ly, * by its plausibility and compliance with carnal lusts; both great corrupters of the truth of Tradition: whereas Christianity, flowing down to all ages in opposition to both these, by how much it was less pleasing, or less protected, seems to be strengthened in all times with so much greater evidence of truth, and testimony irresistible. † It's wanting that universality which Christianity possesseth, never having had so large a circuit (the Western part of the world having always been a stranger to it), and the growth of it now for many ages being stopped, and it decreasing in the world, and this great falsehood by little and little giving place (as is seen in the Eastern Countries) to its elder the Truth. I say these, and many other disparities there are, but besides these the main thing, whereby all such Traditions are convinced of falsehood, lies in this, that they came into the world still later than that of the Truth; and so are known to be false by their contradiction to it, so that Truth against them may always plead prescription. * So Heathenism was younger than the Tradition of God's word in the Old Testament: (and so indeed than the Gospel, which also was contained in the Old Testament, and taught from the beginning: see Rom. 3. 21, 23.) So that I may say, Heathenism was the Antichristianism of the former Ages, springing up after the tradition of God's true worship. Again, * so Mahometanism was later than the tradition of the New Testament, being the Antichristianism of the last times: but lest the world, I mean that part of it to whom it pleased God to divulge the truth, by false traditions should be deceived, God hath always provided true Tradition to preoccupate Faith, and to anticipate and antedate error. Therefore though we yield to the truth also of Mahometan tradition in some things; as that there was such a one as Mahomet, a Lawgiver, a Conqueror. etc. yet we know that Tradition, that he received his writings from the Angel Gabriel, etc. to be false, because contrary to that divine Tradition, which, besides many other advantages, aught from its antiquity to be preferred; God having given to Truth the Eldership of Falsehood. And on the same grounds may we reject that Heathen-tradition in the Acts, of the Image of Diana falling from God, etc.  
III. And thus much be granted concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the external motives or proponents, the 
§. 35. 3 Concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spirit.  Scriptures, Church, and Tradition. 3ly. Concerning the illumination, adherence, certitude, which this Faith, that ordinarily first cometh by hearing, receives from the inward operation of God's Spirit, 1. First let it be granted; that the interior working of the Holy Spirit opening the heart is always required, besides the outward means, for the conception of all saving Faith: that we cannot exercise any act thereof without particular grace and motion 
Concessions concerning the Spirit. 1. That it is always required besides outward mean.  of the Holy Ghost; that it is the infused Gift of God, as well as other graces of hope and charity; (see Jo. 6. 29, 44, 45, 64, 65. Matt. 11. 25, 26.— 16. 17. Act. 13. 48.— 16. 14, 15. Rom. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 3, 9 2 Cor. 3. 3. Gal. 5. 22, 23. Eph. 1. 17. etc.— 2. 8.— 6. 23. See Ben. Spir. p.) Whence Faith is said to be supernatural, as in respect, * of its object, things above the comprehension of reason, and * of it's ultimate ground it builds upon, which is divine revelation; so * of its act, being caused by the Spirit. All the acts of faith being in some kind supernatural, for such a degree of adherence as they have, both because the relater or proponent thereof is many times not (at least known to be) infallible; and because the object thereof many times (though there be all certainty from the relater) is capable of much doubt and vacillancy from its supernaturalness, and seeming-repugnancy to reason. Therefore we see our first Father, or at least his wife (see 1 Tim. 2. 14.) failed in not believing the words spoken by God himself to him: and the Disciples, when rationally believing our Saviour to be the Son of God, and all he said to be truth, and seeing his miracles, yet desired the increase of their faith, and were in it many times not a little shaken, thro' the contrariety or transcendency which it had to sense or reason. And it is reckoned to Abraham as strong faith, that he believed the word of God himself, in things contrary to nature, (See Rom. 4. 18, 19, 20.) which Sarah his wife flagged in. See Gen. 18. 12. 2 King. 7. 2. Thus Faith, to make it vigorous and lively, comes necessarily to be a work of the Spirit, either in regard of the sublimity of its object, or also, of the incertainty of the Proponent.  
2ly. Again, let it be granted as freely, That that Faith which is 
§. 36. 1. That all Faith wrought by the Sp●rit is infallible.  the Gift of God, and work of the Spirit, must needs be infallible, and exempt from all possibility of error; because the supreme verity cannot inspire a falsehood.  
3ly. Let it be granted also, That the Spirit produceth many times in the soul such a supernatural and undiscursive light, and evidence 
§. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence beyond science, etc.  to the understanding, and (following this) such a strong inclination of the will, and adherence of the affections to the matter believed, as do far exceed all science, sense, experience, demonstration: Tho this intuitive, rather than argumentative or probative of such truths, either to other's, or, our own, reason (which this Spirit captivates, and brings into obedience) * moving us to the strongest faith upon very small evidence (and the smaller the evidence, the stronger the power of the Spirit) against many temptations of infidelity; and * opening the heart to such a degree of undoubtedness, that we are willing to undergo any Martyrdom, rather than quit and renounce our belief. See for such certainty, 2 Tim. 1. 12. Act. 2. 36. Jo. 6. 69.  
IU. All this therefore being granted; namely, That all true saving 
§. 38. 4. Th●t from these concessions it follows not, that all who savingly believe have, or must have, aninfallible, or such sufficient certainty as may possibly be had, of what they believe,  faith is grounded on God's word, which is infallible; That all true faith is wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which Spirit is infallible; That there is a certainty or assurance sufficient (if not infallible) to be had from universal Church-tradition of both the former; namely both * that such writings, on which our faith is grounded, are God's word, and such their meaning; and consequently * that the belief of such things contained in them is the work of God's Spirit. Yet our Query remains still uncleared: Whether (I say not, some, for I grant many have, but) every one that truly and savingly believes, must have an infallible certainty of his faith; or must have a known-to-him infallible teacher or motive external, (as Tradition;) or internal, (as the Spirit); to ground his faith upon: by which he is (not fully persuaded, but also) rationally sure of the truth of that which he believes? And this to me (notwithstanding the former Concessions) seems not at all necessary, for the producing of a saving Faith.  
And first for the assurance we may have from the Scriptures; by knowing either in general that they are the word of God; or that 
§. 39 N●i●ther from the evidences * of Scriptures.  in such places or points, where their sense is doubtful, this and no other is the certain meaning of them; I have showed (§. 23. and 35.), That the knowing this must either be devolved upon Ecclestastical Tradition, or upon the Spirit.  
And first for the assurance of these Scriptures, and so of our faith, 
§. 40. Nor * of the Spirit.  from the inward testimony of the Spirit, (to which many fly for succour; and first taking this for granted, that every believer must be infallibly certain of his faith, and then that tradition, though the most full, (and much more any private instructor,) being some way liable to error, sufficeth not for to produce such an effect, they labour to ground this certainty upon the assurance of God's Spirit.) None can plead this at all from our faith being caused by this Spirit: for it follows not, that if the Spirit begets faith infallible in our hearts, or also the most unexpugnable adherence thereto, therefore we know this faith to be begotten by the Spirit; or if it move us, that therefore we can certainly tell when it doth so, so that we can say, to this God's Spirit moveth me to assent, to this not. For we may have from the Spirit the greatest persuasion, or internal evidence (if you will) of a truth that may be imagined, and yet not have any rational or discursive evidence thereof from it; neither by other proofs, nor by this (which is sufficient) that we clearly discern the good Spirit to produce it: since the like assurance or confidence, to some degree, is frequently begotten by an impetuous lust, or by the evil Spirit, for most pernicious errors; so nearly imitating the Spirit of illumination, as not to be discernible from it by this sign of strong persuasion, since many have had it so strong as to die for them. The assurance therefore or full persuasion of a Divine truth by the Spirit, is one thing; the assurance, that this assurance cometh from the Spirit, is another. And indeed, though in some general things, as of the Bible being the Word of God, and of some universally-believed points of faith, all men are confident of their assurance in them, that it is from God's Spirit, because indeed all Christians are in these agreed; yet, in descending to particulars, as, whether such or such a Book of Scripture be God's Word, or be written by an heavenly-inspired author; whether such a particular point of faith be to be stated thus, or so; whether such be certainly the meaning of some particular place of Scripture, &c. here I say, where there is contradiction and doubt between parties, few there are, who will offer to plead such assurance from the Spirit, as that they cannot be mistaken; but labour to inform themselves as well as others, the best they can, from other reasons. And indeed did the Spirit thus always bear witness to itself; had we any such internal assurance ordinarily, (for, extraordinary assurances of it, happening to some greater Saints of God in very many things, I deny not) I mean not of the belief of the thing, but that such belief of the thing cometh from the Spirit, there needed no more confirmation of any point, either from Church, or universal Tradition, or collation of other Scriptures, or any other way, but this For thus, though some men might profess an error against conscience, yet err in very deed, in matter of Divine faith, none could; for, knowing that the Spirits operation is necessary to all true faith, and knowing again when it operates; he may be sure that that which it operates not, is no true faith. But this sufficiently argues, that there is no such ordinary effect thereof, in that the pretenders of the Spirit so frequently by this Spirit contradict one another: and indeed this arrogant persuasion, and ultimate refuge of singularity, hath been the great Source of all Heresy and Schism, by reason of men's departing from Tradition, and from the Church, upon confidence of this. Therefore we conclude a man may believe by the efficiency of the Spirit, and yet not certainly know its efficiency; and may know that by it he believes all, which he truly believes in divine matters, and yet not know, that by it he believes such or such a particular thing. So that though this be laid for a ground, That all true Faith is the work of the Spirit, yet we must by Scripture, or, in things doubtful, by the Church's traditionary exposition thereof, first know our faith to be true; and thence by consequence gather, that it is the work of the Spirit; not è contra argue, that it is the work of the Spirit, (in which we may easily be deceived,) Ergo, That it is true.  
This for the Spirit. In the next place to come to consider, Whether all, to have true and saving faith, must be rationally assured 
§. 41. Nor * of Church-Tradition.  thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition. And here we will grant, as 'tis said before, 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary: and that it is a medium, for necessary points of faith, free from error. 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance, and that any, or most, by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points, from the traditionary doctrine and practice, which they may see and hear dispersed thro' the Church: for doubtless our careful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full persuasion of faith in all sorts of men there, where his Gospel is preached; and this means, all men, for the ascertaining of their faith, as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life, according to their condition etc. 3. That the Church-decrees may be certainly known, and are easily understood, and more easily in many things than the Scriptures; namely, where these happen to be doubtful to us, (and doubtful they are or should be, where ever Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we,) and hence that (this point being supposed that the Church is infallible) those who believing her to be so, do rely upon her judgement, have for the most part a stronger persuasion, and those knowing her to be so, have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points, than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures: because the former persons faith rests on a double ground; the saying of Scripture, and the sense of the Church interpreting it. And thus one adhering to the tradition and doctrines of the Church, hath more warrant for his Faith, than a single Scripturist. 4. That those, who hold Church-tradition fallible can have no other way an infallible evidence, whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith.  
But, all these granted; yet such a degree and measure of certainty 
§. 42.  or assurance, as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is, seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical; or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it, and render it no true, divine, and acceptable faith, but an humane opinion and persuasion; as some contend. But saving faith may be begotten, where the proponent of the word of God, or of divine revelation, mediate or immediate, is not, or at least is not known to be (which is all one with the former to the believer's certainty) infallible: and it sufficeth to it, that what one believes, is the word of God; and that he believe it (in some degree or other predominant to unbelief) to be so. And this I think may be shown in many instances, and by many reasons.  
1. For first, some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles (questionless endued with true faith, yet) believed before 
§. 43. For these following Reasons.  any certainty of the infallibility of their teachers, or before, or without seeing their miracles (though these also seen afforded to some no certainty, who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power, see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1.) merely by the powerful operation of God's Spirit. So the Eunuch, to be a true believer, needed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip: So Cornelius, and his friends, some words of St. Peter: The Jailor and Lydia, of S. Paul; strangers, and formerly altogether unknown to them; the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts, and finishing the work. For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day, supposing he at that time wrought miracles, yet 'tis not probable, that all these were spectators of them; or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth; but believed only the relations of others, persons fallible, who stood near him. The Bereans, why examined they the Apostles doctrines, if they knew or esteemed him infallible? The Believers at Antioch, zealous of the law, why contested they with St. Paul? and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter, Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible? Or the weaker brethren, though of the number of true Believers, why doubted they long time of some meats unclean, contrary to the Apostle's instruction? 'tis true, that whoever believes that which another relates, must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived; but yet he, who in any other one thing doth not believe him, doth not believe him to be infallible. And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibility of the Hierosolymitan Council; yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council, but private Doctors, whom I have showed that some of them accounted not infallible, nor yet was their faith nullified thereby.  
2. Believers, no way heretical or schismatical, but submitting 
§. 44.  unto the Church in all things, and believing her and her traditions to be infallible, &c, and consequently, whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure, yet, if things be well examined, all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means, or motive, or proponent of their faith: I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures, nor the Tradition of former times, nor universal present Tradition, nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church; neither for other points, nor yet for this, That the Church, or the Tradition they rely upon, is infallible: But being young, (as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians, when children) or illiterate, necessitated to handy-labour, quiescent in one place, or perhaps inhabiting deserts and solitudes, &c, do receive the doctrine of their faith (believing and yielding obedience thereto) only from their Parents, or the Curate of the place, or from their bare reading, or hearing read some portion of Scripture, recommended to them for, but not proved at all to them to be, the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth, and obeying it, but having no more external argument or assurance thereof, than another (suppose educated in an erroneous Church, and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical) hath of his error? Now private teachers even within the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant, or rationally uncertain of what they teach; and a Catholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion, than the Protestant; both inheriting their tenants from their next Ancestors. For Error once begun is propagated afterward by Tradition, as well as Truth. Or 2ly, being rationally certain of the truth, yet may he wilfully, for filthy lucre, for fear, for lasciviousness, &c, (see 1 Thes. 2. 3, 5, 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14.) misguide his disciples. Or 3. lastly, teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows, yet is this his certainty, though something to the truth of the others faith, nothing to their certitude thereof, as long as they are not certain that he is not deceived. Neither doth any one's believing the Church to be infallible ascertain him of the truth of his faith, if he believe this her infallibility only upon the relation of his Pastor; for so he hath no more certainty of the Church's infallibility, than he hath of the truth of such a relation; which we have showed is liable to error. And then again, it is much to be noted, that one believing only, and not being certain of the Church's infallibility, though he immediately received all his doctrines from herself, yet this could produce no certainty of the truth of what he receives: it being no good consequence, I believe such a one is infallible, therefore I am certain what he saith is true. But lastly, let one be certain of this one point, That the Church or her tradition is infallible, (which how many are there, that cannot clearly prove?) and then from this known let him have infallible certainty at once of all other points whatsoever, that are delivered by her or it; yet supposing any to learn what are these her doctrines, not from herself, but from his private Curate, (which doubtless many true believers within the Church's communion do,) his faith cannot plead any certainty this way. For there is some distance between my knowing the Church's tradition to be infallible, and knowing in every point what is her tradition. That which is said by Mr. Knot [against Chill. p. 64, and 358.] in this point; That a fallible motive applying divine revelation by God's supernatural concourse may produce an infallible act of faith, is granted. But then this act of faith is infallible not from the proponent, but God's Spirit; (in respect of which, as is showed before) all saving, is also infallible, faith, but not therefore known always to the believer to be infallible. See before §. 38. Again; that which is said by Dr. Holden, Resol. fidei 1. l. 2. ●. That their faith, who depend on their Pastor's instructions, is tutissima, ipsique in rebus fidei securi, modo sint membra illius Ecclesiae, quae veritatem omnem revelatam amplectitur & docet; cujusque pastors & rectores medii [istius], quo sibi divina haec doctrina applicatur, veram & rationalem habuerint certitudinem, is also granted; but it seems to affirm only sufficient safety in their faith, without their certainty of the truth thereof.  
Now as those of one side cannot plead their faith certain and infallible from their hearing and believing their private Pastor; so 
§. 45.  neither may those of another side from their reading and believing, and resolving their faith into the Holy Scriptures. For since, not so much the Letter of Scripture, as the Sense, is the infallible word and revelation of God; and the letter many times is capable not only, when in expression ambiguous, of divers senses; but also, when most seemingly-plain, of another sense than they import, because of the consonancy they are to have with some other Scriptures, lest God's word be made to contradict: Hence is one man's Bible, where thus ambiguous, as fallible a proponent to him, in respect of the possibility of his mis-intepreting it, as another man's Pastor, in respect of his possibility of erring. And indeed the former interpreting Scripture to himself seems to be less infallible in his faith, than the other learning of his Pastor expounding it; because he is more likely to mistake the sense thereof than the other; else why is he appointed for his teacher, whose faith he is to follow, Heb. 13. 7? though I affirm a sufficient and saving faith may be, and is, attained by either means, hearing ones Pastor, or reading the Scripture.  
3. Since all saving faith in us is the effect of the Spirit, why may not our faith be so, without any precedent rational certainty 
§. 46.  thereof? According as it seems before granted; That God's supernatural concourse may advance an act of faith relying on a fallible motive, into a belief infallible, why may not this Spirit show its strength then in the weakness of external proposal? But if we suppose it a partial cause, and add to it for the production of faith not only some external proponent, (which that there is (ordinarily) is granted,) but this infallible, and known also to be so: Then [to say nothing of the instances given before of the contrary; nor to urge here, why such an infallible proponent sometimes at least, namely where the matter of our belief is (as in many things it is) most conformable to reason, should not be a sufficient cause to beget saving faith, without the supernatural concourse of God's Spirit, and what needs that to be also spiritually, which is rationally, discerned?] I ask what do we mean by a stronger and a weaker faith so often mentioned in Scripture? Do we mean several degrees thereof, the least of which is certain? No. For we find doubt, nay some degree of unbelief, and that of the same thing, sometime mixed with true faith. See Mar. 9 24. Mat. 14. 31. Which unbelief or doubt, that it never happens in respect of the truth of the relation, but always only in the supernaturalness of the object, I think none can rationally affirm. See Luk. 24. 11. Only if there be not so much of assent, as to turn the scale of our judgement, then will it not be faith, but either pure doubt, or, (further) unbelief. Faith therefore as it comes both from the outward hearing of God's word, and the several proofs thereof, and also by the inward operation of the Spirit, so is it capable of many degrees, both from the several evidence of those proofs, and also from the several influence of the Spirit: God giving more external evidence to one, than to another: (as to those who see miracles, or who read and compare Scriptures and Councils, than to those who only hearken to their Pastor); and, upon the same evidence made to many, God giving a stronger adherence to such a truth to one, than to another; either * from the energy of the Spirit; thro' which many can die for Christ, that cannot well dispute for him: or also * from a natural more passionate temper; or * from hiding from them contrary verisimilities, and * from ignorance of the weapons of error etc. So the unlearned many times believe and adhere to a truth more strongly thro' ignorance of any arguments to the contrary, than the learned do to the same thro' reason assaulted with many doubts; and a small argument to a weak understanding begets a more firm credence, than a stronger to the learned. So a true believer may be less confident, thro' a rational persuasion, in his faith, than another thro' the violence of a misguiding lust, in his falsehood: nay; he may have less reason or proofs (though there be more) for the one, than this man hath for the other; and yet his faith vivifical and acceptable; and oftimes there is the greatest glory and merit in it, when having stronger adherence upon smaller evidence, (provided, no evidence attainable be neglected. 1 Pet 3. 15.) See Jo. 20. 29. The reason of which is; because faith is no way acceptable to God or saving, so far as it is by true or by seeming demonstration forced upon the understanding, with a reluctance meanwhile of the will; for then the faith of Devils would be so, who doubtless have much more evidence of their faith, than many Christians) but only so far as it is embraced and accepted of by the will, and affections, and in some manner becomes our election and choice: which election, so contrary in many things to the flesh, being never made without the power of the Spirit; hence chiefly is faith, such as is saving, said to be its work. See Ben. Spirit. §.  
4. Again; if men for the sufficiency of their faith depended on the infallibility of the Church or her traditions, it follows, none 
§. 47.  can have of any thing true faith, which is not first determined by the Church, or known from universal Tradition. Therefore none can be said fide divina to believe, or assent to any of those Theological verities which are ordinarily drawn by clear and necessary consequence from the Scriptures, and (though not by the Church) decided by the Schools: which seems absurd.  
5. Lastly, Let but a rational certainty from the infallibility of Tradition be necessarily required to faith for one point; namely 
§. 48.  this, That our Scriptures are God's word; (for which all sides are agreed in admitting it,) and I do not see how it can be denied, that for many other points, i. e. those wherein God's word is clear, and which are by no side controverted, one may be sufficiently certain from the Scriptures themselves independently on the Church or Tradition, fave for the one point abovenamed. For since God's word may be in some things (I mean such as are uncontroverted) as plain and consonant to itself as any Synod-Catechism, if such a Catechism is thought a sufficient ground to one to assure his faith, why may not the Scripture?  
Now after all, that I may not seem to you, in this my judgement, heterodox, at least to other Catholic writers, you may be pleased 
§. 49.  to view what Estius, the famous Divinity-Professor at Douai, and what Card. Lugo a Spanish Jesuit, have delivered on this subject. See Card. Lugo, tom. de virtute fidei, dis. 1. §. 12. n. 247. etc. where he brings reasons for this opinion, not much differing from those abovementioned. As 1. Since the belief of Infallibility itself must be produced from some other motives, if such motives be sufficient for the begetting the faith of this, why may they not be sufficient for some point of faith besides it? 2. New converts embrace and truly believe some other articles of faith, before they are acquainted with that of Infallibility. 3. Rustics commonly resolve their faith into no further proof than their Parish-Priest, and what he relates to them. 4ly. Under the law of nature before Moses, most were believing only upon the authority of their Parents, without any Church-proposal. His words are these, num. 247.— Probatur facile; quia hoc ipsum [Ecclesiam habere authoritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus Sancti] creditur fide divina, quae docet in Ecclesia esse hujusmodi authoritatem, ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis. Et experientia docet, non omnes pueros vel adultos, qui de novo ad fidem accedunt, concipere in Ecclesia hanc infallibilem authoritatem & assistentiam Spiritus Sancti, antequam ullum alium articulum credant. Credunt enim articulos in ordine quo proponuntur. Hunc autem articulum authoritatis Ecclesiae contingit credi, postquam alios plures crediderunt. Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri, cognoscere, res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia; concipiendo in Ecclesia secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam, quae reperitur in universa fidelium congregatione. Again; num. 252. Probatur Conclusio: 1. Quia in primis in lege naturae plures credebant ex sola doctrina parentum sine alia Ecclesiae propositione. Deinde in lege scripta plures crediderunt Moysi & aliis Prophetis, antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur & proponerentur; quia soil. vitae sanctitate, & rerum convenientia, & aliis de causis objectum reddebatur prudenter credibile; praesertim cum viderent aliqua ex iis, quae Prophetiae praedicebant, quotidie impleri.— Denique in lege Evangelica Act, 3. & 4. c. Beatus Petrus, miraculo facto, testatus est se illud fecisse in nomine Christi; &, nulla facta mentione authoritatis Ecclesiae vel suae, convertit tria millia hominum, qui sane prudenter moti sunt, licet non conciperent Ecclesiae authoritatem. And num. 251. Non requiritur ex natura rei Ecclesiae propositio ad credendum. In all which note, that this Author speaks of sides divina & salvifica, as appeareth, in the first instance naming fides divina; in St. Peter's converts &c. and all his discourse otherwise were besides the purpose.  
See Estius to the same purpose, in 3. sent. 23. dist. 13. sect. where after many considerable arguments he goes on.— Fidei impertinens 
§. 50.  esse, quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei; quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio & doctrina; constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse aliquando, & adhuc conferri etc. Nam antiqui multi, ut Abraham, Melchisedech, Job, ex speciali revelatione; Apostoli ex Christi miraculis & sermone; rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione & miraculis alii fidem conceperunt; alii denique aliis modis crediderunt, cum nondum de infallibilitate Ecclesiae quicquam eis esset annunciatum. Sic ergo sieri potest, ut aliquis non inhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam regulae infallibili quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat, quia vel nunc vel olim miraculis confirmata sunt, vel etiam quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifeste videt, vel alia quacunque ratione inductus, licet alia quaedam credere recuset.— Again; Haereticus potest quaedam tenere ea firmitate assensus & promptitudine voluntatis, qua ab aliis omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur. Again; Nihil vetat, quo minus haeretici, quamvis in multis errent, in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustrati sint, ut recte credant. Where note, that Estius also speaks of sides vera, and fides donum Dei quo divinitus illustramur, such as that was of Abraham, Melchisedech, and the Apostles converts. And note again, that though this Fides vera & divina is in no Heretic's integra, as to all points of faith perfect, because if one failed not in some point of faith he could be no Heretic; yet many times it is not his mere misbelief of that point for which he is accounted an heretic, which excludes him from salvation: Because perhaps many good Catholics, before the Church's determination, have misbelieved the same point (as for example the point of rebaptisation) as well as he, without any danger to their salvation. But that which condemns him is, that he hath fidem (though divinam,) yet not operantem per charitatem, that he is obstinate and disobedient to the Church's orders and decrees; or (if you will) that he disbelieves this great Article of Faith, (which disbelief is the fountain of his disobedience,) That the Church hath such an Authority committed to her by Christ, as that he ought to conform to all her determinations, and preserve in every thing the unity of her faith. [Of the Donatists, heretics, thus S. Aug. (Gesbacum Emerito.) Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam potest [Emeritus (Evangelium tenere, potest in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, fidem & habere & praedicare, sed nusquam nisi in Ecclesia Catholica salutem poterit invenire, giving the reason afterward,— quia charitatem non habet: and (Ep. 48. ad Vincentium,)— Nobiscum estis in Baptismo, in Symbolo, in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis, in spiritu autem unitatis & vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique Catholica. Ecclesia nobiscum non estis.] To Estius and Lugo add a third, Layman, a Casuist of great reputation. Thus he therefore, Theolog. moral. 2. l. 1. Tract. 5. c.— Fieri saepe solet, ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae, puta, quae sunt de Deo Uno & Trino, explicit credantur ante hunc, qui est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate. Quinimo haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus Sancti promissione nititur: ergo prius oportet credere Spiritum Sanctum, adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse. Praeterea constat, Beatissimam Virginem, Apostolos, primosque Christianos fide divina credidisse; non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae, quae vel fundata non erat, (v. g. cum S. Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi, Mat. 16.) vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat.— Again, Formale assentiendi principium, seu motivum, non est Ecclesiae authoritas. Si enim ex te quaeram, Cur credas, Deum esse incarnatum? respondeasque, Quia Ecclesia Catholica, quae errare non potest, ob S. Spiritus assistentiam, ita testatur: iterum ex te quaeram, Unde id scias; vel, cur credas Ecclesiam non errare, vel S. Spiritum ei assistere? Quare recte dicit Canus, l. 2. de loc. Theol. 8. c. post med. Si generaliter quaeratur, Unde fideli constet, ea quae fide tenet esse a Deo revelata, non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere; quia unum ex revelatis est, quod Ecclesia errare non possit. Interim non negamus (saith he) quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae, quatenus Spiritu Sancto regitur, fieri possit, & communiter soleat a sidelibus ipsis, qui infallibilem Spiritus Sancti assistentiam, ac directionem, Ecclesiae promissam certa fide tenent: his enim ejus testimonium, ac definitio certa regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos.— Imo talis regula, seu norma exurgentibus circa fidem dubiis, omnino nobis necessaria est, put a ad discernendum Scripturam Canonicam ab Apocrypha; traditiones veras a falsis; denique credenda a non credendis;— Sententia Scoti & Gabrielis, qui in resolutione recurrere videntur ad fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae, quatenus ea est illustris congregatio tot hominum excellentium: Exempli causa; Credo Deum esse incarnatum, quia divinitus revelatum est; revelatum autem hoc esse divinitus, seu revelationem hanc a Deo profectam esse ideo accepto, seu credo (fide acquisita,) quia it a scriptum est in Evangelio S. Johannis, cui omnis Ecclesia, seu congregatio hominum vitae innocentia, sapientia illustrium, testimonium & assensum praebet: Haec sententia (inquam) si recte explicetur, a vero aliena non est. Non enim mens est Doctorum illorum, quod fidei divinae assensus in fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae resolvatur, tanquam in principium; sed tanquam in extrinsecum adjumentum, & conditionem sine qua non. Etenim authoritas illa Ecclesiae, non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus Sancti; sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum etc. est quidem formale principium credendi side humana; sed non fide divina. Quia fides divina est, qua Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem & veritatem ejus: consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum, vel simile motivum humanum, is fide solum humana credit. Accedit quod (sicuti ipsemet Scotus & Gabriel argumentantur) assensus cognoscitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii, quo nititur: assen, us autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet: ergo fieri non potest, ut assensus fidei divinae, tanquam principio nitatur authoritate hominum, vel simili motivo humano, quip quod secundum se absolute fallibile est.— Major autem, imo maxima & certissima animi adhaesio, quam sides divina continet, non ex viribus naturae, aut humanis persuasionibus provenit; sed ab auxilio Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui & liberae voluntati nostrae. By this it seems, that ultima resolutio sidei divinae is in illam certitudinem, quam habemus per auxilium Spiritus Sancti etc.] Hear then his last stating of the point.— Quod ad formalem, de qua nunc agimus, fidei resolutionem attinet; expeditus ac verus dicendi modus est iste, [citing Cajetan for it 2. 2. q. 1. a. 1.] Quod sides divina ex parte objecti, ac motivi formalis resolvatur in auhoritatem Dei revelantis: Credo Deum esse incarnatum; [Credo] Ecclesiae item definientis authoritatem infallibilem esse; quia prima & summa veritas id nobis revelavit. [But if you ask, whence or why he believeth Deum summam veritatem id revelasse; he goeth on,] Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse, ulterius resolvi, vel per fidem [i. e. divinam] probari, non potest, nec debet: quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur, sed supponuntur. [I wonder why he adds not here, that the believer hath fidem divinam & infallibilem, Deum veracem talia revelasse ex auxilio Spiritus S. succurrentis intellectui etc. for he saith it before. But then, if asked again; How he knows or believes that this his faith Deum revelasse &c, is ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti; here at least he must have stayed as at the first principle of Resolution of Faith divine. But now, that fides, which he calls humana, and fallible, can go on further, and give a ground or motive why it believes Deum veracem talia revelasse, or se hanc fidem, Deum revelasse, habere ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti, and this a motive morally infallible; namely consensum Ecclesiae, or Universal Tradition: concerning which he thus goes on.] Verum in ordine ad nos, revelatio divina credibilis & acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva, inter quae unum ex praecipuis merito censetur authoritas & consensus Ecclesiae, tot saeculis, tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis: [But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held always necessary neither, for the humane inducement to divine faith. For he goes on:] quamvis id non unicum, neque simpliciter necessarium motivum est: quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo, sed alii aliter ad fidem Christi amplectendam moventur. (His add.)— Non tantum variis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri; sed etiam alios aliis facilius, partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustrationem & impulsionem, sicuti not avit Valentia q. 1. p. 4. arg. 18. partim propter animi sui simplicitatem, quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt. Qua ratione pueri apud Catholicos, cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt, acceptant sidei mysteria, tanquam divinitus revelata, quia natu majores & prudentes, quos ipsi norunt, ita credere animadvertunt. So then; if all saving faith must be sides divina infallible, that which can rightly be produced to advance sides humana into it, is not the authority of Scriptures, or of the Church, (for Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum, vel simile motivum humanum, is fide solum humana credit); but only auxilium Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui &c, in the stating of this learned Casuist. Thus you see by what is quoted here out of Estius, Lugo, and Layman, that the moderate Catholic writers concede divine and salvifical faith where no infallibility of any outward evidence or motive. And perhaps it might conduce much more to the prayed-for union of Christ's Church, if so many Controvertists on all sides (perhaps out of an opinion of necessary zeal to maintain their own cause to the uttermost) did not embrace the extremest opinions; by which they give too much cause to their adversaries to remain unsatisfied, and to make easy and specious replies, being helped also by the more moderate writers of the other side: As if they chiefly endeavoured to fright their enemies from any yielding or harkening to a peace, whilst they hold it still upon higher terms than those the Church Catholic proposeth; which hath redounded to the multiplication of many needle's controversies.  
From what hath been said I think we may infer, 1. First; That it is not necessary to true and saving faith, that all the mediums by 
§. 51. Necessary Inferences upon the former reasons.  which we attain to it be infallible. That neither an infallible Judge, nor a known-infallible argument from the Scriptures or writings of Fathers, etc. is absolutely necessary to it; but that it is sufficient to believe the things revealed by God, as revealed by him, (see §. 1.) holding whatever is his word to be infallible, (which is a principle to all men, and needs no proof,) by what weak means soever we attain the knowledge of such revelations; whether it be by Scriptures, Catechisms read, or Parents, Pastors instructing, yea though these instructers did not know whether there were any Scriptures, (as the Eunuch believed without those of the New Testament,) and how unevident soever their confirmation thereof to us be; only if we receive from them (whether from the credit we give to their authority, or to their argument) so much light, as (together with the inward operation of the Spirit, opening the heart to receive and accept of it, of which Spirit yet we are not so certainly sensible, as to know the proper move thereof, for then this were a motive all-sufficient without Scripture or Teacher) doth sway and persuade the understanding, and so produceth obedience. Which faith, though it is not such, for its immediate ground, as cui non potest subesse falsum, by reason of any humane evidence it hath; yet many times it is such, as cui non subest dubium, of which we doubt no more than we do of a Demonstration, by reason of the strong adherence we have to it, either from the power of God's Spirit, or probability of arguments etc. See §. 35. etc. But neither is this actual non-doubting necessary, (for there is many times doubting in a true (but weak) faith, see §. 46.) but this is enough, if any thing be so far made probable, as that it turns the balance of our judgement so far as to win our assent: nay, nothing can be without sin disbelieved, which seems generally (including here also the argument from authority) more probable than another thing, though it have no demonstration. Which demonstration, or also an infallible proponent, that the faith of most men wants, see the plain confession (as it seems to me) of Mr. Knot, in his Answer to Mr. Chillingworth, 4. cap, p. 358. A man may exercise (saith he) an infallible act of faith, though his immediate instructor or proposer be not infallible; because he believes upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infallible, and is such indeed, to wit, the word of God; who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every true act of divine faith. Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons; from whom God exacts no more, but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities, and use such diligence as men ought in a matter of highest moment. All Christians of the primitive Church were not present, when the Apostles spoke or wrote, yea, it is not certain, that every one of those thousands, whom St. Peter converted, did hear every sentence he spoke, but might believe some by relation of others who stood near. And (1. c. p. 64.) the same Author saith: — that a Preacher or Pastor, whose testimonies are humane and fallible, when they declare to their hearers, or subjects, that some truth is witnessed by God's word, are occasion, that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith, depending immediately upon divine Revelation applied by the said means.— And if you object (saith he,) That perhaps, that humane authority is false, and proposes to my understanding Divine revelation when God doth not reveal; therefore I cannot upon humane testimony, representing or applying Divine revelation, exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer: it is one thing, whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain, that I exercise an infallible act of Faith; and another, whether indeed, and in actu exercito I produce such an act. Of the former I have said nothing, neither makes it to our present purpose. Of the latter I affirm, that when indeed humane testimony is true, [though not certainly known by me to be so,] and so applies a divine revelation which really exists; in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith. The reason of this seems clear, because although a truth, which I know only by probable assent, is not certain to me; yet in itself it is most immovable and certain, in regard that while a thing is, it cannot but be, for that time for which it is, etc. Thus he..: The sum of which is; That the infallibility of many men's faith is not from any external Proponent, but only from God's concourse. See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36, 37. the resol. fid. saying the like.  
2. Again, in the 2d. place it may be inferred, * That receiving 
§. 52.  of the Articles of his Creed from the Church's proposal is not necessary to true faith: or, * That one may truly believe some, who doth not believe all the, points of faith, which the Church proposeth; or, any for, or upon, her proposal: or lastly, * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith, who is not certain of the divine revelation thereof. I willingly grant here, 1. first; That he who believes aright any divine truth, must believe that it is revealed by God, or that God hath said it; and, That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God, can believe no other thing at all as he ought, that is, as from divine revelation: he must believe all such, or none at all aright. 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revelation (as of the Scriptures, or also of the Sense thereof where doubtful) is only receive from the Church and her Tradition, I accord, that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God, but such as he knows to be proposed to him, by the Church, or Tradition, to be such, either immediately, in her exposition of obscure Scriptures, or mediately, in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture; and therefore, that who denies this authority in some points, (suppose in those points, where this authority is granted by him to be of equal force) hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points, according to the Schools; Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili regulae, [i. e. in omnibus quae proponit,] omnibus assentit quae Ecclesia docet, [i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere,] alioqui si de his quae Ecclesia docet tenet quae vult, & quae non vult non tenet, non inhaeret infallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae, sed propriae voluntati. [But note, that every one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili, may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati, because he may hold such tenants, not quia vult, but * for some other reason abstract from the Church's authority: as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point, That Scripture is God's word.] So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture, because containing something opposite to their opinions, could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest: because that Scripture they refused, came recommended to them by as much and the same authority, as that they accepted.  
But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition: because (for the former concession) it is one thing to believe such a 
§. 53.  truth to be divine revelation; another, to be rationally assured thereof: the first we grant is, the second I think we have proved not to be, necessary to all true faith. For the second, though he who certainly knows not Church-tradition, cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith, (abstracting here from what internal certainty one may have from the Spirit,) nor upon that principle can believe one thing, unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it; yet he may without such a certainty or such a ground truly believe: as I think is before-proved. And hence it follows, that one may truly believe some other points of faith, who doth not believe this point in particular; That the Church, or Universal Tradition, is infallible.  
Thus much, * of the nonnecessity of infallible certainty in every believer, to render his faith true, divine, and salvifical; * and of 
§. 54.  the erring in some one article it's not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest. But (to conclude this Discourse) Three things meanwhile are acknowledged and confessed. 1. First; that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith, and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessary to salvation, such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense, (that is) in rendering his faith in other points though not false, yet non-salvifical to him. 2. Again, he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church (known to him to be so) in some point not absolutely necessary (I mean to be explicitly believed for attaining salvation, as some points there are so necessary,) though this error doth not null the body of his belief, yet this opposition in that error is, by the common doctrine of the Church, accounted so great a crime, as that, unrepented of, it renders his true faith, being destitute of due obedience and charity, unprofitable for his salvation, (which I thought fit here to mind you of, that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries, as long as he stands, though in some (as he accounts) smaller points, after sufficient proposal, in opposition and disobedience to the Church, i. e. to his supreme Governor and Guide in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual matters. (See before §. 50.) 3. And lastly, if this Article of Faith [That the Church's authority is either absolutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed, or at least so supreme, that none may in any wise dissent from her determination] can be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salvation, to be by every Christian believed; then, since there can be no disobedience and nonconformity to the Church, but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article, it must follow, That every one that opposeth the Church, is also, from his disbelief of this Article, excluded from salvation.  
FINIS.   

OF INFALLIBILITY.   

CONTENTS.  

PART 1.  
COncerning the Infallibility of the Church, how far this is to be allowed. §. 1, 2. 

1. Infallibility of the Church in necessaries granted both by Roman and Protestant, writers. §. 3. Where 

How far points necessary are to be extended. §. 4.  
That the Church (not private men) is to define what points be necessary. §. 6.  
If these points be necessary at all to be defined, and exactly distinguished from all other her Proposals. §. 7.    
2. Infallibility of the Church in matters of Universal Tradition (though they were not necessary) conceded likewise by all. §. 8.  
3. Infallibility Universal, in whatever the Church proposeth and delivereth, is not affirmed by the Roman writers. §. 9  
But only † in those points which she proposeth tanquam de fide, or creditu necessaria. §. 10. Where 

Concerning the several senses wherein Points are affirmed, or denied, to be de Fide. §. 11.  
That as only, so all, divine Revelations, or necessary deductions from them are de Fide, i. e. the objects and matter of Faith. 12, 13. And  
That the Church can make nothing to be de fide; i. e. to be divine Revelation &c, which was not so always from the Apostolic times. §. 12.  
That all divine Revelation, or necessary deductions therefrom, are not the fide, i. e. creditu necessaria. §. 15.  
That the Church lawfully may, and hath a necessity, to make de novo, upon rising errors, such Points de fide, i. e. creditu necessaria, which formerly were not so. §. 16, 17.  
Or (as some other of the Catholic writers usually express it) only † in Points clearly traditional. §. 18. 

Whether, and by what marks, those Points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de fide or creditu necessaria, or which are proposed as constantly traditional, are clearly distinguished by her from her other Proposals. §. 27. 

Anathema no certain Index thereof. §. 29.           

PART 2.  
Concerning Obedience and submission of private Judgement, whether due to the Church, supposed not in all her decisions infallible. §. 30. 

1. That no submission of our judgement is due to the Proposal of the Church, where we are infallibly certain of the contrary. §. 33.  
2. That no submission is due to an inferior Person or Court in matters whereof I have doubt, when I have a Superior to repair to for resolution. §. 34.  
3. That submission of judgement is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever, that is short of infallible certainty. §. 35.  
Submission of judgement proved, 

1. From Scripture. §. 37.  
2. From Reason. §. 38. Where 

Several Objections and Scruples are resolved. §. 39    
3. From the testimony of learned Protestants. §. 44.  
4. From the testimony of learned Catholics. §. 51.      
Conclusion. §. 54.    

OF INFALLIBILITY. PART 1.  
IT remains that I give you an account touching the other two Queries proposed. The First concerning the Infallibility of 
§. ●.  the Church, Whether this is at all, or how far, to be allowed? The Second concerning Obedience and Submission of private Judgement, Whether this be due to the Church supposed not, in all her decisions, infallible? Two Points, as they are stated on the one side or the other, either leaving us in much anxiety and doubt, or (in the moveal of this) swollen with much pride and self-conceit; or leaving us in much tranquillity and peace, accompanied with much humility and self-denial. Points, as they are stated one way, seeming much to advance the tender care of the divine Providence over his Church, and to plant obedience and unanimity among Christians; or as stated another way, seeming to proclaim great danger in discovering truth, to call for humane wit, prudence, sagacity, and caution, and to bequeath Christianity to perpetual strife, wars, and dissensions. And therefore it concerns you to be the more vigilant, that affection carry you not on more than reason to the assenting to any Conclusions made in this Discourse.  
To take in hand the former of these. Concerning the true measure of the extent of the infallibility of the Church, (by Church 
§. 2. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church; how far this is to be allowed.  I mean the lawful General Representative thereof, of which see Church-Government 2. Part, §. 4. and 24.) in the beginning I must confess, that I know nothing expressly determined by Councils, except what is said Conc. Trident. 4. Sess.— Praeterea ad c●ercenda petulantia ingenia, decernit, ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei & morum ad aedisicationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit & tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia, (cujus est judicare de vero sensu & interpretatione Scripturarum S.) aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat. Neither is there any mention found of the word Infallibility in the Decrees of Trent, or any other received Council, or yet in the Fathers; as F. Veron in his Rule of Faith, 4. c. hath observed, and therefore (saith he) let us leave this term to the Schoolmen, who know how to use it soberly; and content ourselves with the terms of the Councils. The best is, as the exact limits of this Church-infallibility seem no where by the Church to be punctually fixed; so they do not (in respect of yielding obedience to the Church) seem necessary at all to be known; except to such a one, as will not submit his judgement to any authority less than infallible; of which more anon.  
1. First it is granted, as by all the Catholics, so by the most learned of the Protestants, (see them quoted in Church-Government, 
§. 3. 1 Infallibility of the Church in Necessaries granted both by Catholic and Protestant writers.  2. Part. §. 29.) That the Church, or the lawful General Representative thereof, is infallible in its directions concerning necessaries to Salvation, whether in points of pure faith, or of practice and manners: [though I yield Mr. Chillingworth denies this; (see the discussing of his opinion in Church-Government, 2. Part. §. 26. 3. Part. §. 76.) without which doing, I think he could not have made a thorough Answer to Mr. Knot; nor could he have denied those other points, which seem to be consequents of this: as namely,— That we must know from the Church also the distinction of Necessaries from others: Or must assent to Her in all she proposeth as Necessary. That, the Defence of any Doctrine, the contrary whereof is proposed as necessary, against the determination of the Church or lawful General Council, is Heresy; as being always, after such sufficient proposal, obstinate. That any separation from the external communion of all the visible Church is Schism, as being always (in her professing and practising all necessaries) causeless. Which Propositions the defence of his cause seems to me to have forced him to disclaim, and so also this ground of them, That the Church is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals or Necessaries.] And this infallibility the Church is said to have, either from the constant assistance of God's Spirit, (according to our Saviour's promise, at least for such points,) or also from the Evidence of Tradition, much pleaded by some later Catholic Writers.  
But since here by Necessaries may be understood either Doctrines &c, absolutely necessary to be known explicitly for salvation, and 
§. 4. Where, How for Points necessary are to be extended.  that to every one that shall attain salvation, (for to some perhaps more are required than to others, according to their several capacity and means of revelation; see Necessary Faith §. 10. 11. 16.) which may be perhaps only some part of the Creed; or else by Necessaries may be understood all other doctrines and rules that are very profitable and conducing thereto. The Church being granted by both sides an infallible Guide and Director in Necessaries; 1. First, it seems most reasonable, that the Church's infallibility in Necessaries should be taken in the latter sense, there being nothing in our Saviour's promise, that appears to restrain his assistance; or in the conveyance of Tradition, that appears to restrain its certainty, to the former sense. (See Church-Government, 2. part. §. 31.) In which former sense if it be only allowed; the Church's infallibility in guiding Christians will be confined only to two or three points, and those scarce by any at all doubted-of or disputed. In this latter sense therefore, both because of our Saviour's promise, and the evidence of Tradition, it must be said that the Church cannot be mistaken in defect, but only (if at all) in the excess; not in substracting from Christians any part of such necessary faith or duty; but perhaps in superadding thereto something as necessary, which is not.  
2. And here also, secondly, concerning such excess, I think you 
§. 5.  will grant me, That it will be hard for a private man to judge that any particular point decided by the Church is not (some way or other) necessary to be stated, known and believed, by reason of some ill influence which the contradictory thereof may (by some consequence at least) have upon our other faith or manners necessarily required, and formerly established. Nay farther, that it will be hard to say that any point decided &c, is not necessary (either directly and immediately, or by connexion with some other points that are so) to the actual exercise of Christian Religion, and the practice of a completely holy life, (to which the most contemplative points of faith are very much conducing, though they mistakenly seem to many in this respect useless,) and therefore that they ought not to be so rigidly vindicated.  
3. And thirdly, yet further, if the Church be granted infallible in Necessaries, (however we take them,) it seems also most reasonable, 
§. 6. That the Church (not private men) is to define, what Points be necessary  that from her we should learn, (if this be at all requisite to be known,) which or how many amongst many other decrees of hers, (if she makes any besides those concerning Necessaries,) which, I say, or how many, are necessary. For to what other Judgement can we repair for this, unless to our own? But how unreasonable this? That, whilst she is appointed to guide us with her infallibility in some points, we are to state to her, in what points only she can infallibly guide us. This Mr. Chillingworth well discerned, when he said, (2. c. §. 139.) We utterly deny the Church to be an infallible Guide in Fundamentals; for to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain society of men, of whom we may be certain that they neither do, nor can err in Fundamentals; [it follows,] nor in declaring what is fundamental, what is not: and consequently to make any Church [we may say, or Representative of the Church, i. e. a General Council] an infallible guide in Fundamentals, would be to make her infallible in all things which she proposeth and requireth to be believed. [i. e. In as many things as she saith are fundamental; and she may say all are fundamentals, or necessary, if she will.] Thus he. So (3. c. §. 59, 60.) to that objection, [since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe Her in fundamentals, and cannot precisely know what be those fundamentals; we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point.] He answers by granting the consequence, and denying the supposition; I mean the former part thereof; That we are obliged to believe her in fundamentals; in delivering of which he saith she may err. As for that Objection ordinarily made against the Church's defining what points they are, that are necessary, and wherein by consequence she is infallible, viz. that then Ecclesia non errabit quando vult; because she may, as she pleaseth, nominate the points fundamental, etc. We answer, that it being supposed necessary, that the Council or the people must know not only the fundamental points, but an exact distinction of such from the rest, (of which presently,) the same divine hand, that will not suffer the Council appointed for the people's guide, to err in any fundamental, neither will permit them to say or to define any point to be fundamental, that is not: because this latter thing is supposed as necessary as the former: i. e. God will never permit them to say they do not or cannot err in any point, wherein they may err.  
4. But fourthly, after all this it seems to me not to follow necessarily; 
§. 7. If these points be necessary at all to be defined, and exactly distinguished from all other her proposals.  that, if our Saviour by his Spirit preserve the Church an infallible Guide in necessary points of Faith, 1. Therefore she must be infallible in distinguishing them from all other points; which perhaps are not the same (if we speak of those, whereof men are to have an explicit knowledge) to all persons; and from whence (if it be true) it will follow, that the Church shall travel in vain to prescribe any set number of such points. (See Dr. Holden de Resol. Fid. 1. l. 4. c. Solutio Quaestionis hujus (i. e. of absolute necessaries) inanis & impossibilis). Nor 2ly, doth it follow, that therefore the Church should certainly know in what particular points she is infallible, and in what not. Certainly know, I mean not for some, but for every point to the uttermost extremity of Infallibility. For who can doubt that, she is both certain, and may profess her certainty and infallibility (and the absolute necessity that lies on all to believe some of them) for many of those points she delivers: namely for those at lest which are of clear revelation; of universal Tradition; and also for the immediate, manifest, and natural consequentials thereof? Nay, who denies, that private men also, from the abundant clearness of Scripture only, may attain sufficient certainty of many doctrines of Christianity? But I say certainly know that she is inerrable for every point in which she is so. For as to one ground of her infallibility, the assistance of the Spirit leading her into all truth necessary, since men may be, and all regenerate men are, guided by the Spirit of God, and yet without extraordinary revelation cannot certainly discern and distinguish the particulars wherein they are guided by it, nor sensibly perceive the motions thereof; why may not the Church also be ignorant in what particular points she is so far assisted by God's Spirit, as never to give an erroneous judgement in them? And as to the other ground, evidence of Tradition, though I grant sufficient assurance or infallibility in it if plenary; yet 1. Tradition of some points being greater, and of some other lesser and more obscure; this Tradition seems not always, in all points to be such as to amount to that certainty some of late pretend, 2ly. By this the Church can only know her infallibility in points traditionary. But then some determinations of Councils, and that under an Anathema, will be found to be, not of doctrines clearly traditional, and such as have been the common tenants of the former Church; but of new emergent controversies, not discussed or heard-of in precedent ages, which the Church decides by the judgement and learning of her Bishops, considering * texts of Scripture, wherein such points seem to be included; and * other doctrines of former and present times, to which they seem to have some relation. All which points, I believe, few Catholics will agree * that they should be excluded from necessaries, if not found to be of evident Tradition; or * that in new controversies nothing ever is determined by the Church, and that under Anathema, but only what was formerly evident Tradition; which new determinations if there were not sometimes, then what need is there of the superassistance of the holy Spirit, that the Church err not. This * concerning the first Concession by both parties, That the Church is infallible in her directions touching Necessaries, and * concerning some consequents thereof.  
2. Secondly, it must be, and I think is, granted by all that own 
§. 8. 2. Infallibility of the Ch. in matters of universal tradition (though they were not necessary) conceded likewise by all.  Christianity, That the Church is sufficiently infallible in all points that are of Universal Tradition, (or at least of Tradition so general, as that is, which we have of the Scriptures,) though such points were not necessary at all: else they must deny, that we have certainty enough from Tradition that the Scriptures are God's word. And this undeceivableness of general Tradition is the only or chief ground, that some Catholic writers of late build the Church's infallibility upon; not that they deny her infallible in all necessaries too; but that they make all Necessaries to be eminently, and beyond all mistake, traditional.  
3. Thirdly it is granted, I think generally by those of the Catholic 
§. 9 3. Infallibility universal, in whatever the Ch. proposeth & delivereth, is not affirmed by Catholic writers.  Church, That the Church is not absolutely infallible in all things whatsoever that she shall say or propose; but only in such things as she proposeth to her children tanquam de side, or necessario credenda, whether they concern speculatives, or practicals and manners.  
Concerning this matter, I will give you the several limitations as I find them set down in some of their latest writers. To begin 
§. 10. But only in those points which she proposeth tanquam de side or creditu necessaria.  with Bellarmin, one who is thought sufficiently rigid in vindicating the Church's infallibility. Thus he (de Concil. authoritate 2. l. 12. c.)— Concilia Generalia non possunt errare nec in fide explicanda, nec in tradendis praeceptis morum toti Ecclesiae communibus. I may add out of another place (de verbo Dei 4. l. 9 c.); nec in ritu & cultu divino, for the present times of such Councils. For, (saith he) as Ecclesia universalis non potest errare in credendo; so neither, in operando; recteque August. Ep. 118. docet insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare non recte sieri quod ab universa Ecclesia sit: tale est Baptisma parvulorm, licet actu non credant etc. But then (he saith again) in conciliis maxima pars actorum ad sidem non pertinent; [i. e. non proponitur ut necessario credatur:] non enim sunt de fide disputationes quae praemittuntur, neque rationes quae adduntur, neque ea quae ad explicandum & illustrandum adferuntur, [nothing incidently spoken, and without purpose to define it], sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta, & ea non omnia, sed tantum quae proponuntur tanquam de fide. Interdum enim Concilia aliquid definiunt, non ut certum, sed ut probabile. Vide Concil. Viennense. parvulis in Baptismo conferri gratiam. He grants ibid. That Concilia in Judiciis particularibus, (i. e.) ubi non affirmatur aliquid generale & toti Ecclesiae common, errare possunt. So he grants (2. l. 7. c.) quoad aliqua praecepta morum Concilia plenaria priora emendari per posteriora, sed non quoad dogmata fidei, [i. e. such as are once proposed by an Universal Council tanquam creditu necessaria]. Emendari, saith he, therefore they may err. He goes on: quod confirmatur ex verbis Augustini, qui dicit tunc emendari Concilia, quando experimento aliquo aperitur, quod clausum erat, [clausum, i. e. in the time of the former Council;] experimento enim aperiuntur (saith the Cardinal) quaestiones de facto, vel de moribus, non quaestiones Juris universalis. And I suppose Bellarmin also will not deny the same of Speculative doctrines, of which it appeareth not, that in the former Councils they are peremptorily defined ut certa & tanquam de fide necessaria: for this well accords with what is but now recited out of him de Concil. authoritate, 2. l. 12. c. According to which c. 8. in his answer to the 10th. Objection, concerning a difference between two Councils about the number of Canonical Books of Scripture, and so pertinens ad fidem, he writes thus, Concilium Carthaginense esse majoris authoritatis quam Laodicenum, quia posterius.— And, Concilium Laodicenum posuit in Canone eos libros de quibus Episcopi ejus Concilii certi erant; alios autem omisit; non quidem negans eos esse Canonicos, sed nolens rem dubiam definire. Concilium autem Carthaginense re magis discussa definivit id quod prius Concilium reliquerat sub dubio. Where we see that latter Councils may discover something even in rebus pertinentibus ad fidem, which former have not; and may define the others doubtings. Again, though he numbers amongst points of faith, in which the Church cannot err, not only quae expresse continentur in, but also quae evidenter deducuntur ex, Scriptures Prophetarum & Apostolorum, and so makes it the business of a Council, as declarare quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum; so praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducere conclusiones; which conclusions also he numbers amongst dogmata sidei: yet he grants that in some deduction, as he calls it, and ratiocination, the Council may err; in saying neque rationes quae adduntur, quoted before; affixing the Church's Inerrability only to those deductions, quae deducuntur evidenter; and to such deductions only as are her express decreta, and as are proposed tanquam de fide. See the former quotations out of him, the Concil. Authoritate, 2. l. 12. c. Like things (much-what) you may read in our learned Countryman Stapleton. See in his Principia fidei doctrinalia 4. controv. and 2. quaest. his septem notabilia: where he saith, first, that Ecclesia non expectat doceri a Deo immediate, solis Enthusiasmis & novis afflatibus sreta, sed utitur certis mediis ad dubii dogmatis determinationem, quia docetur nunc non per Apostolos aut Prophetas, quibus immediate a revelatio frequens erat, sed per pastors & Doctores. 2ly. That Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilem & peculiarem Spiritus sancti directionem, (quae necessaria erat Apostolis omnia de novo docentibus, & fundament a ponentibus, sed non succedenti Ecclesiae:) sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum, non semper necessaria, collectione uti. But 3ly. That Ecclesia nihilominus in conclusione fidei semper est certissima & infallibilis. But then 4ly. he saith, that Ad Ecclesiae infallibilitatem in docendo satis est ut sit infallibilis in substantia fidei, & publico dogmate, & rebus ad salutem necessariis: quia hic est finis datae infallibilitatis, viz. ad consummationem Sanctorum, & ad aedificationem corporis Christi; i. e. ad publicam salutem fidelium. Deus autem & Natura, ut non deficit in necessariis, it a nec superabundat in superfluis. Nec ad quaevis particularia Dei providentia specialis deducenda est: quae ut multos particulares defectus in gubernation universali permittit ad decorem ipsius Universi, ut not at Augustinus in Civ. Dei, 11. l. 18. c. sic multos privatos in Ecclesia errores, & multarum rerum non necessariarum ignorantiam etiam in doctissimis permittit.— And again to Calvin, charging the Papists that they said, Ecclesia nulli errori potest esse affinis; he answers,— Infallibilitas docentis Ecclesiae ponitur tantum in rebus ad salutem necessariis, atque adeo in ipsa conclusione. Thus he. [But than he both affirmeth the teaching Church infallible in all her conclusions, and then affirming her infallible only in necessariis ad salutem, consequently he must hold all the conclusions, which she peremptorily proposeth to be believed, to be necessary ad salutem.] Hitherto Stapleton. Lastly, in matters of fact, Bellarmin grants general Councils to have erred. See 2. l. 8. c. Resp. to 14. and 15. Objection.  
The Church therefore is not infallible in all her decrees, but only 
§. 11. Where conc. the several senses wherein points are affirmed or denied to be de fide.  those which are the side, or (which is all one in his sense) which are proposed tanquam de fide. [Now things are said to be de Fide in many several senses: and therefore you will excuse me here, if I make a digression (though something hath been said thereof in the discourse of Necessary Faith, §. 1.) to declare them, that the different Notions, wherein Authors use this term, may be the better understood.  
1. First than you must observe, as Bellarmin notes, (de verbo Dei 4. l. 9 c.) that Nihil est de fide [and therefore cannot be proposed 
§. 12. That as only, so all, divine revelations, or necessary deductions from them are de Fide. i. e. the objects and mat●ters of Faith.  tanquam de fide] nisi quod Deus per Apostolos aut Prophetas revelavit, aut quod evidenter inde deducitur. Illa omnia quae Ecclesia fide tenet tradita sunt ab Apostolis, aut Prophetis, aut scripto, aut verbo; [either by verbal, or also written Tradition, which is the Scriptures,] therefore he affirms, ibid. Non novis revelationibus nunc regitur Ecclesia, sed in iis permanet quae tradiderunt illi, qui ministri fuerunt sermonis. And,— Concilia Generalia non habent, neque scribunt immediatas revelationes aut verba Dei, sed tantum declarant quidnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum. [Quidnam sit, (i. e.) from the Apostolical times, before the meeting of the Council,] & quomodo intelligi debeat, & praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducunt Conclusiones. It aque Concilia cum definiunt qui libri etc. non faciunt sed declarant esse tales. Bell. the Concil. l. 2. c. 12. But note here therefore, that no points become de fide in this sense, i. e. that they are verbum Dei or revelata, because the Church defines them; much less are all things that she proposeth strait de fide: but that she defines them to be so, only because they are so before, even from the Apostles times, either explicitly, or implicitly; either express and traditional, and well known from age to age; or necessarily involved in, and clearly deducible from, those points that are traditional. For, as is said before, the Church hath no 
And that the Ch. can make nothing to be de Fide, i. e. to be divine Revelation etc. which was not so always from the Apostolic times.  new revelation of any thing of necessary knowledge not formerly delivered, (not that I deny, that some new revelations from God's Spirit concerning things Theological, and of the next world, can be now made to any in the Church; but only affirm, that all necessary ones are received from the beginning of the Gospel; and that the Church can build upon no such new ones, because she hath no certain way to discern them): neither can the Church make any new Article of faith (which much differenceth the Church succeeding from the Church Apostolical; that none may argue the like fallibility or infallibility in both, as to making or composing Articles of Faith;) but only the Church can declare, what hath been always formerly, and explicate the sense; or also educe out of it the necessary consequents thereof.  
2ly. You may observe, that all necessary deductions or conclusions, though perhaps formerly unknown, yet being the necessary 
§. 13.  consequents of some other Articles known and common, are properly called Articles of Faith; or else we must deny those added to the Apostles Creed in the Nicene and Athanasian to be such: or granting these two propositions, [Est unus tantum Deus,] and [Pater est Deus, & Filius est Deus, & Spiritus Sanctus est Deus; (Deus here being supposed to bear the same sense as in the Major Proposition)] to be Articles of Faith, we must deny this drawn from them [Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus sunt unus tantum Deus] to be so.  
3ly. You may observe, that such deductions are also necessary to be made and manifested by the Church from time to time, in opposition to contrary errors, destroying by consequence that known Article from which these deductions flow; that as new Errors arise against the Faith, so new Explanations of the Faith may counterpoise them, and may preserve that former faith in its true sense and in its necessary consequences, by which the explicit articles of our faith must needs increase to the end of the world, if errors against the faith do so. Which also we may call new Articles of Faith, in respect of the arguing newly made, and the proposition itself newly form; yet by no means are they new in respect of the principles out of which they are form, and do necessarily follow. Now therefore they are for the form rather than the matter: as if this proposition, Omnis homo est corpus, should be said to be newly form, when as these two propositions whereof 'tis made, Omnis homo est animal, & omne animal est corpus, were well known, and received truths before. Therefore in such sense to make new Articles, there is no need of new revelation; but, for those more evident, only the operation of common reason. And thus many things become known to posterity, even in things most supernatural, which were not discovered to, or discoursed of, by their forefathers, from a further examining (upon some occasion given) and discussing of ancient principles, and comparing of former revelations: as out of Mathematical principles new Demonstrations (yet undeniable) are daily minted. In which respect knowledge of divine things, as well as humane, may be said to have a continual progress and increase to the end of the world. Dan. 12. 4,  
But 4ly, observe concerning these derivative articles; that, since the deductions which may be made from such as are express and 
§. 15.  tradititional are almost infinite, though we cannot deny, that all of 
That all divine revelation, or necessary deductions therefrom, are not the Fide, (i. e.) creditu necessaria.  them even to the least are still de fide, or matters pertaining to faith, (for how can the premises be so, and not the conclusion?) yet all not necessary to be believed, or matters pertaining to necessary and required Faith. For so neither is every thing that is plainly set down in the Scripture necessary to be believed; though it is all matter of faith, being made known to us, that it is there written: as the Cardinal saith de verbo Dei, 4. l. 12. c. Necessario creduntur, quia scripta sunt, yet not ideo scripta sunt, quia necessario credenda erant; such as are many things historical there. A pure nescience, or also a blamelessly-ignorant contradiction of such things, hurts no man's faith, so we deny them not to be truth, when we happen to know they are Scripture; but that we should also know them to be Scripture, there lies no tye upon us. So is it with these Deductions, which if in themselves (as some points are) they were necessary to salvation to be believed, they would have been so always, not only after the Church hath made them, but before: But so they are not; for then former generations, perhaps not knowing some of them at least, would be deficient in requisite faith. A pure nescience of them therefore, in the simplicity of which they are neither affirmed, nor denied; or also when denied, not knowing the contrary determination of Scripture or Church, hurts none; but only a peremptory denial of them, or the asserting and maintaining of an error contrary unto them, or destructive to that former express traditional Article of Faith, from which they are drawn: and this, when we have a sufficient information, from Scripture or the Church, to know that it is so; which we have always, after 'tis known to us that a Council hath determined against it; and many times may have so before. And hence it is, that, also after the decision of the Church, still to many not the pure nescience or contradiction of such a point; but the opposing it, and asserting the contrary, when we know it to be proposed by her, is pernicious. In Dr. Holden's Phrase the Resolutione fid. 1. l. 4. c. lectio 2. Cum quis sciens vidensque universam esse Ecclesiae sententiam, illam tamen pertinaciter & obstinate denegaverit, aut etiam oppositum sustinuerit etc. But concerning the unwittingly affirmers of the contrary to some decision of a Council, thus Estius, in 3. sent. 23. dist. 13. §. Diligenter distinguendum est inter eos, qui retenta generali promptitudine credendi quicquid Ecclesia Catholica credit, per ignor antiam tamen in quibusdam fidei dogmatibus errant; propterea quod nondum iis satis declaratum sit illa Ecclesiam credere: & eos qui post manifestatam sufficienter Ecclesiae doctrinam adhuc ab ea, vel contrarium asserendo, vel certe dubitando, dissentire eligunt; quod Hoereticorum est proprium. Fidem illi in universali atque in habitu (ut loquuntur) totam atque integram retinent, dum quicquid Ecclesia credendum tradit, suscipere se ex animo profitentur. De quorum numero fuit Cyprianus etc. Where also we see, that the Church doth not lay on all men an obligation of knowing whatever she defines in matters of faith; but of not contradicting or doubting of them, when made known to any.  
5ly. Neither is it necessary for the Church to make or propose 
§. 16. And that the Church lawfully may, and hath a necessity to, make, de novo, upon rising errors, such points de fide, i. e. creditu necessaria, which formerly were not so.  any such deductive Articles, (suppose such as those in the Nicene or Athanasian Creed); nor perhaps ought she to charge the faith of Christians with them; but only where some error ariseth contrary to, and undermining some former received Article or practice, whereby her Sons to the damage of their Christianity are in danger of infection. But any such errors spreading, the Church doth not her duty, if she neglect to promulgate the truths opposite to them. (See before §. 14.) For though the explicit knowledge of such truths is not necessary; yet this is necessary to the believing such fundamental and prime Articles of faith as God requires, that one together with them do not believe and affirm any thing contrary to, and destructive of them, after he may have sufficient assurance that it is so: and this he may have, so often as the Church states it so. So (I suppose) the pure nescience of some deductive Article contained in the Athanasian Creed condemns none, but the maintaining of the contradictory error thereto, after such light given him by the Church: which light she is bound continually to hold forth to her children, so oft as any mists of false opinions begin to overcast the clearness of the former faith.  
6ly. But in the last place note from what hath been said, that though no points become the side because the Church defines them, but are 
§. 17.  either so before, or never can be so at all; yet some of those points which were always the fide, objects of faith, or dogmata fidei, (so Scotus said Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei till the Lateran Council, meaning by it dogmata credenda, i. e. which men were then tied to assent to) may become creditu necessaria (for all points de fide or appertaining to faith, are not necessaria creditu) after the Church's determining of them; which were not so before. Creditu necessaria, not in themselves or affirmatively, as if they ought to be explicitly known (as some other points the side must) with reference to attaining salvation; but only so as not to be denied or opposed, or the contradictory to them maintained, whenever they are first known to us to be declared by the Church, (whom we are to presume never to divulge such truths, but upon necessary occasions pressing Her to it): and this out of the obedience and submission of judgement which we owe to her Decrees.  
And of this submission due to Councils even when they determine 
§. 18. Or (as some other of the Catholic writers usually express i●) only in points clearly traditional.  points not of clear Tradition, but (someway) formerly dubious, we have a pattern in the business of Rebaptisation; which though formerly not so evident before the decision of the Church, (Scripture seeming to favour one side, and Ecclesiastical custom the other, so that Provincial Councils varied in their judgement of it, some pro, some con;) nor they heretical that affirmed it: yet decided once, submission of judgement was unquestionably (by St. Austin) reckoned as due from all; and they Heretics; who after this opposed. See for this S. Austin. de Baptism. cont. Don. 1. l. 7. c. Quaestionis hujus obscuritas (he speaks concerning Rebaptisation) prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati, magnos viros & magna charitate praeditos, Patres, Episcopos, ita inter se compulit, salva pace, disceptare atque fluctuare, ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint; donec plenario totius orbis Concilio; quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus sirmaretur: Again, 2. l. 4. c. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid (he speaks of the same point) auderemus asserere, (which argues some inevidence in the matter) nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati; cui & ipse [Cyprianus] sine dubio crederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata & declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur. Yet were the after-opposers anathematised as heretical. Again, cont. Ep. Parmeniani, 2. l. 13. c. Haec quidem alia quaestio est: Utrum Baptismus & ab iis, qui nunquam fuerunt Christiani, potest dari? nec aliquid temere inde affirmandum est sine authoritate tanti Concilii, quantum tantae rei sufficit.— De iis vero qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt, nulla jam quaestio est, quin & habeant [verum Baptisma,] & dare possint.— Hoc enim in ipsa totius orbis unitate [i. e. in the Council of Nice] discussum, consideratum, perfectum atque firmatum est. So contr. Crescon. Gram. 1. l. 33. c. Quamvis hujus rei certe de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas; cum hoc facimus, quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat authoritas; ut, quoniam sacra Scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli motuit obscuritate hujus quaestionis, eandem Ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat. Obscuritate quaestionis, for though elsewhere (de Baptismo cont. Don. 5. l. 23. c.) he supposeth it an Apostolical Tradition on one side, [Apostoli quidem nihil exinde praeceperunt, sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano, ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est: sicut sunt multa quae tenet universa Ecclesia; & ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur]; and though this custom was by the Bishop of Rome and his party much pressed against Cyprian and his adherents, and Agrippinus St. Cyprian's Predecessor is said to be the first that introduced a contrary practice, (see Aust. de Bapt. 3. l. 12. c. non novam se rem statuisse Beatus Cyprianus ostendit, quia sub Agrippino jam coeperat fieri): yet it appears, that St. Austin did not think all common customs and traditions, (though pretended Apostolical) before they were approved and warranted by the judgement of the Church in her Councils, to be so simply obligatory, as that they may not be disputed, if seeming opposite to another (surer) Apostolical Tradition, i. e. the Scriptures: as St. Cyprian thought this custom was, and so answered Steven, (see Cypr. Ep. ad Pomp. contra Steph.); and in this answer is defended by St. Austin, (see de Bapt. 2. l. 8. c.) quia tunc non extiterant etc. Noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas (etsi non veras, quod eum latebat, sed tamen) non victas (veraci quidem, sed tamen) nondum assertae consuetudini cedere. Assertae, i. e. by * any Council; or, cleared not to be * against the Scriptures urged (but mistakenly) by Cyprian. And St. Austin also himself saith the same thing with Cyprian, de Bapt. 3. l. 6. c. Quis dubitat veritati manifestatae debere consuetudinem cedere?  
This I have set you down the more fully, that you might see the 
§. 19  power and authority of General Councils, not only in declaring points traditional, but in deciding questions some way obscure and doubtful; and what submission was due to such points once determined, in St. Austin's opinion: who yet held former, by latter, Councils might be amended; and consequently their (in some things) liability to error or doubting. And so such points are to be believed in consequence only to another point of necessary faith, namely, That private men ought in all things, at least not demonstrative on the contrary, to submit their own to the Church's judgement: as many things written in God's word are necessary to be assented to, when known to be there written (which are not written there because they are necessarily to be known, or believed,) in consequence to that necessary point of faith, that whatever is written in God's word is true. And hence also are there two sorts of Heretics; some are such before any Council condemning their Tenent, if it happen to be against points de fide clear, necessary, and universally or eminently traditional; so were there presently after the Apostles times many Heretics, before any Council assembling or condemning their opinions; others, only such, after their error condemned by a Council, if the points be of less evidence etc. These latter rendered Heretics not from the nature of their Tenent, but their obstinacy and opposition to the obligation which the Church's Authority lays upon them in her determinations. Whose public proposal of such doctrines as divine truths is sufficient for their belief, and further embracing the same as such, (and therefore their further opposition of it is not error, but heresy); unless they can infallibly demonstrate the contrary. In which case (if ever any such can happen) they are free from wilful opposition or heresy: (i. e. I mean in their denying their assent to the Church; but in public contradicting, even those infallibly certain etc. may be still faulty): else they stand guilty thereof, and also of Schism, if for such a decision they go on to forsake the Church's communion. So St. Cyprian's followers, after a General Council, were counted Heretics, (though the matter of this Heresy, as also of many others, so called from opposition to General Councils, seem not to be in themselves of very great importance); not so He before it. In which opinion (namely, that the Baptism of Heretics was ineffectual) saith Dr. Potter sect. 4. many good Catholic Bishops accorded with him and the Donatists: as likewise with the Novatians in another, [viz. that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners,] before the Nicene Council. So though since the Decision of the Florentine Council 1439, those who hold, animas justorum non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem, are by the Church of Rome counted Heretics, from opposition &c: yet those who before that time maintained it, (amongst whom was Pope John the 22d.) they acknowledge were free from it. See Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 4. l. 14. c. Respondeo Johannem hunc revera sensisse animas non visuras Deum, nisi post resurrectionem: caeterum hoc sensisse, quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo haeresis: nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesioe definitio. In such sense Scotus saith Transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council.  
Thus you see, though all divine Revelation, and necessary deduction 
§. 20.  from it, is de fide, and the object and matter of faith; and though the Church can make nothing the fide (i. e.) to be divine Revelation, which was not so always from our Saviour's and the Apostles times; yet all divine Revelation is not the fide in another sense (i. e.) proposed by the Church to Christians as necessary to be believed; and thus a proposition may be de fide to day, which yesterday was not. And those who affirm the Church to be unerrable in all points de fide, mean not in all points absolutely which may possibly be derived from some traditional principle of Faith; but only in so many of them as she proposeth to Christians tanquam de fide, or necessary to be believed: whilst very many theological propositions probably deducible from the delivered principles, and even mentioned affirmatively in Councils, yet are no part of these necessarily enjoined credends.]  
To return now to our matter whence we digressed §. 11. and 
§. 21.  to pass from Bellarmin to some other late writers of the Roman Church of the moderatest sort.  
These seeing, that some deductions and consequences from revealed and traditional doctrines are neither so immediate and clear, nor yet so necessary to be known, and the contradictory of them to be confuted as others, do assert and derive the Church's inerrability chiefly or only from evidence of Tradition; not certainty of reason, or extraordinary illumination of the Spirit. Whence these also, holding the Church's infallibility in all things which she determineth tanquam de fide, do likewise maintain all things determined by her tanquam de fide to be only doctrines traditional; or those so evidently deductive as that in substance they are coincident with that which is traditional.  
See Dr. Holden de resol. Fid. 1. l. 9 c. I will transcribe you some part. Quaedam consecutiones adeo evidenter constant primo intuitu, ut 
§. 22.  nemo sanoe mentis (supposita praemissarum veritate) possit ullatenus de rei veritate ambigere: as there he names this; Duas esse in Christo voluntates proved ex duplici natura Christi, against the Monothelites. Quoecunque autem sub hac ratione & conditione declarantur & denunciantur ab Ecclesia universa, seu a Concilio Generali, veram habent divinae fidei seu veritatum revelatarum & catholic traditarum certitudinem etc. Aliae sunt consecutiones & sequelae, quae non adeo manifest & evidenter emicant & effulgent; quin studium aliquod & scientia requiratur etc. Hujusmodi autem veritates (quarum aliquas vidimus in Conciliis Generalibus definitas) supremam illam & Catholicam certitudinem, quam vi traditionis universae attribuimus articulis fidei, habere nequeunt. Nullos etenim agnovit Ecclesia divini luminis radios sibi de novo affulgentes, quibus veritatibus recenter detect●s & particularium hominum ratiocinatione quodammodo develatis, possit certitudo ab omni prorsus periculo erroris immunis, atque fidei revelatis & catholic traditis articulis par & aequalis succrescere. Thus Dr. Holden: to whom I may add Mr. Cressy in his Motives, (approved by several Sorbon-Doctors) 33. c. Besides the certain Traditional doctrine, [of which he speaks before] other points of doctrine there are sometimes decided in Councils rather by the judgement and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture, wherein such points seem to be included, and weighing together the doctrines of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors: now such doctrines or decisions many Catholics conceive are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith, etc. Then after.— If in such Decisions, as these latter are, there should happen to be any error, (which yet we may piously believe the assistance of God's H. Spirit promised to the Church will prevent,) but if this should happen etc. And c. 41. And many Catholic writers there are, who upon the same grounds with Mr. Chillingworth extend the promise of the holy Spirits assistance to the Church, not to all inconsiderable circumstantial doctrines, but to substantial and traditionary only. Thus he.  
See like things in F. Sancta Clara, syst. fid. 12, 13, 14. c. 12. c. p. 110. Singula, quae in Conciliis tractantur, non sunt ejusdem considerationis. 
§. 23.  Illa quae a Theologis hinc inde agitantur, & ante definitiones examinantur, & tandem non nisi magno labour, & rerum & consequentiarum subtili trutinatione ex discursu longo & perplexo ad Conclusiones statuendas devenitur; hujusmodi omnia si tanquam non necessaria & errabilia putantur, nihil est contra Ecclesiae infallibilitatem. And 13. c. p. 147. Cum hac tamen doctrina bene stat proloquium illud Scholasticorum, Ecclesiam simpliciter non posse errare in fide, licet bene circa fidem, seu in appendicibus fidei, hoc est, ut alii loqui malunt, in non-fundamentalibus seu non-necessariis.— [And one such point, which he instanceth in, though not as a determination of any Council, (yet see Concil. Lateran. 3. Can. which seems somewhat to favour this opinion), yet as a common received tenant in some former times, is this:— Papam ex Christi institutione plenissimam habere in universum orbem jurisdictionem temporalem, eamque in Imperatores & Reges transfudisse, adeo ut habeat toti mundo dominari, & omnia regna disponere: 12. c. p. 124. where he quotes many Authors. Quod tamen (saith he) hoc saeculum in Scholis non fert, ut satis colligitur ex Suaresio, Bellarmino, & aliis. See likewise the Authors quoted in Bellarmin. de Roman. Pont. 5. l. 5. c. §. Argumentum postremum. and §. Sanctus quoque Bonavent. where he names Hugo de S. Victore about 1130. who was one of the first qui temporalem potestatem summ● Pontisici ex Christi institutione tribuit.]  
And is not Stapleton, quoted before, of the same opinion with these? when he saith; It is sufficient that the Church be infallible 
§. 24.  in the substance of faith; in public doctrines, and things necessary to Salvation, (as Bellarmin grants some points de fide are not,) being the end of infallibility given; God and Nature, as they are not defective in necessaries, so neither being superabundant in superfluities, etc. And doth not St. Austin's Saying, so much noted, show him too of the same opinion? I will transcribe it somewhat more fully than usual, as being very considerable. Answering to St. Cyprian's Authority, (urged against him by the Donatists) for rebaptisation of such as had been only baptised by Heretics, amongst other things, he goes on, the Baptism. 2. l. 3. c. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam &c, posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi; ut de illa omnino dubitari & disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit. Episcoporum autem literas, quae post confirmatum Canonem scribuntur etc. per Concilia licere reprehendi, si quid etc. & ipsa Concilia, quae per singulas regiones vel Provincias siunt, pleniorum Conciliorum authoritati, quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere; [quis autem nesciat] ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari? cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat; which he applies afterward to the point of Non-rebaptization, when it was by the Church better considered. (See a like passage to this de Bapt. 2. l. 9 c.— Si Concilium ejus [i. e. Cypriani, the Provincial Council called by him] attenditur, huic est universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium praeponendum.— Nam & Concilia posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponuntur, & universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur.) Now that St. Austin (as Mr. Cressy well observes, Motives 33. c.) understands this emendation of Councils in points not of fact etc. but of Doctrine, (I mean of such doctrines as are not expressly delivered by former plenary Councils, and those Councils accepted by the Church catholic tanquam de fide; which determinations the Church is conceived only to make in points more evidently certain to her, and so never after amendable,) appears from the context both precedent and consequent; where he goes on: Quapropter S. Cyprianus qui etc. satis ostendit facillime se correcturum fuisse sententiam suam, si quis ei demonstraret Baptismum Christi sic dari posse ab tis qui foras exierunt; quemadmodum amitti non potuit, cum foras exirent: unde multa jam diximus; nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati: cui & ipse sine dubio cederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata & declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur. Which answers to what he said before, [aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod clausum erat etc.] as elsewhere he intimates the former obscurity of this question, de Bapt. 1. l. 7. c. Tho indeed it is well noted of some concerning this passage of St. Austin, that by the Concilia plenaria he meaneth only such larger Councils as were composed of many Provinces, inferior to the most General; such as that of Nice: because he saith,— Quis nesciat priora saepe posterioribus emendari. When-as before his time there had been only two of these most general Councils, and of these the latter making no such emendations, as to reverse or contradict any one doctrine of the former. Now that Councils, inferior to those collected ex toto orbe Christiano, only if consisting of many Provinces, were by St. Augustin and other Africans styled Concilia plenaria or universalia, see de Baptis. 2. l. 7. c.— 3. l. 2. c.— Contra Parmenian. Epist. ●. l. 3. c. Contra Crescon. 3. l. 53. c. Codex Canon. Ecclesiae African. passim num. 19 28. 65, 25. Conc. Carthag. A. D. 403. num. 127. 138. of these inferior plenary Councils then St. Austin seems to speak, when he mentions the latter correcting the former, reading the words quae fiunt by way of Parenthesis.— Quis nesciat ipsa Concilia, i. e. quae per singulas regiones vel Provincias fiunt [Councils Provincial] plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati [those comprehending many Provinces, and especially those quae fiunt ex toto orbe Christiano, as that of Arls or Nice, for one of these he meaneth here, but rather that of Arls 1. see Canon 8. and St. Aust. Ep. 162. ad Eleusin.] sine ullis ambagibus cedere, ipsaque saepe plenaria [those Councils comprehending many Provinces; for this saepe emendari cannot be applied to the universally-General, that were before St. Austin's times; neither can his arguments against the Donatists stand good upon such a supposition of such Councils errability] priora etc. Again Bellarmin himself, since he grants that Councils may err in the reasons they give for some Conclusions; (which I conceive extends also to the misinterpretation of some Scriptures, whence they draw them,) and, in the deductions to be made, that they may be the side, puts in evidenter, aut quod evidenter inde deducitur; and allows latter Councils may determine what former Councils doubt of, (which determination, when-as both of them have the same assistance of the Spirit, is only from some rational light that latter Councils from more weighing and discoursing such points do attain:) doth he not affirm a Council, in some smaller and less evident or less argued points of doctrine, liable to some error?  
And lastly, that the Church doth not pretend to infallibility in all doctrines pertaining to faith, but only to some, as being more 
§. 25.  evident, me thinks sufficiently appears from this; That in her General Councils she decides not all pre-extant controversies, but hath left many sharp ones (namely where there is neither clear revelation, nor tradition, nor consequence from them for either side) undetermined; and in that she hath defined some others as probable, see Concil. Viennense forequoted. But if she were by divine assistance in all doctrinals pertaining to faith (whereof some are granted not necessary, Bell. de Ecclesia 3. l. 14. c.) certain of truth, she ought never to state any as probabilities. Whence also it appears, that of all controversies that arise, though some way pertaining to faith, one side is not presently to be called necessary, and to be decreed; and the contradictory thereof necessary to be confuted, and exterminated. But if in all truths (necessary or not necessary) when she offers once to decide them, the Church must needs be infallible (notwithstanding any mis-arguing) by the supervising of the H. Spirit; lest any should be induced to believe something false: Is there not the same reason, that in matters of fact (notwithstanding any misinformation) she should be by the same holy Spirit preserved from erring; lest any should be obliged, and that sometimes under her anathemas, (for these also she useth in matters of fact) to submit to what is wrong?  
Thus much concerning this tenet, That only Traditional points and their undeniable plain Consequences are the matter of the Churc's infallibility, 
§. 26.  and de fide necessaria of Christians. But note, that the Church's infallibility must not be enlarged to all points which may be called Traditional neither: for surely, of all things pretended to be traditional, there is not Tradition equally evident; but of some less than of others; according to which the evidence of the Church must be of many several degrees; neither may we reasonably ascribe to her the infallibility in all of them, which we do in some other: though her evidence in the least may be so much, as that none ought to reluct against her sentiment or practice.  
The next thing which will be enquired after is, How to know amongst many decrees of Councils, which of them, according to 
§. 27. Whether, and by what marks, those points which are proposed by the Church tanquam de side or creditu necessaria, or which are proposed as constantly traditional, are clearly distinguished by her from her other proposal.  the expression of the former opinions, the Church proposeth tanquam de fide, or tanquam necessario credenda; or which she proposeth as clear and plenary Tradition, or undeniable deduction therefrom; it being agreed, that all her proposals or decrees are not such. A Quaere very necessary to be resolved for those (if any such there be,) who affix obedience of assent only to infallibility, and this infallibility again only to such decrees; but a Quaere for all others (methinks) not of so much concernment.  
I find the marks of such distinction set down in Bell. de Conc. 2. l. 12. c. thus.— Quando autem decretum proponatur tanquam de fide, facile cognoscitur 
§. 28.  ex verbis Concilii: semper enim dicere solent, 1. Se explicare fidem Catholicam, 2. vel Haereticos habendos, qui contrarium sentiunt; vel (quod est communissimum) dicunt Anathema, & ab Ecclesia excludunt eos, qui contrarium sentiunt. [What then, what if it be only Anathema iis, qui contrarium dicunt aut docent?] Quando autem nihil horum dicunt, non est certum rem esse de side. Thus Bellarmin. But note here, that Bellarmin tells us not plainly, whether something in Councils is proposed tanquam de side, without any Anathema set to it; only he doubtingly saith, non est certum: and those others (again) who build the Church's inerrability on Tradition, and the evident Consequences thereof, tell us not, whether some of those Decisions that are enjoined with anathemas, are not sometimes some of those secondary consequences more doubtful, ad quas colligendas studium aliquod & scientia requiritur: or which are made by the judgement and learning of the Bishops considering texts of Scripture, the doctrines of ancient Fathers, and modern Doctors etc. As indeed 'tis likely some of them are; anathemas being added so frequently even in smaller matters, and in the newest controversies. And perhaps it can hardly be shown by these writers, that every Proposition in a General Council that hath an Anathema affixed to it, is traditional to such a degree of evidence, (since some Traditions are much more universal and evident than some others) that it amounts to infallibility (not from the assistance of the holy Spirit, but) from the clearness of Tradition. In this distinction therefore of points de fide or necessary credends, wherein the Church is infallible, exactly from others, I think these Authors cannot speak out so clearly; because though some points are of much more certainty, and also of much higher concernment than others, yet Councils seem not so punctual in severing them by a diversity of expression, unless in very few: (perhaps a thing not possible to be done by them, see §. 3.) See Dr. Holden, 1. l. 8. c. acknowledging some such thing: In tradenda doctrina Christiana nunquam audivimus Ecclesiam articulorum revelatorum & divinarum institutionum catalogum exhibuisse vel composuisse, quo separatim cognosci possint hujusmodi sidei divinae dogmata ab omnibus aliis, quae vel Ecclesiasticae sint institutionis, vel quae centae revelationi divinae haud immediate innitantur; atque ideo omnia simul confuse & indistincte semper docuisse & tradidisse. Yet the same Councils may and do require subscription and obedience to all their definitions, as they being the supreme and unappealable Judge * authorized by Christ (for the peace and unity of the Church) to give the law to all men, * abundantly assisted by the Spirit of Truth for all Necessaries, even the obscurest and most unacquainted doctrines, if you can once prove them necessary: and besides this if, in some other matters of less concernment they be liable to error; yet how much less they than private men? And therefore their submission of judgement to these remains still most rational, as well as obligatory.  
The chief note, which I find for the distinction of these points de fide, wherein the Church is infallible, from other determinations 
§. 29. Anathema no certain Index thereof.  or proposals, is the affixing of anathemas, (which are the same with Excommunication.) But 1. first, several of these anathemas (if we do rely on their form) may require, not internal assent, as looking merely at faith; but noncontradiction, as looking perhaps (in some points) more at peace; many running only, si quis dixerit &c, Anathema sit. But if it be said, that the Anathema's only, that are set upon a Si quis sentiat or credat, are the Index of such points de fide for necessary credends; then will very few decrees of Councils pass for such, (for example, not above four or five of all those made in the Council of Trent, I mean, as to this particular Index of Credends, viz. Anathema): and doubtless many more of the decisions of Councils are contended to be such credends, than those that can show this mark of Anathema fixed expressly to dissentients; of which see more in Church-Government, 4. Part. §. 79. Again, this injunction of Noncontradiction or of keeping silence, though it be * such as opposeth the saying, that the contrary to the Church's determination is a truth; or, that the Church erreth in any such decision; much more, an open departing for such unnecessary matter (for the Church errs in no necessaries) from her communion; yet perhaps it is not * such as opposeth the making or humbly proposing of any doubt thereof, at least in a second convening of the same Authority. See, I pray you, in the denouncing of her anathemas, the great wariness of the Council of Trent, in 24. sess. 7. c. Si quis dixerit Ecclesiam errare, cum docuit propter adulterium &c, Anathema sit, noted by Soave in his History of it, p. 755. Engl. Ed. to be done, because she would not censure * some of the Greek Church, who held the contrary opinion; as likewise * some of the Fathers, as S. Ambrose. And surely this Council's affixing anathemas sometimes to so many Lutheran errors, some doubtless of smaller moment, (as they were gathered here and there by some persons, appointed to that purpose, out of Luther's writings,) because they were opposite to the common doctrines of the Church, shows, that her Anathema sometimes eyed more the petulancy and contradicting spirit of the Author, than the importance of the Tenet; and was sent forth, more to secure her peace, than her faith. What should hinder, I pray, since some questions possibly may arise in the Church, undecidable clearly by Tradition; and since (no doubt) of all questions now agitated among the Schoolmen, or other Catholics, one side is not traditional; for then how could so many Catholics oppose a thing of such evidence; again, since it is the Church's duty to provide for peace and unity among her children, as well as faith and truth; and lastly, since sharp and vehement contests may arise in such new controversies, to the great disturbance thereof; what should hinder, I say, that the Church in such cases may not impose silence on both parties? or, secondly, using her best search, and going upon such Scriptures and reasons, as perhaps some side urgeth, declare her judgement; and that under some penalty on the opposers and gainsayers thereof? or require submission of their judgement also to her, not as she declares her judgement infallible; but only as it is definitive and unappealable? (else her orders are no more than good counsel). On the gainsayers etc. not as subverters of some necessary faith, but as troublers (for an unnecessary (if) truth) of the Church's peace, and rebels to her authority; whom Christ hath commanded to hear; not only how far they list, or in their private judgement see cause. And if she may impose some penalty; then why not anathematise, or excommunicate? This Anathematising even Protestants do not so far charge as a trespass of charity, or a sign of rigour upon the Church of Rome or her Councils; but that they allow, that those who turbulently, or pertinaciously speak against the Doctrines of the Church in smaller points, may be anathematised for it. See Dr. Fern in his Preface to Consider. of present Concernment etc. We acknowledge, that he who shall pertinaciously, turbulently speak and teach against the doctrines of the Church in points of less moment, may deserve to be anathematised, or put out of the Church: for such a one, though he denies not the faith, yet makes a breach of charity, whereby he goes out of the Church, against which he so sets himself. Thus he of pertinacious and turbulent contradiction; but then modest contradiction he allows. Was Luther's and Calvin's modest? Are not anathemas used by her against Schismatical as well as Heretical spirits? May not she excommunicate as well disturbers of her peace, as subverters of her faith? How come Schismatics then thrown out of the Church? Doth she not use anathemas or Excommunications in matters of Fact, wherein she is confessed to be liable to error? If in decisions not traditional &c, we are bound to yield obedience, (as I shall show anon); what reason have we, why the Church may not anathematise for these points those, who contradict and disobey? But if she may: then Anathema (for any thing we know) is joined to some point not traditional, nor in which the Church is infallible. 2. To put this matter more out of doubt: why have Provincial Councils (granted fallible) used anathematising (than which nothing more frequent) toward those under their Jurisdiction? If any say they use anathemas indeed, but not to be in force (I say not after they be contradicted (which we grant) but) till they be confirmed by a General Council; then why may they, and have they, been put in practice, before they were by any such Council confirmed? Nay to what purpose such Council convened, since it hath no power of excommunicating the resisters? and since, when a General Council sits, that sufficiently obligeth; before it sits, the other obligeth not. 3. Again, many Heresies (as the Pelagian etc.) by Provincial Councils have been censured and suppressed: but who may judge heresies, i. e. errors against points of faith, may pronounce anathemas. Judicium non infallibile tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum:— & debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodijudicio; donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes, vel Concilium Universal; & si secus egerint, merito excommunicantur, saith Bell. de Council 2. l. 10. c. Judicio, in points of Doctrine too: for as for matter of fact, he will allow the same liability to error may be in particular which in General Councils.  
Thus much touching your first Quaere, concerning the Infallibility 
PART. II. §. 30. Concerning obedience and submission of private judgement▪ whether due to the Ch. supposed not in all her decisions infallible.  of the Church. Now I come to your second, concerning Obedience due to the Church, and submission of private judgement. Where I think this will be made clear unto you, That (to what point soever the Church's infallibility be enlarged, yet this) the Universal-Infallibility of this Supreme Judge of Controversies is not a necessary ground, or the only rule of the duty of obedience thereto, (neither of the obedience of Noncontradiction, nor yet that of Assent): but that there may be, and is, just obligation of obedience (I mean that of submission of judgement, i. e. to believe what it delivereth) to a fallible Authority, i. e. one that may command us perhaps to believe sometimes what is an untruth.  
And if this be a truth, I conceive it may be of some good consequence. For first, so, those also may be rationally induced to 
§. 31.  yield obedience to the Church; who now think themselves to be clearly freed from it, unless it can first be showed them, that the Church is infallible in all her Propositions: neither will they (then) suppose themselves so easily discharged (by showing the contradictions of General Councils in some few matters perhaps) from their obedience in all other points, wherein these agree; or which some defining, none other have reversed, and the Church hath received in her general practice; or also wherein they find even a later Council contradicting a former. For if (as St. Austin saith) later Synods may amend and correct the former; they ought also, in what they amend them, to be submitted-to, non obstante the contradiction of the former. Secondly, so those, who have not opportunity of consulting the highest Tribunal, may not think their duty cancelled (excepting where they are certain) to other their Superiors and Spiritual Guides, because fallible or subordinate; nor will oppose so frequently to them, not the Dictates of an higher Court, but of their private judgement. When-as certainly this submission of our judgement and reason to a Superior, though fallible, authority, is a duty most acceptable to God, and which, though much unpractised by, and (I am afraid) quite unknown to, many Sectaries amongst Protestants; yet hath been always most religiously observed elsewhere in the Church of God by those who have been most eminent in piety: nothing conducing more to the preservation of truth, unity of minds, peace, security, and serenity of a man's conscience, and lastly to true humility, mortification, and self-denial, (there being no mortification, nor self-denial like this; and therefore perhaps so many refuse it, because there is nothing so much ourselves as our judgement): And again, the contrary thereof, as it is the fruit of pride and self-conceit; so, having been always the promoter of error, and mother of distraction and confusion. I cannot hear but set down two or three words of Mr. Hooker, 2. l. 7. sect. This opinion, saith he, (which T. Cartwright maintained against Councils, &c,) [that an argument of authority of Man is in matters divine nothing worth,] being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort, what it may grow into, * God knoweth; I may add, * we have seen.  
Now to show this Truth, 1. first, I must grant to you; That God hath obliged no man to believe a known-to-him error, or to 
§. 32.  believe an error quatenus error: for this I think is a contradiction in terminis; to believe that to be a truth which he knows (I do not say, which he thinks, or doubts) is not a truth: (the same may be said of obligation to the doing or practice of any thing certainly known to one to be unlawful,) and therefore I grant the consequence; That, if any be bound to believe or assent to a fallible Authority in all they determine for truth, either they de facto shall never determine an error; or at least a private man shall never certainly know that, which they determine, to be an error. 2ly. Again, this I hold most certain; That God cannot propose any error to be believed by us for a truth; for this would mainly oppose his veracity, as any impiety doth his holiness. And 3ly, I see not that God, in obliging to obedience of fallible Councils, can be said to have absolutely necessitated any to believe an error, though unknown to him to be so; unless we can say also, that God hath necessitated that Authority to err; for 'tis possible for one errable not actually to err.  
But (granting actual error of our Guides in some things) to come now to some stating of this matter: (which note, that it 
§. 33.  will be the same case in every thing concerning their injunctions of believing truths or falsities; and of doing things lawful, or unlawful.)  
1. First then, I am not obliged by God to obedience to any authority 
●● That no submission of Our judgement is due to the proposal of the Church, where we are infailibly certain of the contrary.  (inferior or supreme) in any thing, I certainly or infallibly know to be an error or unlawful. Some case therefore there is, which if it happen, I cannot be justly obliged to obey an authority fallible. Therefore I willingly assent to such sayings as that of Mr. Hooker, 2. l. 7. §. (quoted by Mr. Chillingworth, 5. c. 110. §. as if it weakened or qualified that Author's judgement elsewhere for submission to Church-Authority:) Although 10000 General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence, yet one demonstrative reason alleged, [demonstrative, that is, infallible,] or one manifest [truly manifest, not seeming so, for what Sect hath not their (called) demonstrations and manifest texts] testimony cited from the word of God himself to the contrary, could not choose but overweigh them all etc. Will any Catholic writer deny this? He may say further, If an Angel from Heaven etc. Let there be submission of judgement where such manifest texts and demonstrations are not, and all is well. And (again) I must grant that it follows not, from the Church's infallibility in Fundamentals or Necessaries being supposed, that therefore all are tied to assent to her in whatsoever she proposeth, if they can certainly know that she errs in any point; because than they certainly know that such point is not necessary, or fundamental; since in such necessaries she is granted to be infallible. Again, I grant, that if any can be certain that two General Councils do point-blank contradict one another, (though one of them is in the right) he may be certain that such point, wherein they contradict, is not fundamental; but yet nevertheless he is in such point to assent to the latter Council, unless he can infallibly demonstrate the contrary.  
2. Secondly, I am not obliged by God to obedience of assenting 
§. 34. 2. That no submission is due to an inferior person or court in matters whereof I have doubt, when I have a Superior to repair to for resolution.  or acting to any inferior Court or Magistrate, in a thing whereof I doubt only, whether it be truth, whether it be lawful; if there be any higher court, to whom I have opportunity to repair for better information: but if otherwise I am (notwithstanding my doubting) to acquiesce in the judgement of a lower court.  
3. Thirdly, to the supreme Ecclesiastical court, though supposed fallible in some things, I am obliged to obedience, both of assent and acting (at least in such a manner as is described before, §. 28.) in all things which are not certainly known by me to be errors, 
§. 35. 3. That submission of judgement is due to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court in any doubting whatever short of infallible certainty.  or unlawful. What do I gain by this for obedience to them? very much. For 1. if all, who cannot be sure that a General Council is erroneous in any point, must submit their assent to all; very few they will be (most men being ignorant, and not pretending at all to demonstrate against General Councils) that may withdraw it in any thing at all; and none at all in most things. But 2ly, by what way can any one in any thing be infallibly sure (not think only, or suppose that he is sure) that such a Council errs? By divine Revelation? But whence can he certainly know, that it is Divine? especially when these contrary to the proposals of the Church's supremest Council? By the Church? But that is She (in the way wherein only she is capable of delivering it) whose judgement he opposeth. By the Scriptures? Hath he any other (then), besides those the Church hath, and which she first recommended unto him? Or understands he them better? He, whoever pretends evidence of Scripture against the Church, in very deed objects only his own interpretation thereof against that of the Church; and for doing this methinks he might blush before so many Reverend Fathers. For suppose he find the contradictory to their decision totidem verbis in Scripture, words are capable of divers acceptions: and the true contradiction lies in the sense, not the terms. But than hath he well compared Scriptures? And is he sure that no other text is again totidem verbis contradictory to that he urgeth? If it be, than one place must not be understood as the letter soundeth; and then why not that which he presseth? I ask a Protestant; Is a Catholic presently infallibly certain, that the Protestant Synods are erroneous in denying of Christ's presence-corporal in the Sacrament, so soon as he reads the words, Hoc est Corpus meum? I could heap up many instances in this kind. But I would not have this so understood, as if I held, that a private man might not be sufficiently certain in many things, from the exceeding evidence and clearness of the Scriptures therein. But hardly, I say, shall he ever be so, in any such thing, where a General Council is not certain of the same, from the same so clear Scriptures; but (at least) thinks its self from these Scriptures (or notwithstanding them) certain of the contrary. Lastly, by Reason? But what arguments from their Reasons can counterpoise this, from the authority of so many of much greater reason? (Ipsa sola Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas argumentum est majoris ponderis, quam alia quaevis ratio, quia credendum judicamus quicquid maxim & vitam & societatem humanam dirigit ac conducit): Especially if this be considered, That as many matters of our faith are obscure, and exceeding the natural light of reason; so evidence of private judgement in them against the Church can hardly be so pressing and irresistible, as that he may not conform to her judgement). Again, what certainty can any presume-of in such a pretended demonstration, as being communicated and made known to others, yet convinceth none but himself? The authority even of Councils less than General (i. e. fallible) to punish dissenters from their decrees, (unless they have unjustly hitherto usurped it,) methinks argues their errors to be by private men not easily discoverable. But of this see more in Obligation of Judgement, §. 15. 22. etc. Trial of Doct. §. 14. Church-Governm. 2. part. §. 36. etc.  
It remains then that I go on to show; That, where we have not this infallible certainty, God hath obliged men to submit their 
§. 36.  own opinion to, and to acquiesce in, the judgement (though fallible) of those Superiors whom he hath appointed to guide them: and so per accidens hath obliged them to believe a falsity; so it be not certainly known to them to be false: or (as you say) to obey another in any thing, right or wrong; so long as it is not certainly known to them to be wrong, (and so long they know not, but that it is right); and that under pain of sinning against their duty. Obliged them, I say, not only for opinions, but actions, which depend on their opinions. For note, that if we owe no obedience of assent to any judgement fallible, lest they teach us something untrue; neither owe we to them any obedience of our actions, lest they command us something unlawful; or also lest we act something contrary to our conscience, which we never may. Again, To their Superiors, I say; if so be that they have no other higher Superiors (in respect of whom the authority of the inferior is always voided) whom in their doubtings they can repair-to, and consult; as in respect of General Councils, though they should be fallible, we have not a superior Director.  
1. First for such obedience due, not only to the supreme Synods or Courts, but also to inferior Spiritual Governors fallible, see the 
§. 37. Submission of judgement proved,  express divine command in many Scriptures, Heb. 13. 7, 9, 17. [whose faith follow.] Eph. 4. 11. etc. [Pastors and Teachers sent, that we might not be carried away with other doctrines than those which they 
1. From Scripture.  deliver.] Matt. 18. 15. etc. We appointed to hear the Church, upon penalty of being treated like Heathens, and of being bound as on Earth, so in Heaven. Acts. 20. 28, 29. The clergy appointed Episcopi to feed the flock; that must be, amongst other things, surely with their Doctrine, which is the Spiritual nourishment of the Flock not to be refused.— Luk. 10. 16. [He that hears them hears Christ, and the despiser of them despiseth Christ] To which may be added all those texts which authorise Ghurch-Governors to judge controversies, and inflict their censures upon false teachers, and spreaders of errors. 1 Tim. 4. 11. 6. 3, 5. Tit. 1. 11. 3. 10, 11. Acts 15. 2. etc. 1 Tim. 1. 20. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18. 4. 14, 15. Rev. 2. 2, 14, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 14. 29, 32. Again, all those texts wherein Christians are exhorted to note, and avoid, those that cause divisions. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2 Jo. 10. Again, those texts also wherein Christians are charged to be all of one judgement, (which cannot be but by adhering to the judgement of some one person or assembly); to speak the same thing. Not to be wise in their own conceit. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16. 15. 5, 6. Phil. 1. 27. 3. 16. Again, those texts which require Christians to acquiesce in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superior; who is not only the Apostle, but the Apostles Successors to the world's end. 1 Cor. 4. 16, 17.— 11. 1, 2. Phil. 3. 17. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14.— With which Successors is left the charge of continuing to the world the doctrine of their predecessors: 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 13, 14.— 2. 2. which texts see more largely explained, and the extent of obedience that is required in them, vindicated in Success. of Clergy.  
2. Secondly, after these Texts commanding obedience, and submission of judgement to the authority (but not to the Universal infallibility, 
§. 38. 2. From Reason.  for who will maintain this?) of all those Spiritual Superiors, who are thus to be obeyed; let us consider also the common practice in our Secular converse. Doth not there lie upon children an obligation of duty (especially in their minority) to yield the obedience of assent (for else they may not the obedience of their actions) to the rules and injunctions of their parents? That saying Col. 3. 20. doth it not either argue all parents infallible in what they teach or command? or that God hath bound children (not capable of repairing to an higher Director) to submit their judgement and actions to those who may guide them amiss? Again, whether no obligation of Scholars to their Masters, and those experienced in the Science they learn? I say, whether it is not a duty in these to yield their assent to them, not only for the charge they have of obedience; but also for the great disproportion of their judgements, though the other are not infallible, and may possibly teach them wrong; for there is no infallible Judge at all in the Sciences. The like instances may be made, in the People to their Pastor; the Penitent to his Confessor; the Christians to any Synod less than General: for these are all fallible. What mean those rules? Oportet discentem credere.— Unicuique credendum est in sua arte. To which I may add; That right reason binds any to yield faith to another, not only if infallible, but if (all circumstances considered) less fallible than himself. If these be dictates of right reason, what difference between this and the law of Nature? And again, what difference between that and the law of God?  
Many Scruples (I know), and demurs and difficulties usually arise in our minds, endeavouring to defeat such obedience and resignation 
§. 39 Several objections and scruples resolved.  of ourselves to another's authority when any way fallible. You will give me leave therefore, before I go further, to take notice of some of them, and to see whether they may not be rationally silenced. 1. First then, to this you may say; that wherever we doubt once, upon reasons no way satisfied, of any thing which such Governors enjoin, whether it be true, whether it be lawful, here we are quit from our obedience to them. R. True; if you have any other higher Judgement appointed to repair to, and accordingly deciding such doubt; in which case theirs is voided. But mark here, that thus you decline not their judgement, because fallible; but because you have another Director or Guide appointed less liable to error than they. But wherever this cannot be had, duty obligeth you not to follow your own, but your former Directors judgement: whose Faith follow. Heb. 13. 7. Will you restrain such Scripture-rules of obedience only to General Councils? But if not their judgement whom we have named, (in case you can attain to no higher Tribunal); whose doth your duty oblige you to follow? your own? But thus also then is it not your duty to follow a fallible judgement, which may guide you right or wrong? Tell me, hath not God obliged every one to follow his * own conscience right or wrong? Conscientia erronea obligat. From what law but God's? Obligat, because he doth not know that it is erroneous: how much more an * erring Council, whose mistakes he hath many times less means to find out, than those of his own conscience? One therefore that in a doubt cannot have the solution of a Superior court infallible, (aswho can have it in every matter of faith or practice he scruples at, it either not sitting, or too remote, or not at leisure to satisfy all Queries;) ought to acquiesce in the judgement of an inferior guide. Doth not a child offend against his duty, if he should say to his Father, or a plebeian to his learned Pastor; Since you are fallible, I will not follow yours, but my own, judgement? Doth not natural prudence guide him, in two, liable to error, to follow him, who, all circumstances considered, is likely to be the less fallible? or is He further from fallibility if he guide himself? But if you will acknowledge a submission and obedience to their judgement in some only, not in all things; since they may in something guide you amiss: I ask (then) in what things it is, that you think fit to obey them? In what you approve and like of? But this is primarily not obeying their, but your own, judgement. Therefore, in things also which you do not approve? But this (for any thing I know) is obeying in all things. But if you say; that you would have men also yield in some things not altogether approved by them; yet not in things whereof they have much doubt, or wherein they think themselves, as it were, sure of the contrary, (for if they be absolutely sure, I yield to you): Still thus you open a gap large enough to let all out of the fence of obedience; and the more ignorant, soon; for they knowing little or nothing to the contrary, think themselves sure of every thing they say.  
2. But secondly, you will ask, if I ought to obey in things I approve 
§. 40.  not, Am not I thus obliged to go against my conscience, which was said but now, though erroneous, to oblige me? This is answered, I think, sufficiently in a discourse concerning what obligation we have to follow our own judgement, §. 2. n. 3. to which I I refer you, and is spoken to below, §. 46. Again, you will say, Do not we thus take away all use of our own judgement, in things wherein our Superiors lay their injunctions upon us? R. Yes: the use of our judgement against the Supreme. Again; all use of our judgement, not for reasoning or proposing difficulties, perhaps in some things to that supreme Judgement to be further confirmed in truth; but at least all judgement, from such difficulties, pronouncing and defining against such Authority. But neither is this restraint of our judgements (which see more fully discoursed of in Church-Govern. 3. part. §. 39) by the Determinations of Councils (if these observed to the uttermost) so great as to some it seems; if they well consider how few, and cautelous, and sparing their decisions are, in comparison of the voluminous Theological questions agitated amongst Christians, even before the sitting of such Councils. For how few, and how lax, and general do we find the decisions of the last Council of Trent, (not thought to be the most impartial) in comparison of the many questions proposed in the Schools (and hotly agitated in those times) about Grace and freewill; Justification, Merit, [without mention at all of such terms as de congruo, or de condigno,] about Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Transubstantiation, & c? not to name here the present point of Infallibility. Therefore are those even accused by Protestants to swarm with opposition and diversity of opinions; all whom they yet do grant to yield a captived judgement and undisputing obedience to all the Canons of Councils. But if, as when Councils define nothing in points controverted, we argue their ignorance, and want of divine assistance to discern the truth; so, when they define any thing, we complain of their tyranny in restraining our judgements, How shall they please us? Our judgement hath a field of matter, large enough to exercise it self-in, without practising and trying its skill upon the determinations of Councils; and if it were yet more directed and regulated by them, had no reason to complain, since those who have been more prone by it, to call all things into question, and to examine both the foundations and superstructures of the received Christian faith, have showed us sad examples of the most miserable failings thereof, and frequent falls from most evident truths. Qui amat periculum, peribit in illo. But as here is objected the taking away of our judgement, so consider whether something worse follows not on the other side; namely, the taking away of all obedience to Superiors; not only in submission of our judgement, but actions, which must follow the judgement. For, as I said before, and have showed more fully elsewhere, that can be no obedience or submission to them, when we yield to their judgements, because they agree with ours; or because they have with clear arguments convinced ours: for so we yield to a Counsellor, a companion, and cannot do otherwise. As long as this proposition stands firm, That General Councils have greater light and evidence of truth, than particular men; how can it be less than duty to submit to them, though not altogether infallible? But since in the necessary and chief points infallible, and these points no way perfectly distinguishable by us from the rest, how much more reason yet have we? The same thing (as dictated by common prudence) we see practised in temporal courts; where, in controversies arising, to know what is the law of the Kingdom, or the intent thereof, or what is not, the people are referred to submit to the judgement of some others experienced in those laws, though not infallible; and sometimes contradicting one another. Why should the children of this world be wiser than the children of light?  
But 3ly, you will reply to this, that in such a business, at least concerning your eternal salvation, you dare not rely upon others, 
§. 41.  nor trust any but yourself; and that it is safest for you to depend on God's word, and not on any human authority. R. I answer first, that the breach of God's express command (such is that of your obedience in these things to your Spiritual Superiors, see §. 37.) can be no good way to secure your Salvation. 2ly. This is just as if, in a difficult passage, wherein (mistaking) you may incur some danger of your life, (such are the Scriptures in several things, 2 Pet. 3. 16.) having Guides appointed well experienced in the way to direct you, and of whom you are assured that they cannot misguide you into any dangerous precipice, you should say; I do not think fit to make use of a Guide, save in a way where there is no danger. But why so? because you are more faithful to yourself than others may be. But then so much reason as you have to trust to yourself as the most faithful, so little have you to trust to yourself as not being the most able, guide. As for your not depending on human authority, but only on the word of God: you say something, if that word could never be mistaken in the sense, nor alleged amiss. See Mr. Hooker's Answer to Cartwright on this point Eccles. Pol. 2. l. 7. sect. The force of Arguments drawn from Scripture etc. So that now and then they ground themselves on humane authority, even when they most pretend divine. Even such as are readiest to cite for one thing 500 sentences of H. Scripture, what warrant have they, that any one of them doth mean the thing for which alleged? etc.  
But 4ly, here you will reply: That surely God's wisdom in matters concerning Salvation hath provided some way or other 
§. 42.  whereby we may certainly know the truth. R. What truth mean we? If necessary: so he hath; in this General Councils err not. If all truths whatsoever: there are many truths not only Natural, but Theological, for which all grant that there is no infallible Judge to be had. If the truth of all those things which shall be proposed by a General Council. Why so? Why may not God order them (in their fallibility in such things) to use the same prudence for ending troublesome and violent contests, that any other temporal Courts do? And since in these, from God, as in the other, from the King, the people have an injunction unlimited, in all things to hear them; why may not they punish the rebellious?  
5. But yet lastly, if such be fallible in any thing (you may say,) 
§. 43.  there will be some error, of which there can be no remedy; because they are unappealable. R. Not so: For in such things as former Councils may err in, none denies but that latter Councils may correct them. Only such will be errors indeed that private men cannot remedy: and what matters all this, I pray, if these errors be not committed in things necessary; as ('tis showed before) they never can be? Again, why are such Councils willingly granted by all to be unappealable in other things wherein they may err, i. e. in matters of fact? Nay, why, if some make them infallible in judging all truths, so may not some others think it fit they should be so in all causes that come before them; all which are afterward remediless? But also in those doctrinals, where, because no anathemas are affixed, Bellarmin saith, Non est certum si sint de fide, (and so neither is it certain whether the Church in them may not err); yet is not in these submission of judgement required? For if we withdraw this, how if it should happen that they are de fide? The same may be said in general: That if the Church, being infallible only in things de fide, hath made no clear distinction of these points from the rest, 'tis plain she obligeth us to the same submission in points where she may be fallible.  
3. This having been said from §. 39 to remove such scruples and demurs as we ordinarily use to make for the not yielding up and 
§. 44. 3. From the testimony of learned Protestants.  resigning in any thing of our own private judgement, 3ly. to show you, That the duty of submission of judgement to an Authority fallible, in all things wherein we are not certain that it errs is no Paradox, I will produce you therein the consentient doctrine both of Catholic and Protestant writers, of no mean note. 1. For Protestants, see the quotations out of Bishop White, Archbishop Laud, Dr. Jackson, in Church-Government, 2. Part. §. 36. Oblige. of Judgement, §. 29. 30. 'tis too tedious to repete them here. To which I will here add that eminent testimony of Mr. Hooker, (in his Preface, the 6th. Sect. throughout,) who writing against Puritans, there speaks much of submission of private opinion to the determinations of Ecclesiastical Authority. The place is well worth your reading, as likewise the 2. l. 7. sect. which Mr. Chillingworth produceth as a qualification of this passage in Hooker pressed by F. Knot. But I can see no such matter in that Section, which proves against Cartwright the validity of Humane Authority, where is no infallible demonstration against it; see especially the latter end of that Section. To return to the former.  
Mr. Hooker there quotes Deut. 17. 8. etc. where he hath these words. God was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges, whose 
§: 45.  sentence in matters of controversy he ordained should stand, both might, and oftentimes would, be deceived in their judgement. Howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding, that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail, till the same Authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it; than that strifes should have respite to grow, and not come speedily to some end. [And there he answers the Objection; That men must do nothing against conscience, saying,] Neither wish we that men should do any thing, which in their hearts they are persuaded they ought not to do; but we say this persuasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts, that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality, [that is (as I conceive) where they have no infallible certainty, but only probability, see the end of 2. l. 7. sect.] the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and final Decision shall determine. [Now they are to do nothing, but what they are persuaded in their hearts that they may do, when the Judge in some cases determines the lawfulness of a thing, though they may do many things which they may think still that they are unjustly obliged by the Judge to do, as when the Judge determines something to be their duty which is not:] yea though it seem in their private opinion [i. e. according to their own reason, and arguments drawn ex parte rei] to swerve utterly from that which is right: as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jews did unto one or other part contending: and yet, in this case God did then allow them to do that, which in their private judgement it seemed, yea and perhaps truly seemed, that the law did disallow. For if God be not the Author of confusion, but of peace etc. [Where note; that whatever Mr. Hooker means by that limitation, [controverted causes of such quality,] yet the Commission (Deut. 17.) extends to the Priest's interpreting to the people, and giving the sense of the law, in whatever matters should be controverted; (as also it is more clearly expounded afterward in 2 Chron. 19 5, 8, 10, 11. where it runs,— What causes soever shall come to you of your Brethren, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgements, ye shall etc.) And, Thou shalt do or practise according to whatever they show thee, requires not only a passive, willingly paying the mulcts, or undergoing the punishments, but active, obedience. Again, an active obedience; not only in doing of something to which I think I am not in duty obliged, as paying 100ls. to one, upon their sentence, to whom I never owed any thing; which I may do without believing their sentence therein to be true or just; but in doing also of something, where the lawfulness of it is questioned, which thing also here by the text I am to do, if they command me, as well as the former: and yet which thing I may not do, unless I believe, either their sentence therein to be true, and the thing in general lawful to be done, or at least lawful for me, rebus sic stantibus, their sentence past, to do it; i. e. unless I believe, that though it be against God's law that they command me, (since they may err), yet God excuseth or holdeth me guiltless in doing it, in that he hath peremptorily obliged me to adhere to their sentence and judgement, not my own. So that in any thing they once determine lawful, whatever my opinion was of it before, yet now I am obliged to believe it lawful for me to do it, since I am commanded by God to obey them in doing it, and may do nothing at any time against my conscience, and whilst I hold such thing unlawful to be done by me.] And again:— Not that I judge it a thing allowable for men to observe those laws, which in their hearts they are steadfastly persuaded to be against the law of God; but your persuasion in this case [i. e. where Superiors have determined otherwise] you are bound for the time [i. e. till the same Authority reverse it] to suspend &c, unless they have an infallible demonstration. [And there he shows, against pretence, (in every thing) of a Demonstration.]— An Argument necessary and demonstrative is such, as being proposed unto any man, and understood, the mind [i. e. of him that heareth it] cannot choose but inwardly assent. Which trial of a demonstration Archbishop Laud also allows, §. 32. n. 5. 'tis no demonstration then, as long as those think notwithstanding it, they have cause to descent, to whom I propose it.  
But when you have read these things in Hooker, look on Mr. 
§. 46.  Chillingworth's Answer, 5. cap. 109, 110. sect. etc. to me seeming very unsatisfactory. First there Dr. Potter saying [it is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public;] Mr. Chillingworth defends him thus: Dr. Potter by judgement means not his reason or Scripture, as Mr. Knot imagines the sense of it, (for these he may oppose to the public,) but his bare authority. But search Dr. Potter, p. 105. and you will see he speaks both of Reason and Scripture. Then coming to Mr. Hooker, Mr. Chillingworth expounds what he saith on Deut. 17. 8. not of yielding assent to the judgement of the Judge, or any active obedience (which presupposeth assent); but of obedience of suffering only the sentence of the Judge, and paying the mulcts he (though unjustly) lays upon them. But 1. did no other sentences pass in the Sanedrim about the law, but concerning satisfactions and punishments? Did none of their judgements command the doing of such a thing; the observing of such a fast; the offering of such a Sacrifice; marrying or forbearing to marry such a woman? wherein those (saith Mr. Hooker) were to do as the Judge decided; those, who thought, and perhaps truly, that the law disallowed it; that to the like purpose he might urge the Puritans to wear a Surplice &c, after the Ecclesiastical Magistrate had commanded it, though it seemed to their private opinion unlawful. For that he speaketh of opinion, and active, not passive obedience, (which passive obedience the Puritans willingly granted, and was out of controversy), 'tis plain; in that he saith, that such a sentence once passed was ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience to build the duty of obedience upon, whatsoever his own opinion were, as touching the matter before in question. And in the close of the Section he saith; God, the Author of peace, must needs be the Author of those men's peaceable resolutions, who concerning these things [i. e. where is no infallible demonstration to the contrary] have determined with themselves to do and think as the Church they are of decreeth, till they see necessary cause enforcing them to the contrary. And this is plain also out of the places which he urgeth: that place in the 17. Deut. and the injunction of the Council Act. 15. For Acts 15. speaks of active obedience (abstaining from blood, etc.) which always supposeth precedent opinion of the lawfulness thereof. And Deut. 17. runs thus: If there arise a matter too hard for thee etc. Thou shalt do according as they shall show thee: Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee etc. And the same is set down after the same manner 2 Chron. 19 10. And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren between blood and blood; between law and commandment; statutes and judgements; ye shall even warn them, that they trespass not against the Lord etc. Certainly these places may not be restrained only to the patient undergoing of the punishment sentenced by the Judge for the nonobservance of his decrees, or of that which he saith is Law.  
Another part of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer is, that Mr. Hooker 
§. 47.  limits the matters, wherein they were to yield obedience, to the injunctions of Authority; namely, to such matters, as have plain Scripture or Reason, neither for, nor against them; and wherein men go only upon their own probable collection: which I grant. But this plain Scripture and Reason (as Mr. Hooker expresseth it) is a really infallible argument or demonstration; and not such pretended. For the Puritans also pretended they had most plain reason and Scripture for the things wherein they were unconformable. Now if Mr. Hooker here requires submission in all such points, where there is no infallible argument to the contrary, (whether he intended it or no, &c); in very few or no matters can such submission be denied, especially to a General Council: neither do we find in Mr. Hooker's proof Deut. 17. 8. any restrictions of obedience of submission only to certain points where they had not plain law or reason to the contrary.  
Now in the last place to consider his main answer to those words of Mr. Hooker. [The will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the 
§. 48.  sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine, yea though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right.] Here (answereth Mr. Chillingworth) he saith men are bound to do whatsoever etc. but he says not they are bound to think that determination lawful, and that sentence just, [giving an instance of a man cast wrongfully at law, and sentenced to pay an 100l.] I answer, in some sentences or judgements this, which Mr. Chillingworth saith, is true: viz. where they enjoin me a thing to which I think I am not obliged, which I may cedere meo jure, and do, though I do not think their determination right and just: and so it is in the instance he giveth. But in some other sentences it is false, viz. when they enjoin me an action, the lawfulness whereof is questioned. For since I may never do a thing believed unlawful for me to do; therefore here I must either believe their determination for my doing it just and right; or I must not do it. Now, as I said before, this I may believe, either by believing the thing in itself lawful, which they judge so; or at least, that it is lawful for me to do it rebus sic stantibus, though the thing in general prohibited or unlawful to be done without such circumstances; because God hath peremptorily obliged me to obey their sentence, though in some things errable. As may be showed in many instances which were decidable by such Judges. For example; a controversy ariseth between a bounden servant and his master, whether he is to obey his Master's command in watering his cattle on the Sabbath day? The Servant arguing from Exod. 20. 10. In it thou shalt not do any work, &c, that it is by God prohibited. Here, upon the Judge's sentence, well weighing this text with other Scriptures, I say, the Servant is bound by them to water his Master's cattle, and therefore bound to think it lawful to do so; none being obliged to do what he thinks unlawful to do; for Conscientia erronea obligat. The same it is, if any one upon Levit. 18. 16. refusing to marry the wife of his brother deceased without issue, making some false gloss upon Deut. 25. 5. should receive a command from these Judges to marry her. My last instance shall be in the very matter whereof Mr. Hooker discourseth; though Mr. Chillingworth avoided it. The Church of England passeth a sentence in the supreme Ecclesiastical court, That every Minister in celebrating Divine Service shall wear a Surplice. Here I say a Puritan may not do what the judicial sentence hath determined &c, by no means, unless he first think or believe the determination of the Council lawful, i. e. That his doing this (namely wearing the Surplice) is not against the law of God. The reason is, because here they enjoin him the doing of that, of which the question is, whether to do it be lawful. But had they enjoined him to pay a mulct for not wearing a Surplice, than the question is not, whether he may lawfully pay this mulct; for unusquisque potest cedere de suo jure, and he who doth this thing, is supposed to be satisfied in this point, that he may cedere suo jure; but only whether that court had a just and legal cause, for which they enjoined this mulct; which, as to the point of lawful, concerns them, but not him at all. But had the law said, or did such a one mulcted doubt whether the law had said, no man shall submit to any mulct or punishment, which he thinks the Judge unjustly sentenceth him to; then must he not pay the mulct till he thought the determination lawful. A sentence therefore may be conceived unjust two ways: 1. Either in enjoining men to do a thing, which the law (as they conceive) hath prohibited to be done: such a thing may never be done, as long as the sentence is thought unjust. i e. Enjoining them to do what the law prohibits to be done. Or 2ly, in enjoining men to do what the law hath prohibited the Judge in such a case to enjoin; but not the others in any case to do: though to do such a thing in such a point ought not to have been imposed. Here the judged doubtless may obey the sentence, whilst he thinks it unjust. To make things plain, I fear I am too tedious. See more of this matter in Success. Clergy.  
Mr. Chillingworth goes on to show an impossibility, that such a 
§. 49.  yielding to judgement against our private opinion can be. His words are; If you will draw Mr. Hooker's words to such a construction, as if he had said, [they must think the sentence of a judicial and final decision just and right, though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right]: it is manifest you make him contradict himself, and make him say in effect; They must think thus, though at the same time they think the contrary. Thus far he. To this I have spoken more fully in the following Discourse §. 2. To make Contradictories, the terms in both Propositions must be taken exactly in the same sense; else they will be only verbally so. As, I will show you this to be, after I have first premised this, That taking thinking in the latter Proposition for infallibile certainty, (but 'tis clear Mr. Hooker means no such thing), the words imply a true contradiction: for he, who saith he believes, for any authority whatsoever, humane or (per impossibile) divine, contrary to what he is infallibly certain of, saith he believes what he believes not; or what he cannot believe. So that where there is infallible certainty, it voids all argument from Authority: neither can any one say, I do or will submit my judgement to such or such, in a point, whereof he is sure. But let thinking therefore or private opinion be taken in any degeee below absolute certainty, and then I think that expression, had it been Mr. Hooker's, (as it is, though not totidem terminis) is far from contradiction. To show which, give me leave to change this word think in the latter proposition into some other words, which yet are plainly what Mr. Hooker means by thinking; and you shall see they will be very well consistent. I think or believe, from the argument of the authority, prudence, &c, of such persons, their determination of such a point to be right, though all the arguments I have from seeming reason of the thing, or from that sense which I conceive of Scripture, incline me to think that such a determination is not right. Now I suppose (as the terms are here explained) none will deny; That one may think or believe a thing to be truth, not against his belief or thinking, but against all arguments which are drawn from his seeming natural reason or otherwise (except that ab authoritate); if these do not amount to infallible certainty: or, that a man may yield an assent of belief in respect of authority, contrary to his assent of evidence in respect of the thing; so that evidence be in any degree below infallible certainty. Else we must deny, that we can believe any mystery of faith, which seems to us contrary to natural reason, (see Rom. 4. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 10. 5.); and these two propositions will contradict also, I believe or think such a thing a divine truth from divine authority delivering it, though my natural reason inclines me to think or believe the contrary. Doth a man speak a contradiction, if he say to a Scholar or a child, Do not believe or give credit to your own reason, (meaning by it the reasons or arguments his brain suggests to him about such a matter,) but to the judgement or directions of your father or master? for your reason (that is considering another argument of the prudence and experience of his father or master &c, or of the command which God hath given him to obey them) teacheth you, that you, (subject) or you (unskilled) should yield to their judgement. Thus may not one truly say: For this reason I think such a thing is so; but for such a reason again, I think it is not so? Else how come any to doubt? Now when one sort of these reasons is a natura rei, such as his own brain suggests to him, and the other ab authoritate; and this ab authoritate sways, and is the more powerful with him; then may he be said to side with authority against his private opinion or judgement. But then here by private opinion or judgement is meant, not simply that which is so, (i. e.) as he now assents to authority, (for two contrary judgements or opinions swaying him none can have): but that which (abstracting from authority &c) from other reasons his opinion or judgement would be professed to be, should any one demand it. But indeed whilst against such reasons he yields to authority, (and yield he may, wherever such reasons are conjectural or less than certain) his private judgement simply considered is the same with the public judgement of that authority: and such a one (suppose a Catholic, that is persuaded that he ought to assent to all the Church shall decree) should he notwithstanding against this follow his own private reason or reasons, (which may be many times contrary to such decree, as also they are sometimes to divine mysteries) may rightly be said, in this doing, to go against his judgement or conscience. But if a man cannot submit his judgement against his private opinion; then cannot a Council justly oblige any to believe any thing, though never so necessary and clear a point; unless they know first, that his private reason is not against it: for they may not oblige him to impossibilities. But how often is this done by them, even the four first (generally allowed), and that under Anathema? And St. Austin also writ a Treatise, De Utilitate Credendi, (he means of believing the Authority of that Church, which was found first to be the Church Catholic), from seeing the great benefit that came by this captivating our reason to authority; by which act of believing he observed (Epist. 48.) men not unfrequently came at length to be assured also by true reason of those things, which first they believed only from authority. Quamdiu intelligere sincera non possumus, authoritate quidem decipi miserum est; sed certe miserius non moveri. Si enim Dei Providentia non praesidet rebus humanis, nihil est de religione satagendum. Sin vero etc. non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam, qua (velut gradu incerto) innitentes attollamur in Deum. Haec autem [authoritas] seposita ratione, quam sinceram intelligere, ut saepe diximus, difficillimum stultis est, dupliciter nos movet, partim miraculis, partim sequentium multitudine. De Util. Cred. 16. c. This he writ to a Manichean; endeavouring to persuade him, in religione turpe non esse credere, antequam scire. Thus much of the possibility of thinking or believing a judicial determination right, when it seems in our private opinion (as explained above) not so. But note here, that I do not extend our yielding assent to authority against private reasons (in all matters whenever this assent is given) to a necessary belief in all such things, that what they say is absolutely just, and right; but this our assent is capable of less degrees; as a belief, that what they say is more likely or probable to be so; or also, that it is more safe for me to err with them, as long as I am not, by any private reason, infallibly certain that they err, but have reason to think they do not err; than to oppose their authority perhaps with the retaining of a truth, but to me uncertain.  
Thus much of Mr. Hooker's testimony, and the justification 
§. 50.  thereof against Mr. Chillingworth's exposition. See also Dr. Potter, speaking the same thing much-what with Mr. Hooker, sect. 4. p. 105. where, after he hath said, It is not lawful for a private man to oppose his judgement to the public, he adds, He may offer his contrary opinion to be considered of etc. but if he will factiously advance his own conceits, [conceits, I suppose he means that which seems reason, and the sense of Scripture to him, yet of which he is not infallibly certain. Advance, i. e. against the contrary determinations of the Church,] and despise the Church so far as to cast off her communion; he may be justly condemned for a Schismatic, [for casting off her communion,] yea and an Heretic also [i. e. for advancing his own conceits] in some degree, and in foro exteriori; though his opinion were true, and much more if it be false. Heretic in some degree, and in foro exteriori: Sure Dr. Potter saith, he is this, because he allows him someway faulty in factiously advancing his own conceits against the Church; and then I ask, why is he not an heretic, or (if that name may not be so used) guilty of an equal crime in foro interiori too? For what great difference is there between him, that, having no sufficient reason for it, obstinately defends against the Church's determination that which happens (but is not to him certainly known, or by him proved) to be a truth; and him that obstinately defends an error? Those reasons which such a one hath, but short of certainty, I grant, afford him some, but not a sufficient, excuse of his opposition.  
This for Protestants. Next for Catholics, that they also allow a submission of judgement to an Authority fallible. See what Bellarmin, who holds that particular Councils are fallible, yet saith 
§. 51. 4. From the testimony of learned Catholics.  concerning submission of judgement to these errable. (de Council 2. l. 10. c.) Etsi hoc judicium non sit prorsus infallibile, tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum. And— tamen debent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio; & si secus egerint, merito excommunicantur, donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica Sedes, vel Concilium Universal. Therefore if these have formerly decreed nothing contrary, we are to submit to it, until they shall. Again. There is no reason of non-acquiescing to such a sentence, but only the contrary judgement of a superior Court; therefore if the Court be supreme, there is no reason at all. Again, Quod Concilium particulare facit argumentum adeo probabile, ut temerarium sit ei non acquiescere, planum est: (and before he saith▪ ex communi sententia Catholicorum asserimus,) quia si aliquot sancti Patres casu in eandem sententiam convenientes faciunt argumentum probabile; quanto magis 50 aut 60 Episcopi simul convenientes, & invocato Spiritu Sancto aliquid communi consensu statuentes?— Faciunt argumentum probabile, therefore by acquiescence here, is not meant only a passive submission to their censure; nor yet that of silence only, and noncontradiction; which in any things of practice sufficeth not: for unless one do what they command, he cannot be said to acquiesce in their sentence; neither may any exteriorly act that, to the lawfulness whereof he doth not inwardly assent.  
See Dr. Holden, who holding, that in some doctrines of less moment a general Council may possibly err, yet exacts obedience 
§. 52.  notwithstanding to those Decrees we think such, de resol. fid. 1. l. 9 c. Veruntamen quando a Conciliis Generalibus ad evitandum schisma & pacem in Ecclesia conservandam definitae fuerint hujusce naturae & conditionis veritates (he speaks of those in which there is not certitudo ab omni erroris periculo immunis) eorum decretis obediendum esse novit unusquisque Ecclesiae Catholicae vere Filius. He goes on. Quaeret hic forsitan aliquis curiosius, an liceat hujusmodi decreta interno saltem mentis actu in dubium revocare? Cui respondeo. Quod imprudentis & superbientis animi indicium esset haec dubitatio, aut saltem hujusce dubitationis publica significatio. Ad quid enim valet supremi tribunalis judicium etc. si cuilibet subdito aeque liberum foret post ultimum denunciatum litis judicium ac antea, oppositum censere & publice praedicare? An discipulus supra magistrum? nun unicuique in sua arte credendum? etc. See the like in S. Clara's Systema Fid. 20. c. And thus Mr. Cressy, c. 33. Such Decisions many Catholics conceive, are not in so eminent a manner the necessary objects of Christian faith, because not delivered as of Universal tradition. But however an extreme temerity it would be in any particular man to make any doubt of the truth of them, and unpardonable disobedience to reject them; now in matters of practice, not to obey in doing them, is to reject them. If in such decisions an error should happen, since it &c, it were far better such an error should pass, till (as St. Austin saith) some later Council amended it, than that unity should be dissolved for an unnecessary truth. Lastly, 'tis commonly said, that in a point controverted, and not yet determined by any Council, a man's private judgement ought to be swayed by the stream or major part of Catholic writers; yet are not these fallible? The same thing is ordinarily said of submitting our judgement to the Fathers in all things, wherein we find the most of them to agree: yet are not they liable to error? But those of the Church of Rome, that submit their judgement to a General Council, and cannot prove it to be infallible, (as doubtless some of the simpler sort cannot), do not so many submit to a Council, for any thing they know, fallible? and yet they should offend, if do otherwise. For such submissions not the pretence of infallibility, but the dictates of common Prudence are used and thought suffici-  
Thus much of the Duty of obedience to all the decrees of General Councils, though these Councils be some way fallible; wherein I 
§. 53.  have spoken of the obligation and rationalness of assent to their doctrines, in case of our uncertainty of the contrary to be truths. But remember, that here I do not undertake to determine whether the Church (thinking it fit perhaps to leave to her subjects, in points of less consequence, and such as are speculative, more liberty of enjoying their own judgement, so that only they disturb not her peace, nor make faction) hath only in some points of evident and universal tradition, and more necessary consequence and practice, required the submission of judgement, and profession of assent and belief, &c, under the peril of Anathema, * where perhaps she expresseth herself in such terms as these: Si quis non confitetur;— non profitetur;— constanter tenendum;— firma fide credendum;— nemo salva fide dubitare debet, &c: And again, whether in many other points of less necessity, and not so common tradition, (though perhaps certain deduction from those which are so) she hath, for only the preserving of her peace, required the obedience and submission only of Noncontradiction and silence, or Non-profession of the contrary, under Anathema likewise; * where she expresseth herself, Si quis dixerit, (the most usual form in her Anathema's), without any firmiter tenendum affixed to the contrary truth. I meddle not to decide, whether in the prohibition of the affirming an error, the Church's intention doth not always involve the profession of the contrary truth▪ or, whether all her anathemas are not set only to points necessary to be believed; but some to points fit not to be contradicted: some anathemas for consent; some for peace and silence. Again, I attempt not to resolve here, whether under the former of these (the requiring of assent) she means an internal plenary act of faith, which perhaps is not in every man's power at all times, (faith having a great latitude of strength or weakness according to the repugnancies of some verisimilities of the contrary, running in a man's mind not fully settled and convinced, and many times some mixture of unbelief, Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief); or else, whether she means only a submissive endeavour and willingness to believe and assent to her propositions. In these things I can determine nothing: neither, if I have before argued that we may rationally yield in such points more than the least of these submissions, therefore will I deny that the Church may, or doth require only the less; as I cannot on the other side affirm, that she hath not required the more. But surely no more duty needs be paid to avoid her anathemas, than she chargeth us with, though she claim not all her due: nor is more (if so much) necessary to salvation to be believed, than she exacteth of us to be believed.  
To conclude this discourse. 1. Infallibility of the Church in all necessaries [be they clear revelations, and points traditional, or consequential; 
§. 54. Conclusion.  consequential clearly or not clearly deducted from the former; provided, that they be necessary to attain salvation for to be known, or believed, or practised by all Christians] is not denied: being had either by evidence of Tradition or assistance of the Spirit from the promise of our Saviour; who fails not to guide the Church in all such truths for ever, that she may in these also for ever securely guide others.  
2ly likewise, at least for the most of these truths, namely such as 
§. 55.  are of universal tradition, or natural and immediate consequences thereof, not only certitudo objecti, but subjecti is granted: not only that de facto the Church cannot err in them, but that she knows she doth not err in them. For it follows not, that if the Church may err in something, and not know that she errs, therefore she cannot know or be sure but that she errs in every thing; unless first it be showed that she knows all things from an equal evidence.  
But 3ly, these two not hindering, infallibility general in all things which the Church shall propose or decide, (unless it can be proved 
§. 56.  that all hitherto passed in the General Councils is only necessaries; or that she can determine nothing unnecessary to salvation) I see not that it is, nor any need that it should be, affirmed; neither from our Saviour's promise, (which we have no reason to extend beyond necessaries,) neither from the force of those reasons which are well urged by some to prove General Councils infallible in necessaries, but are faulty if any will apply them to an infallibility General.  
The chief of which reasons I think are these. The 1. A Generali Concilio appellari non potest, [which is granted,] unde apertissime 
§. 57  sequitur non errare. Nam alioquin iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos, ut non appellent ab eo judicio quod erroneum esse potuit. R. The argument is good for points de fide necessaria, but no further: for by this reason the same Councils could not err in judging particular causes and matters of fact; for from a General Council in these also is no appeal, unless in infinitum, to the same court. Again, some points there are in Non-necessaries wherein General Councils are granted liable to error, by those Authors who urge this argument for infallibility; as is showed before §. 9 But yet there can no appeal be made from them, and peremptory obedience is required to be yielded to them in these. Lastly, supposing that no court were infallible, yet unappealable some must be, that contests and strifes may have an end. As also it is no less in temporal courts for temporal causes, though these courts fallible. Therefore from unappealableness doth not follow infallibleness.  
2. The Second: Haeretici sunt, & excommunicandi omnes, qui non acquiescunt Conciliis plenariis:— & haec Concilia dicunt Anathema contradicentibus: 
§. 58.  but anathemas and Excommunications for contrary opinions proceed only from the Council's infallibility. R. Not always from infallibility; for such things are done by Councils less than General, (and therefore fallible,) and lawfully (see Bell. 2. l. 10. c.) done by plenary Councils in cases wherein fallible. Anathema's always (where lawfully used) argue, in some authority, in others a duty of submission to it; and are lawfully used, for any thing I know, by particular, as well as general, Councils; and against the Schismatical, for smaller matters or opinions disturbing the peace of the Church after dubious things determined, as well as against the Heretical for necessary and certain points of faith denied. As for applying the word Heretic to those who oppose things established in General Councils, it is granted that such Council is infallible in all fundamental, or absolutely necessary truths. If therefore it be affirmed, that it never defines any points, but such; it is granted to be infallible in whatever it defines: and this proof thereof, taken from the opposers thereof their being called Heretics, may be spared. But if we suppose, that a General Council may define or determine some points which are not such; then the word Heretic must be a little better examined, before any thing for infallibility of Councils can be proved from it. For either he is said to be an Heretic, who knowingly opposeth any definition whatever of a Council proposed under Anathema etc. though it be not in a fundamental or necessary point of faith: but if thus, than we cannot argue the Council infallible in every thing; because he that opposeth her in any thing is accounted an Heretic. Or he is an heretic only, who opposeth such a Council, not in any, but such definitions, as are made in matters of necessary faith: But if thus, than we must know Conciliary Definitions exactly, which are such, which are not, before we can know whether the opposer thereof be an heretic; neither can we prove the Council Universally infallible, because he who opposeth it thus in some points, is heretical.  
3. The 3d. If the Church be not infallible in all that she proposeth, none could have any certainty of his faith; which faith he must 
§. 59  receive and learn from the Church. R. Yes, he that believeth the Church in all she saith, will still have a certainty, (I mean, for the certitudo objecti), and will be free from error in all necessary faith, which is sufficient, if the Church be in the proposal of all necessary points of faith infallible; which is affirmed. But as for certitudo subjecti, i. e. his being certain that in all such points he is free from error, (which concerns not this place), I refer you to those fuller Notes about it, Concerning the necessary ground of Saving Faith.  
4. But fourthly, though Universal infallibility &c may perhaps not be made good by these, or any other reasons: yet I think, by what 
§. 60.  I have said, it appears, That none may from this not proved, or his proving the contrary, think himself discharged of his obedience, which is due upon other grounds sufficient without this; namely, 1. * upon her Supremacy, and unappealableness, (whom Christ hath commanded him to hear and repair to as his guide and governor, under pain of being treated, as a Heathen and Publican was amongst the Jews;) and 2. * upon her Infallibility in all necessaries, by which there is no danger to him for any error or mis-practice, wherein she may misled him; neither will God for such error call him to account; but let him certainly expect this, if deserting his guide he doth misled himself: and 3. * besides these, upon the dictate of common and natural prudence, according to which none may justly withdraw his belief and submission of judgement, to those of the greatest skill and integrity in the things, wherein he wants instruction, merely upon this pretence, that every man may possibly err, or lie to him. Suppose he thinks that he is infallibly certain in some thing, that that which she teacheth him is false; yet thus will his obedience be still obliged, and kept entire for † most points, as with which at least he may not dispense for any lesser scruples and doubtings, but apparent counter-demonstrations: but perhaps for † all points, if he please to examine his own knowledge, (who goes upon no evidence which the Church also hath not), and be not willing to mistake seeming for true certainty; from which commonly the most ignorant are appearingly most certain. Again, suppose he discover General Councils to contradict in any point, (which yet if it be, must needs be, in a point not necessary), yet may he not therefore totally withdraw his obedience, save only to those things wherein they contradict; nor perhaps in these neither: for (according to St. Austin's rule) of Councils differing the last obligeth him, by which the former may be amended; amended, therefore also contradicted. But then in things, wherein he finds all or many of them, unanimously agreeing; or, being established by some, not contradicted or amended by any other succeeding; but by the General practice of particular Churches conformed to: these he may presume to be truths, from their accord; as the other falsities, from their variance; and therefore by no means may plead a release from the one, by showing the other.  
FINIS.   

CONCERNING The OBLIGATION of not professing or acting against our JUDGEMENT, or CONSCIENCE.  
AND Whether the obedience of Noncontradiction only, or also of Assent, be due to the Decrees OF COUNCILS.   

CONTENTS.  

IN what sense it may be lawful to believe, or do, a thing against our own Judgement. §. 2.  
Concerning the Church's lawful Authority to excommunicate dissenters in nonfundamentals. §. 4.  
As likewise to decide, which Points are fundamental, which not. §. 7.  
Several exceptions against obedience only of noncontradiction for Nonfundamentals.  
And that at least all those, not infallibly certain of the contrary, are bound, in Nonfundamentals, to an obedience of Assent; and therefore the most are so bound. §. 11.  
Replies to several Objections. §. 12.  
The 1. First concerning an inferior Councils decreeing some new dangerous error, which no former Council superior hath condemned.  
2d. Concerning faith salvisical, that it must be infallible.  
3d. Concerning union of Charity, sufficient. §. 14.  
4th. Concerning trying of doctrines, necessary. §. 15.  
5th. Concerning what Church's determinations, when several contradict one another, we are to adhere to. §. 16.   

A Postscript. 2d Paper.  
Concerning infallible Certainty. §. 19  
1. Infallible Certainty excusing all submission of judgement to others.  
2. Infallible Certainty to be had in some points.  
Of the difficulty of knowing when one is infallibly certain.  
3. Infallible Certainty at least not pretendable against any General contrary judgement of the Church.  
An instance in the Controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only. §. 27.  
4. The greatest probability, short of infallible Certainty, not excusing our dissenting from the judgement of the Church.  
An explication of Rom. 14. 23.    
Conference at Hampton-Court, p. 72, 73. 
Mr. Knewstub's 2d. quest.— Lastly if the Church have that power also, (i. e. to add significant Signs; as the Cross in Baptism, etc.) yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was; How far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them, without impeaching their Christian liberty.— [The King in his Answer hath these words.] I will have one doctrine, and one discipline; one Religion, in substance, and in ceremony; and therefore I charge you, never to speak more to that point, (How far you are bound to obey?) when the Church hath ordained it.   

A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judgement or Conscience.  
SIR;  
YOU ask my Opinion; 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Noncontradiction, or also of assent, to the Decrees 
§. 1.  of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Nonfundamentals; wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable, (supposing that such Councils require our assent therein)? And 2ly, Whether one is, or can be, bound to assent, when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgement? and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing?  
Answ. I answer, (on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discourse of Infallibility. §.) That, if you take 
§. 2. n. 1. In what sense it may be lawful to believe, or do, a thing against our own judgement.  judgement here for infallible certainty, (which see more largely explained below §. 19 etc.) I can soon resolve it negatively; That you are not, nor cannot be, so bound. (Of which see more below §. 20.) But if you mean, by your private judgement, opinion short of infallibility, (i. e.) some reasons that you have (either drawn from the natures of things, on from the sense you make of divine revelation) to think that a thing is thus, or so, contrary to that general judgement; 1. First, this question seems * decided on the affirmative part, viz. that you may go against your private judgement, in men's ordinary practice. In secular affairs, do not we commonly, upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend, both, believe him to be in the right; and do a thing contrary to our own judgement, i. e. contrary to those reasons, which ourselves have, not to do it? Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own reason? Rom. 4. 17, 18. And so the man in the Gospel, Mar. 9 24? Yet I know you will not say, that they went in this against their conscience. What is the meaning of that ordinary saying, [These and these reasons I have for my opinion, but I submit to the Church?] Is it only, I submit my judgement in regard of the publishing of it? [So Dr. Fern comments upon it, 2. Treat. 1. c. numb. 1●.] But thus the phrase seems very improper; for this is a submission of our speech or silence, but not of our judgement at all; and is a submission which may well be professed also in things, wherein our judgement is utterly unchangeable; namely in things, whereof we are infallibly certain.  
2. Again, * decided by the concessions of several Protestants, 
§. 2. n. 2.  which seem to yield the very same thing. See Dr. Fern, ib. n. 13. where he alloweth; that in matters of opinion and credibility, or of discipline and rites, till we have sufficient evidence or demonstration of truth to the contrary, our conformity [i. e. of judgement, which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our practice] remains secure. Secure, (saith he) till we have sufficient evidence, etc. But sufficient evidence we have not, in opposition to the Church, in things where possibly we may be mistaken; and we may be mistaken in any thing, whereof we are not certain; ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty. Likewise Dr. Hammond, Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds [I add, or not so competent as those, to whose definition he is required to submit his assent] alloweth a bare yielding to the judgement of Superiors, and a deeming it better to adhere to them, than to attribute any thing to his own judgement; a believing so far as not to disbelieve [them]. Which [he saith] may rationally be yielded to a Church, or the governors of it, without deeming them inerrable.— And in Schism. 2. c. 10. s. he saith; A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, [i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church]: and when the fundamentals of the faith, and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions, he will cheerfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgement in reverence and deference to his Superiors in the Church, where his lot is fallen. Where surely this submitting, and depositing our own judgement, implies something more than the concealment of it only; since the concealment of our judgement, being the least degree of obedience we can give to our Superiors, will be due to them in some of those definitions made by them in fundamentals of faith and Christian practice; which points he excepts here from submittance or deposition of our judgement. See likewise (which especially I recommend to your reading) what Mr. Hooker, as writing not against Catholics but Puritan, copiously saith in behalf of submission of judgement to the Church, even when thwarting our private opinion; in his Preface, 6. §. and in 2. l. 7. §. near the end, (which you may find more fully set down, and Mr. Chillingworth's Comment upon it in Answ. to Mr. Knot, who pressed him with it, discussed, in the discourse of Infallibility, §. 45, 46. etc.) In the Preface, speaking upon Deut. 17. 8. &c, he hath these words: God was not ignorant, that the Priests and Judges, whose sentence, in matters of controversy, he ordained, should stand, both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgement. Howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding, that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail, till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct and reverse it, than that strifes should have respite to grow, and not come speedily unto some end. [And there he answers that Objection, That men must do nothing against conscience: saying;] Neither wish we, that men should do any thing, which in their hearts they are persuaded they ought not to do: but we say; this persuasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts, that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality, the will of God is, to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determine; yea though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right: as, no doubt, many times the sentence among the Jews did, unto one or other part contending: and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that, which in their private judgement it seemed, yea and perhaps truly seemed, that the law did disallow. Thus judicious Hooker. And see what Dr. Jackson saith to the same purpose below §. 29, 30. Thus the reformed seem to allow in some things a submission of private judgement to the Church; a submission not only of concealing it, but of renouncing and deserting it, in believing and harkening to the Church rather than to it.  
Now the Church doth never exact, that you should profess or subscribe, * that your own reason or private judgement, caused 
§. 2. n. 3.  from some evidence in the thing, suggests or assures to you such a thing to be truth; but, * that you believe her in such a thing more than your own reasons to the contrary: or, * that you confess her judgement better than your own; and so, are content to be swayed by it in such a thing. For, if you heartily believe, that the Church's judgement is likely to be better than yours; or, that she is authorized by her judgement to guide yours; it necessarily follows, that, in obeying her, you do according to your judgement one way; though contrary to it, in another way. For, your final judgement upon the points is this; that though you see reasons, ex parte rei, most or all contrary to what she defines; yet, that her judgement is better than yours, or aught to guide yours; and upon this, you, against your own judgement or reasons, assent unto hers. [Note here, that by the Church's judgement, I mean the ultimatest judgement, and the highest court thereof that we can have. So that when your Pastor teacheth any thing which is contrary to your private judgement, you are not obliged to assent to him, if another Ecclesiastical judgement superior be contrary to his. For the decision of the Superior (to whom in any doubting you may repair) voids that of an inferior unto you, and so voids also his Excommunications, and Ecclesiastical censures; and if the superior (man or Council) tell you one thing, and the inferior another, you are to hear the Church in the superior, not in the inferior.] Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, (which text see further explained below §. 31.) be applied to any, for so doing: because who so doth thus submit, doth this out of faith; namely this faith, that the Church is wiser than he; or that he is obliged to obey her expositions of Scripture, directions, counsels, &c, when contrary to his own. It is not only possible then, but usual, for one to believe a thing against his own reason, or judgement, or conscience, (if you will take these in such a sense,) i. e. against the reasons drawn a part rei, which he hath for disbelieving it; but it is not possible for one to believe a thing against his reason, or judgement, or conscience, in general; or against some other reason taken ab authoritate, which he hath still for believing it. For certainly, * when a fool believes a wise man against some conceit he had of his own; or, * when roman-catholics consent to the Church, in something doubtless wherein some of them may see reasons for the contrary, and no reason perhaps for it, save that ab authoritate, viz. the Church's determination and command; or, * when an Israelite submitted to holding or doing a thing which the Judges decided. (Deut. 17. 11, 12.); none of these may be said to do thus without, or against, reason, because perhaps their private judgement is not convinced in the thing: for they have that reason still, for going against their other reason, that the others, whom they follow, are wiser than they: or also a 2d. reason, that the others are by God appointed to guide their judgement and opinion in such things; and that they are commanded by God to consent to what ever those shall decide.  
3ly. This thing seems decided by the allowed practice of the Church in excommunicating, at least for such matters as she esteemeth 
§. 4. 11. 2.  necessary and fundamental, those who descent from her judgement. For, if in any thing at all, if at least in fundamentals (in which some say she cannot err) the Church may excommunicate dissenters: hence it follows, both that it is possible, and that a man aught, in some things, to consent to the Church even against his own judgement; unless we will affirm, that no man in such points (as suppose in fundamentals) can possibly have another judgement than hers. But so there would never have been any man erroneous or heretical in a point fundamental. I say, aught to consent. For, if God hath given power to the Church (I mean the highest court thereof) of punishing by excommunication all those who do not consent to some decision which she maketh; then all aught to consent to such decision, whether it be right or wrong to his seeming arguments or reasons, whose consent is required; for every one ought to do that, for the not doing of which God appoints him to be punished: besides, that he, who consents not to the Church's judgement, refuseth it only to consent to another judgement much more fallible, i. e. his own.  
Now, that God hath granted such a power to the Church, of excommunicating dissenters to some of her decisions at least, is 
§. 3.  acknowledged by the Reformed, * who allow the Church's practice of it in her first 4. General Councils, concerning the additions in the Nicene and other Creeds; * who allow the Church's practice in commanding something to be done, or forborn, by her subjects under the penalty of Excommunication: but wherever the Church enjoins any thing to be done, she inclusively enjoins assent, or belief, that such a thing is lawful to be done. Lastly, * who practise such excommunication themselves, not only toward men for contradicting, or for declaring their dissent, but for dissenting from, their decrees. 1. † As appears in the closes of the 3. 4. and 5. Canon's &c of the English reformed Synod held under K. James 1603. where (Can. 5.) Whosoever doth affirm any of the 39 Articles to be in any part erroneous, stands excommunicated [not till he recants his public contradicting the Church's doctrines, but] till he reputes of, and publicly revokes such his wicked errors: and † as appears in all those Canons, wherein that Synod enjoins any Agends upon pain of Excommunication; which injunctions of Practicals (as I said before) involve also an injunction of Assent first, that such practicals are lawful, See Can. 9 12. 59 of that Synod. 2ly. As appears in the English Synod under K. Charles 1640. * where, in the 3. 4. and 5. Canons, any accused of Popery, Socinianism, Anabaptism, are to be excommunicated, till they abjure such errors; and that is, till they assent to the contradictory of those errors; and that is, till they assent to the doctrine of the Church of England, where it is contradictory to those errors: and * where Can. 6. There is required an approbation and sincere acknowledgement (which is no less than assent) to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to salvation; and this confession required upon oath. See this matter discoursed more at large in Church-government, 3. part. §. 29. And hence a sober man may discern, how that without submission of judgement in some things, none, that are learned, and much studied in Theological controversies, can enjoy the external communion of any Church. For since (for example) the English Church excommunicates all that shall say, that any of her Articles or Canons is erroneous or repugnant to Scripture, (see for this her 4. and 5. Can. set down before, 2d. part of Church-government) until they shall publicly revoke, not such their saying, but such their error; and since the Rom. Church is said to require belief of so many Decrees of the Tridentine, and other former Councils; if any one Canon or Article, though of never so little moment, of the Church of England, or Canon of those other Councils allowed by the Church of Rome, whereto assent is required, doth appear mistaken to such a one's private reason: hence he can be of neither of these external communions, and sic de caeteris; yet one of which certainly is the communion of the true Catholic Church, of which we say, Credo unam sanctam etc. I may add; Neither could he heretofore be of the external communion of the former Church Catholic for many ages, wherein, by reason of new rising heresies, the Church's determinations (and those requiring assent) have been multiplied; from some one or other of which a learned man is likely to vary in his private judgement, being perhaps not every way so well informed, as that of the Church was, who made them. So suppose one, holding all the rest with the Council of Trent, should differ from it in this one tenet, That the Baptism of S. John Baptist, and of Christ, were not of the same efficacy,— or one holding all the rest with the Church of England, should only differ from it in this point of her 28 and 29th Article, That the Real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist only by those, who have a lively faith: for which see Mr. Thorndike (Epilogue to the Church of England, 3. l. 2. c.); or (before the Reformation, and Council of Trent) one should in some thing hold differently from the Decrees of the 2d. Nicean or Lateran Council: he is thereby excluded from the external communion both of the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, and of all the former Church following the 2d. Council of Nice, unless he be in something content to mortify his rationale, and make a submission of his judgment-Therefore the Schoolmen, so subtle in their disputes, and so various in their resolves, yet laid aside their private reasons, and bended their judgements to the yoke thereof, where any controversible point was formerly stated by the Church; taking liberty to expatiate and exercise their science only in those disputables, wherein she had no way bounded them.  
Now to come to your other Query: Whether if, in nonfundamentals, the Church require our assent to something contrary to our private 
§. 4. Concerning the church's lawful authority to excommunicate dissenters in non fundamentals  judgement, we ought to yield to it? To this I answer; We ought: Because the Church's power of punishing by Excommunication all that do not consent to all her decisions and determinations, wherein she requires consent, seems to be absolute and unlimited. For to some of her decisions, the reformed grant that he who assents not is justly excommunicated by her. I ask therefore to which?  
1. Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh according to the Scriptures, that if any assent not to them, he may be justly excommunicated 
§. 5.  by her? See the 20. and 21 Article of the Church of England. But then, before she may justly exercise such Excommunication, some body must judge, when her decisions are made according to the Scriptures, when not. This Judge must either be herself, or private men. If she must judge this, then 'tis all one, as if there were no such limitation: for we may be assured, she will never make any such decision, as herself will judge not to be according to, or to be contrary to, the Scriptures. If private men must judge this, than this her authority is null toward so many private men, as shall judge her decisions to be contrary to Scriptures; and to the rest, that judge them according with Scripture, she hath no use of this authority, because they already consent. 'tis null, I say, to the former, because as the power of excommunicating those who do not consent to her decisions, when made according to the Scriptures, is committed to her; so the power of judging, when they are so made, when not, is here supposed to be left by God to private men. Therefore these being judged by them not to be so; her authority, which was thus limited, is now, toward all such men, voided. And how will this consist with God's giving Pastors &c, for the unity of the faith, and that men may not be carried away with every doctrine etc. (Eph. 4. 11, 13)? Her authority (I say) toward all such men is voided: because these two, the giving private men power thus to judge, and then the punishing them, if they do not consent, or if they declare their dissent, do contradict. For 'tis saying to them, I grant, and teach you, that when you shall judge any thing which I enjoin you, to be contrary to God's word, (as possibly it may be); so often it is your duty, not to obey me: nevertheless, for doing this your duty I may justly punish you by Excommunication.  
Or 2ly, Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh in points, 
§. 6.  of the truth whereof she is actually certain? For thus it is pleaded by some, That a Church which confesseth, that she may err, and misled others, and upon this consideration alloweth, that private men may lawfully descent from her, may yet be sure, that she doth not, in such and such definitions, contradict Scripture; and therefore may (according to the power given her by God Matt. 18.) excommunicate her children, for preaching contrary to, or dissenting from, her definitions, and for violating her truth, and her peace, and upon this ground may affirm, that what she thus binds on earth, is bound in heaven: as a man that may sleep, run mad &c, may yet be sure, that now, at this time, he is awake, and in his wits. See much-what the same said by Dr. Hammond concerning General Councils affixing anathemas to their Decrees. (Paraenes. §. 12. p. 158.) But this plea seems to ground the Church's power of excommunicating, and consequently her subjects necessity of obeying, (at least so far as not to contradict her definitions,) not upon her authority, though she (as those Judges Deut. 17. 8.) may be in some things liable to error: but only upon her certainty of the truth in those things which she enjoins; as it is willingly granted, she, or any else, of some things may be certain enough. But then, if others obedience depends not upon her determining or commanding, but upon her being certain; what is said before returns again, they must have some means to know, not only what she commands, but also when she is certain in what she commands, (or that she commands nothing wherein she is uncertain): in which she may be still uncertain, even when she saith, nay even when she thinks, she is certain. But, there being no means to know this, all men again will be left to their liberty. The Church of England (see before §. 3.) hath excommunicated all that shall say any thing is erroneous, either in her Liturgy, or 39 Articles. Was she sure, that she could not possibly mistake in any of these things, which she hath said there? if not; such her Excommunication of contradicters will be (according to this opinion) unlawful. Deut. 17. 12. it is said; The man that will do presumptuously, and not hearken unto the Priest, even that man shall die.— Matt. 18. 17. it is said; If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an heathen. Are these punishments lawfully inflicted, only in case that such Priest and Church be certain and infallible in their judgement? or that such Priest and Church do not seem to any to misinterpret the divine law?  
3ly. Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh in points fundamental? But here the same doubts arise still. For I demand; 
§. 7. As likewise to decide which points are fundamental, which not.  Whether are you to judge, or she, which these are? or how many? Surely this is very necessary to be known. If you grant that she must judge this too for you, which, or how many be fundamentals; (as Mr. Chillingworth saith (3. c. 39 §.) in all reason she must, if in fundamentals she be acknowledged your guide, and therefore he denies her to be a guide at all); then this thing, To how many of her decided points you are to consent, lies only in her judgement. And then I ask; Since some Nonfundamentals are plain in Scripture, and since in these Nonfundamentals if a private man may be infallibly certain of somethings, (as they say he may, and upon this infallibility of his seems to be grounded all his dissent from the Church; for in things, though not fundamental, wherein he is not infallibly certain of the contrary, I suppose, he is also to consent to the Church's judgement); then surely the Church may be so too: why should you not be here also tied to take her sentence, when she saith, that she is infallibly certain of them too, as you do take her sentence when she telleth you how many are fundamental? And, if you are to consent, though it be against your own judgement, in the greatest matters; what reason is there you should not do it in lesser? You will answer; because in these greatest matters she cannot err, but she may in others. My reply is; and may not you in others also err much more? Is she to guide your judgement in the main, and not in less, matters? Is Scripture be plain in these smaller points, for you to guide yourself by it; is it not so, much more, in fundamentals? why therefore relinquish you your own, and adhere to her, judgement, in these things most plain in Scripture? and than take up your own, and leave hers in the rest; especially when, being asked your reason for this, your plea is, because such points are plain in Scripture? But then if our Saviour, as this opinion makes him, enjoins only subscription to the Church in fundamentals; who sees not, that it is as necessary, that our Saviour should have told us, which points those were? else we may assent too much to her in things, wherein she may err; or too little in the other, wherein she cannot err, (I mean fundamentals,) and so be certainly damned. But then; since, though the General Church cannot, yet a National Church may, err in fundamentals also, and may apostatise; therefore you are, here, (according to that opinion) to assume to yourself to judge, what points are truth, and what not, even in pretended fundamentals, before you yield any consent to any thing at all, called fundamental, or other, which a National Church proposeth: and thus a self-opinioned man may easily throw off the yoke of obedience to all the proposals of all, except General, Councils; a thing very unreasonable. And as unreasonable is that, which some say on the other side; That we may not contradict or oppose our Pastor, or Bishop in smaller matters, but may in the greater; when-as indeed in these greater matters there is more reason for our obedience, and far more danger, if we err, in our contradicting, Therefore neither in Nonfundamentals, nor yet in Fundamentals, may we properly contradict them; i. e. in opposing our particular judgement upon Scripture, to theirs. What then must be done (you will say) since our Pastors and Bishops may err in fundamentals, and particular Churches may apostatise? Resp. Why, both in fundamentals and nonfundamentals also, where any considerable doubting ariseth, we may repair from them to a further information from the Church General, such as we can have: and then we are to follow her judgement, when evident and undisputable (as many times it is); and, if we be Presbyters, we are also to teach her Doctrines, (and that in not-fundamentals, as well as in fundamentals) though contrary to the commands of some inferior Bishop or Council. Nor is this properly our, but the Church-catholic's, contradicting such a one; and our obeying only here's, rather than her inferiors, injunctions.  
This discourse ariseth from that term [Nonfundamentals] put in the Quaere: when-as meanwhile you may observe, that this curiosity 
§. 8.  of knowing precisely what are fundamentals, what not, presseth only one side: namely that, which will allow obligation of assent to the Church's decrees only in some things, not in others: but it doth not concern the other side at all, because they hold assent necessary to all points, wherein the Church (I mean the supreme power in it) requires it. And so also, 1. ancient Councils, under pain of Anathema, require, as in some things noncontradiction, so in other things consent; with whom [Siquis non confitetur &c, Anathema sit] is ordinary, without setting down that the point is fundamental; as likewise [Si quis dixerit, only] is used by them in other points of greatest consequence: which shows, that the Church, expecting the same obedience to her also in the points we call not-fundamental, took not such exact care to deliver them distinctly; nor indeed perhaps knows how to sever all points under such a distinction. To say therefore, that all such points, where assent and confession is required, are fundamental, is gratis said, and as easily denied: but that all such points are very profitable to salvation, I doubt not. 2. Again; all practical points cannot be said to be fundamental; but where ever the Church enjoins any practical things under Anathema, she requires more than Noncontradiction, as hath been noted already: for I may not practise a thing, when I do not first assent to the lawfulness thereof. In practical things therefore, commanded by her to be done, I either owe her no obedience at all, or else more than Noncontradiction (Now the ancient Councils are frequent in these); but if God had given her subject's liberty, not to practise such things as are enjoined by her, if against their judgement; neither hath he given the Church liberty to anathematise them, for thus following their conscience. For I pray you consider these two Propositions, how they can both agree to the Church: [I know God hath given order, that in nonfundamentals no man shall owe me such, so much, duty, as to yield his assent to me; or to practise what I bid him, when his judgement is contrarily persuaded; but only so much as not to contradict me &c. yet I do require of those same men, not only not to contradict, but to consent &c, or else I anathematise them.] Certainly if, in Nonfundamentals, a man of a contrary judgement to the Church can be only faulty in contradicting the Church; she can excommunicate none such upon any other terms, but only if they shall contradict her. 3. Again; the Scriptures have appointed Pastors, Teachers, &c, have bidden us hear the Church [he that heareth you, heareth me &c,] without limitation to fundamentals; sure this obedience to teachers is not fulfilled in reserving my own opinions, and in not openly contradicting or confuting theirs. Sure, that power of teaching, exhorting, reproving, correcting, the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, given to our Spiritual Governors, for 
2 Tim. 4●. 1 Cor. 12. 7, 8.  the edification of the Church, in truths and practices any way profitable to salvation, as well as in fundamental, are not sufficiently answered on our parts with the obedience of Noncontradiction of them, when they shall speak any thing contrary to our sense, except it be in fundamentals only, i. e. perhaps in two or three points: but these Scriptures oblige us to submission of Judgement, either to our particular teacher, or (when he seems to guide us contrary to the word of God, or contrary to the rest of the Pastors of the Church,) to his, and our, Ecclesiastical Superiors, in whose judgement we must acquiesce, and consent, that we may not be tossed &c, (Eph. 4. 14. compared with 11); as we see they are, that take only their own sense of Scriptures. See Heb. 13. 7. I Tim. 4. 11. I Tim. 6. 3, 4. [Where note, that consent is not to Scriptures, that were not then so common, but to the doctrine of Godliness delivered by Timothy.] If therefore, any dissent from an inferior Pastor or Council, (as he may, upon any suspicion, that such goeth against the Scriptures, or the Church's doctrines,) he may not therefore acquiesce in his own judgement, either concerning the sense of Scriptures, or the sense of former times, the Fathers, &c. but is to repair to his Superiors, and to hear the Church then in being, (in all things wherein he clearly sees her opinion, and in which she requires his subscription): which Ch. is set, for a guide to him, on an hill, to interpret to him the Scriptures in all controverted matters; for if she be worthy to be heard in fundamentals, as well agends, as credends; is she unworthy to be heard in smaller matters? And such a Church, eminent and conspicuous, there always was, even in the Arrian times, to which Athanasius fled for succour also, and with which he joined himself; and always such there will be, nor will she ever be hid: and who goes with her, shall go with the Scriptures, and with the Fathers too; but whoso will go with them against her, shall also lose them, and vanish away in his own self-conceit.  
If we now on the other side take into consideration the obedience 
§. 9 Several exceptions against obedience of noncontradiction. only, for nonfundamentals.  of Noncontradiction, much pressed by the Reformed, as (in many cases) only due; yet the limitations which they annex to it are such, as leave not the matter clear, to what points, and from what persons, such obedience-only is required as necessary. For, 1. it is not said by them, that all men are bound even to this lesser obedience of Noncontradiction. For, if this were affirmed, that all inferiors, whether Pastors, Bishops, or Councils, were obliged to such obedience in respect of their superior Councils, it were something: but, as I think, 'tis affirmed, that a National Council may contradict a superior Council; and so a Diocesan, a National. And 1. I ask; Why may not then a Pastor contradict his Bishop, or the Diocesan Council? (which the reformed will not so easily allow,) since this Pastor also is a teacher, and an overseer over God's flock, (Act. 20. 28). and if private men may, so may he, be infallibly certain, that such a thing is in God's word; and that thing too, wherein he contradicteth, may be very beneficial for salvation. Neither is the peace of the Church disturbed more by him teaching contrary to a Diocesan, than by a Bishop teaching contrary to a Provincial Synod; and as other men's contrary doctrines may consist with their charity to other Churches, (i. e. with not condemning them to be no Churches,) so may his. Considering these things, may not such a one say, Whether it is better to obey God than men, judge ye? 2. Again, I ask; If the power, in the Church, of Excommunication of private men, binds them not to contradict her; why doth not the same power, in superior Councils, to excommunicate Bishops, and to annul the acts of inferior Councils, bind such inferior Councils also to Noncontradiction? 3. Again; the obligation of Noncontradiction of private men to their Bishop, or to his Synod, in not-fundamentals, will signify little; because an Episcopal, or a National, Synod may err in fundamentals; and the judgement of this Synods erring in a fundamental is by the reform left, not to It, which will never judge such a thing to be; but, to its subjects; and they may misjudge a point not-fundamental to be fundamental, and so may break their due silence: neither can there be of this any remedy. For none hitherto have contradicted the Church-decisions, but they have made that which occasioned their contradicting to be a thing of great consequence. Here therefore again; in the yielding of our obedience of Noncontradiction to a Provincial or National Church, the Queries concerning Fundamentals will return. Who is to determine, what are such, both for agends and credends? which it is extreme necessary to know, that, in such, we may be sure to vindicate God's truth against that particular Church wherein we live. Is not idolatry an error against a fundamental truth? and doth not the Roman Church then err in fundamentals, in worshipping bread, as the Protestants think they do, for Christ? So that tenet of the Greek Church [à Patre per filium] is said to destroy the Trinity: and so the Lutheran's Consubstantiation is said by consequence to destroy Christ's Humanity: the Trinity, and Christ's Humanity, fundamental truths. In such points and the like therefore none must be tied, in obedience to their Bishop or Church-National, to a Noncontradiction.  
2ly, In respect of the Church in general, the obedience of sole-Non-contradiction 
§. 10.  is limited by the reform (as we have said before) to Nonfundamentals, wherein the Church may err; whereas in fundamentals, wherein this Church cannot err, here they also allow an obedience of assent. But I ask again; Who shall determine, both in credends & agends, which are fundamental? And why in these fundamentals especially are we wished in our judgement to conform to the Church's? since these are the points most clear in Scripture, and such as, without the Church's direction, we cannot mistake. And methinks those places of Scripture concerning Trial of Doctrines, which we have learned to turn against the injunctions of the Church, hold as well, or more, for trying her Doctrines in Fundamentals, than in any thing else; because the rule, by which we try, is the most plain in these points. Again, I ask; Are all the necessary consequences of fundamentals to be accounted fundamental? If so; than who knows how far these points may extend, in which we are to consent to, and not only not-to-contradict, the Church's decisions?  
3ly. This obedience (not of yielding assent, but solely) of Non-contradicting, 
§. 11. And that all at least not infallibly certain of the contrary, are bound, in non fundamentals, to anobedience of assent. Therefore the most are so bound.  is allowed and secured by the reformed, only to those persons; who, upon examination of Scripture and Tradition, are certain of the contrary; surely then it must extend to very few persons, and in very few things: for how few are there, that are able to compare the Scriptures, or search Traditions? Therefore the Scripture seems to make rules of our obedience to our present Spiritual Governors; as if we were void of writings; and not according to the extraordinary skill and learning of some few, that are not rulers, but according to the general capacity and knowledge of the flock of Christ. 1. Therefore it were well, if these men, who would not have their own knowledge restrained by authority, would yet let the people know, That only those, who by long studying the Scriptures and Fathers have arrived to infallible certainty, are tied, onlyto Noncontradiction to the Church-decisions; but that all the rest, to assenting. For doth it not make our hearts yet to bleed, to see so many thousands of the common people amongst us, upon this mistaken privilege, even to disbelieve, and not to yield consent to the Church in fundamentals? 2. When this is done; how few are there of the learned, that can say; they are certain (without some doubt) that what the Church proposeth is false? Are not all the rest then, who are not infallibly certain, to be taught, that they must, in Nonfundamentals, subscribe to the Church-decisions? Why labour we then, more, to free, then subjugate, men's judgements? 3. But then, for a private man's being infallibly certain, (upon which the reformed opinion seems to build much) methinks this concession of [the Scriptures which he reads to be the infallible word of God] is not enough for his certainty almost in any point; because there must be a comparing of Scriptures, and a not interpreting of some places so, that other places contradict: and because the sense of the words may be diversely taken, though he were to judge only of one place by itself. Besides there are many degrees of seeming certainty; and 'tis hard to know when it is a presumption only, and when a true certainty. That men are ordinarily deceived, in making this judgement, is plain: because two, contradicting one another, will often both affirm, that they are infallibly certain. The thinking one's self infallibly certain mostwhat ariseth from knowing no objections of any difficulty to the contrary: which objections as one afterward discovers, so his former certainty by degrees abates. Hence we see the greatest Scholars many times dubious, when the ignorant are either certain, or strongly confident. Four texts of Scripture, that seem plainly to say a thing, make one sure, as it were; and then two texts suggested to him, that seem to say the contrary, reduce him to doubt, and make him begin to deliberate of the sense of the former. I speak not this to affirm, we are certain in nothing at all: but that we have almost always reason to doubt, where the same certainty, that we have, appears not to others. But then if private men may be infallibly certain; much more may the Church, and so many Doctors be so, they also all agreeing in their certainty. So that all proofs of certainty to be had in divine truths rather strengthen the argument for obedience to the Church. And she deals but with us in our own kind, if she plead infallibility to require our submission to her, even in Nonfundamentals, as we do plead infallibility to avoid it.  
As for those objections, which the Reformed opinion makes: 
§. 12. Replies to several Objections.   
1. That possibly a National, or Provincial Synod, may, or also hath, broached some new mischievous tenet; the contrary to which tenet neither the Creeds expressly, nor former Councils have decreed; into which error therefore my too secure obedience 
1. Concerning an inferior Council's decreeing some new dangerous error, which no former Council superior hath condemned  may betray me. I answer: That from this judgement of such a Church, so often as it is suspected by me, I will not retreat to my private judgement, but I will appeal to a more general judgement of the present Church: which judgement I can either have conjunctim, or divisim; (as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time,) and (by the reformed opinion) I shall be secure, if I part not from the present Church: for in fundamentals she shall in no age err, but hold forth to me visibly the truth; and if this error be in Nonfundamentals, it amounts not (as the reformed say) to a heresy: therefore will I still cleave to her, (i. e.) the present Church, and the supremest Authority I can find therein; neither will I embrace any sense put upon Scriptures, or Fathers, against her; because she cannot be (at least in points of great consequence) opposite to them. And, if that religion (as it might have been) had been conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition, and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2, and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures, nor writings of Fathers; then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church: neither needed she, for this, to have been made more infallible than now she is; and doubtless my faith should have been (nevertheless) sufficiently grounded, i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her: neither could any have made an argument, that my faith was not salvifical, for this reason, because fidei non potest subesse falsum; for she must then, in defect of all writings; have been confessed the pillar and ground of truth, and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God, (1 Cor. 4. 1.): the same (then) must she be still; and Nations now, as at the first, before writings, are still converted by her; by her preaching, before they come to peruse those Scriptures. And so are we all also taught our faith first by her; neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-extant Scriptures and Fathers. But yet, besides that in these Scriptures is ascribed to her great authority; any help, that is from these writings enjoyed by any other, is also by her: that no body may boast over her in these advantages.  
2. It is objected: That our faith, to be salvifical, must be grounded on something that is infallible; and therefore only on 
§. 13. 2. Concerning faith salvifical: that: it is to be infallible.  God's word. See this answered at large, in the Treatise of Necessary faith, §. 43. etc. Surely, the Church groundeth her faith, which she recommendeth to us, on the Scriptures, as well as private men think they do theirs, when they leave hers, to follow their own, judgement. And, if the Church's judgement is not, neither is their own, infallible; for which, they desert the Church's. But, though it is most true, that true faith is always grounded on the word of God, (which word of God is infallible); yet is it not necessary, that every one, who hath true faith, do know that it is infallible, or be infallibly certain of it: For many have saving faith, doubtless; that learn this word of God only from a fallible man; suppose from their Father, or from their Pastor. Neither is it necessary, that this faith should be received from another person infallible, besides God; nor that it should be received from a writing at all. There may be a strong adherence, beyond evidence; neither can it be unsufficient, if it be so strong, as to produce obedience to God's commands.  
3. 'tis said: That one is, for his salvation, secure enough, where ever these two are; Unity of faith with the Church, in 
§. 14. 3. Concerning union of Charity, sufficient.  fundamentals; and then Charity toward the Church, in the points not-fundamental, wherein I disagree from her. Charity, i. e. not condemning her, for them, to be no Church, etc. I answer: 1. First, such a one must know well, what are Fundamentals, that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them. The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands among foundations, (Heb. 6. 2.); if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth, I know not how many other points may be brought in. And I am persuaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies, that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical, in those differences between the Reformed and the Catholic Church, and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism, Bishops, Ordination, etc. 2ly. Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith, than only in fundamentals; (unless all points of faith be fundamental; and if so, than Churches that differ in any point of faith, differ in fundamentals.) 3ly. If there may be a larger unity &c. then Spiritual Guides, doubtless, are set over us, to build us up in the unity also, of this faith, and not only of fundamentals. (See Heb. 5. 11. etc.— 6. 1. And therefore, why [Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13.] should be restrained only to fundamentals, as it is by some, it seems to me strange. I cannot think, that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals, (see 1 Cor. 1. 4. &c): and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions, and exhorts them to be all of one judgement; which union of judgement could not be by following the judgement, each one, of their private reason, but of the Apostle, and of their orthodox teachers appointed by him. See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16, 18. Rom. 15. 5, 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2, 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where [speaking the same thing, and being joined in the same judgement; contending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind; glorifying God with one mind, and one mouth, etc.] argue an unity required, not only of charity, but of opinion and judgement; and that, not only in fundamentals, (in which, as I said, all the factious Corinthians, or most of them, accorded,) but other beneficial truths: which union how could so many judgements, independent of one another, attain, but by, all of them, retaining the same doctrine of their Pastor, or Pastors? 4ly. If these points, wherein the reform recede from the authority of superior Councils, be not very necessary, though not fundamental; how can a separation for them be justified? but if necessary; why should we say, that God requires not an unity of faith in them? 5ly. Again; as faith and charity secure not our salvation, if we be guilty of some other vice, (adultery, &c); so they do not secure it, if there be any denial of obedience, where 'tis due; especially to the Church, disobedience towards whom is, in a more special manner, disobedience to Christ, and to God himself: and why may not this then endanger us, if God hath provided teachers, to keep us in the same judgement, and we (to the great hurt, both of the Church, and of ourselves too, by these divisions) will every one follow his own judgement? especially since union of charity, as this opinion limits it, excludes not all separation from a superior authority, but only requires non-condemning of such authority, or those that adhere to it, in our separation. But here methinks the words of Cassander. (Consult. Art 7.) are of some weight: where, granting that the reformers did not condemn the Church from which they separated, yet, Non video (saith he) quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit, si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, in observatione tam universalium, quam particularium rituum, viols, & condemns, & institutis majorum pertinaciter repugns; quod certe est contra officium charitatis, qua maxime internam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est.] Contra officium charitatis, I say; if we take charity not negatively, for not hating, cursing, damning, but positively, for love and amity: which sure the Apostle requires in all the members of Christ, especially toward their Mother, the Church: which charity he describes (1 Cor. 13. 4. &c,) to think no evil, and well to interpret all things: and we may judge this in private amity, where our love ordinarily happens to be very cold toward the person, whose ways, customs, conditions we once hate and condemn. Certainly, in the many sects now in this Church of England, and in the division of the Protestant from the former Church, though it be supposed all these agree in fundamentals, and have all such an union of charity to one another, as is mentioned before; yet there is a great fault somewhere for diversity of opinions, that must be answered for by some side at the day of judgement: nor doth the Church seem sufficiently in charity toward those superior Church-governors, whose decisions, and Canons she not only refuseth, but also proceedeth so far, as to reject their external communion, and not to admit them, or the Churches adhering to them, to her communion, because of the faultiness, wherewith she chargeth such their canons and decisions. 6. Lastly, let this be considered, (which you may find more prosecuted in Trial of Doctr. §. 42. etc.) that, though one follow the Church in fundamentals, yet, by departing from her judgement in other points, he may lose many wholesome advices in things practical extremely profitable and advantageous to attaining salvation. Our own judgement sways us to liberty; and God knows how many souls have perished in the reformed religion, by throwing away the Church's counsels and commands, though in to-them-seeming small matters, as Fasting, Confession, etc. And that text 2 Pet. 3. 16. methinks might a little affright us, wherein the Apostle saith, that there are things in Scripture that are hard to be understood, [sure these are not Fundamentals then, which we contend are plain,] which are wrested by the unlearned and the unstable [sure he means here men not adhering to the fixed doctrines of the Church] to their own [not harm, but] destruction.  
4ly. It is urged, that the H. Scriptures have commanded, that all men, lest they should perhaps be misguided, should try, and 
§. 15. 4. Concerning trial of Doctrines, necessary.  that by the same Scriptures, their teacher's doctrines; that so if they find these doctrines not to agree with the H. Scriptures, they may withdraw their belief from them. See Jo. 5. 39 Act. 17. 11. 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Cor. 10. 15. Matt. 16. 6, 12.— 15. 14. Gal. 1. 8, 9 Esay 8. 20. In answer to this, for a stricter examination of some of the texts here urged I must refer you to Succession of Clergy, §. etc. and to Trial of Doctrines §. 3. 11. &c: Only here this I say to them in general. Trial of Doctrines by Scripture is; 1. either of the doctrines of private teachers by the Church-governors; of which no question is made: or 2. of the doctrines of private teachers by private men: and these they may try by the Scriptures, so that they guide themselves (left their trial be mistaken) in the sense of these Scriptures, according to the exposition thereof by the Church; i. e. * in her General Councils; or * in the most unanimous consent of those, whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church, and Expositors of the Scriptures; and if thus searching we find the doctrines of the teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded, we may and aught to withdraw our belief from them. Or 3ly, this trial by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church, i. e. of those doctrines which are delivered not by a private teacher, but * by a general consent of the church-guide, (at least the fullest which we can discover); or * by General or other Superior Councils; or * by the Apostles, or by our Saviour Himself. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses. 1. Either in this sense: Search and try my, or our, doctrine by the Scriptures, for you will surely find my doctrine agreeing thereto, if you search aright, and as you ought. And in this sense the trial by the Scriptures, of the doctrines of the Church, nay of the Apostles, (St. Paul's by the Bereans); nay of Christ himself, whether the Old Testament, as he urged, testified of Him, is both allowed and recommended. For since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ, or of S. Paul, or of the Church, from the teaching of the Scripture; the one will never fear, but freely appeal to a trial by the other, if it be rightly made. Or, 2ly. it may be understood in this sense: Search and try my doctrines by the Scriptures, and if you in your search do not perceive it agreeable unto them, I declare, that you have no reason to believe, or that you are excusable in rejecting my doctrine. Now in this sense our Saviour, or S. Paul, or the other Scriptures, never recommended private men's searching, or gave any such privilege to it: unless you put in this clause, that they have searched aright. But if you put in this clause, then is the searcher, after his searching, not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Church's doctrine, till he is sure first that he hath searched aright. I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend searching in such a sense, or upon such conditions. 1. Because such a searcher or tryer by the Scriptures there may be, as is prejudiced by passion, or interest, ormis-education; or as searcheth negligently and coldly; or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures, he searcheth, when perhaps it is in some difficult point, wherein they are not so clear; as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul, of the abrogation of Circumcision under the Gospel. Neither can any be easily secure of his disengagement from all such Letts of using a right judgement in searching. 2ly. Because however the search or searcher prove, there are other means and mediums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines, and by which not bearing witness to a falsity, one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss, so often as he thinks it to contradict them. Such mediums are; † Miracles, and other mighty operations done by the power of the H. Ghost, upon which our Saviour (Jo. 5. 36, and elsewhere,) and S. Paul (Rom. 15. 19 2 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. Mar. 16. 20.) required belief and submission to their doctrine. And † Universal Tradition; upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures: the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures, as are found in the Church▪ So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures (by reason indeed that he searched them not aright) such testimony of Jesus his being the Messias, as was pretended; yet aught to have been convinced, and to have believed his doctrines, from seeing his miracles; and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search. So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Paul's doctrine, suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ, as was pretended; yet aught to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul, or from the authority he or the Council at Jerusalem received from Jesus working miracles, and raised from the Dead, as Universal Tradition testified. And the same may be said for the Church's doctrines. And therefore, as there are some Scriptures, that bid us search the Scriptures, because, if we do this aright, we shall never find them to disagree from the doctrines of the Church; and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scriptures very evident: so there are other Scriptures, (if those who are so ready to search them on other, would search them also on this, point,) that bid us Hear the Church; because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken; and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult: in which case God having referred us to the judgement of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof, (Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. Matt. 18. 17. Lu. 10. 16.) cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures, to try whether their expositions be right. Therefore that text Gal. 1. 8, 9 is far from any such meaning: If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures, as you understand them, let these be Anathema to you. But rather it saith this, If an Angel, or I apostatising (as some shall, Act. 20. 30.) shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received, i. e. from the Church let him etc. which makes for the Church's authority very much. The Scriptures then recommending trial do no way warrant to us a trial of the public doctrines of the Church by our private sense upon the Scriptures, that so we should adhere to it against them; but a trial of the doctrines of private teachers by the Churches public sense of the Scriptures, that in adhering to it we may be always secure.  
5ly. They question, since there are many present divided 
§. 16. 5. Concerning what Churches determinations, when several contradict one another, we are to adhere to.  Churches, to the judgement of which of them they shall repair? I answer. Had this question been asked an hundred years ago in Luther's time, any one could have solved it. What any one would have done then, let him do now: since all grant that the Church, which was then Catholic, is not changed since in its doctrines or practices; only some men are since gone out of it: and he may know by this, that he is not to follow them, because they are gone out, if he resolve once to be a follower of the Church's authority. All or most of modern controversies either Councils, which the present Church allows, have decided; or collectively the solution of them may be known by the agreeing tenets of particular Churches and their Bishops, even before, and without, any General Councils. Most of the decrees of the Council of Trent (though it should stand for nothing) yet we must grant, were the general tenets and practice of the present Church of that age, and of many ages before that: and many Councils also (which must be granted at least Patriarchal, or Provincial) have decided the points now in controversy, or many of the most considerable of them; and we find no other superior Synod at all contradicting them in those or later times, but the same things ratified by the general practice which followed. If therefore there was a church Catholic in those days, that had or exercised any authority, (and this I think we confess in our Creed), surely such tenets were established by it: neither can we acknowledge one Holy and Apostolic Church in those times, save only that, by whom such things were used, and by whom also many of them decreed▪ After that therefore we have once yielded to conform, in our judgement, or in not-contradiction, to the Church; we need not demand, and expect (for these things) a future General Council; for we are judged already: we learning what is the Church's judgement sufficiently by the decrees of former Councils, (Provincial at least), which, with this universal practice following them, are equivalent to General. Else many ancient heresies (as Pelagianism &c) remain yet uncondemned in the Church, these having been censured only by Councils Provincial, whose judgements afterward were generally approved; and by the general practice of that Church, which Church we cannot deny to be the same with that, which once was the total Catholic, and which is also now (if we look after the major part of the Church) the greatest communion of Christians. Such things as these are said; and you must tell me, what I must reply to them. And indeed, if Protestants saw no eminent Church, to which, if all her decisions were made authentical, men would presently apply themselves, their contention would not be so earnest against our ascribing too much to the Church's authority. But suppose (say they) that the church present determine things against Scripture, and against the former Church? Why may not I (say I again) as well suppose you, who think thus of the present Church, to mistake Scripture, and the former Church yourselves? and why may I not say again to you; suppose that she err in fundamentals, where are you, that in these do follow her judgement? Yes: but the fundamentals, she directs me in, are more plainly set down in Scripture. Well then: since you may not judge against her, in the plain; may you, in other things less plain? But, say you, our Saviour hath promised, in these, she shall not err. Then you need not fear erring with her, in the rest: for were truth in the rest so necessary as you pretend, God could and would, here also, have made her an infallible director. And we are to know this, that the Church may be faulty in something that she enjoins, and yet he, that assents to her judgement, not be so: but faulty he will be, if he do not assent. Else what shall we answer to Deut. 17. 11? unless we will say, that those Judges were absolutely infallible.  
Now, after all; let Noncontradiction be all the obedience we (when otherwise persuaded) owe to the Church; and this Noncontradiction 
§. 17:  be due only from the subjects of a Diocese, in respect of the Bishop or Diocesan Synod; not from the Bishop or Diocese, to superior Synods: yet hence it will follow; 1. First, that the Reformation abroad was unlawful, which we followed; and that no Minister might then preach against Popish doctrines, unless these things had been first decided by his Bishop; which, I think, is more than many of the reformed will defend. 2. Again; from this distinguishing of our obedience to the Church, according to several things commanded by her, methinks this may reasonably be demanded, since neither King nor Church can justly punish, or anathematise any, for not yielding that obedience to them, which God hath not bound men to yield them; Therefore if they are bound to yield obedience of consent, in some points, (as in fundamentals,) and only obedience of Noncontradiction in others, (as in Nonfundamentals), when our private judgement therein happeneth to be contrary to the public; methinks, I say, this may reasonably be demanded, That there should be some certain way, how both the Church may know, when to enjoin the one, and when only the other; and how the subject may know also, when the one, and when the other is due: for none can be justly punished in an invincible ignorance of his duty. And if this be the rule of their non-obligation to consent; namely, when the point is not fundamental; and when they are also infallibly certain of the contrary: there must also be some way for men to know, when they are infallibly certain, and when they think only that they are so. For I should have thought any one might know when he is sure, but that I see so many, that say they are sure, when mistaken; and but that I have also found myself afterward mistaken in things, of which I once thought myself infallibly sure. Another thing: methinks. Noncontradiction sounds well in speculatives; but in practicals what must be done? For unless the Church in practicals may bind men (though of a contrary persuasion) to consent to what she defines, she cannot enjoin them to do what she commands, or to forbear what she forbids; because this doing or forbearing necessarily presupposeth consent first to the lawfulness thereof, else the action will be sin. Now the Church many times commands and forbids several practices (doubtless not-fundamental) under anathemas. And indeed might not people (in matters practical) be tied (beyond their own inclinations and opinion) to conformity in these; the church, that is founded by the God of holiness and order, what a disorderly Society would it be? and how full of several impieties?  
To conclude the whole matter: since, in this division of Christendom, one party in general seems many ways to crush the 
§. 18. Conclusion.  Church's authority; and the other to crush private judgement; and since there seem to be some inconveniences on all hands: a wise man will choose that way which seems the more safe; which, I think, is to adhere, not to our own, but the common, judgement of the Church. In which there seems to be much humility also, and mortification of our rationale, (in which we are all very strong), and also the not hazarding the breach of the great duty of our obedience to the Church; which I think had far better be yielded too much, than too little. And, besides these motives, we have seen more evidently the effects of both these tenets upon men in our days: and there seems to be no comparison between the mischiefs, which too much obedience to the Church hath wrought; and those, which the following of private judgement hath produced.  
 
A Postscript.  
IN the former Discourse (§. 2.) it is said; That our Judgement, if it be taken for any degree of private opinion, short of infallible 
§. 19 Concerning infallible certainty.  certainty, aught to be submitted to the judgement of our Ecclesiastical Superiors. Where, infallible certainty, a thing so ordinarily mistaken, seems to stand in need of some further explication. By infallible certainty; therefore, I mean, either, * that which ariseth from demonstrative arguments, drawn from the nature of the thing, (but this is a certainty which consists not with faith; for faith walks not by sight): or (which most concerns our business) * that certainty, which ariseth ab authoritate dicentis, when we know infallibly, both, that he saith it, who cannot lie; and that such is the meaning of what he said, else the former of these, without the later, breeds no certainty.  
1. Now; if you make your proposal thus: Supposing that I am infallibly certain of a thing, that is contrary to the Church's judgement, 
§. 201 1. Infallible certainty excusing all submission of judgement to anyother.  whether am I obliged to consent to that judgement & c? I must answer, No, by no means. For indeed, if we speak of interior assent, such a thing as this assent cannot be at all; unless one can hold two contradictories to be true. And 2ly, for exterior assent, (that is, professing an assent, when you do not assent,) this you may not do neither, for this is hypocrisy and lying; which the God of truth always hates and forbids: neither hath he tied any man to forsake or renounce, though in profession only, an infallibly known truth, great, or small. And therefore, from hence, as long as you cannot believe, that the Church hath any authority to guide you; or that her judgement is, so good as your own, or, fit to be followed, &c. so long you cannot profess a consent unto her judgement, against your own, without sinning; but, whilst you may not do this without sinning, you sin again in not believing otherwise. For no man may do what he thinks he ought not to do; and yet he doth sin in not so doing, because he ought to think otherwise. When I show you, that you may without sin obey the Church, contrary to what your judgement is in the thing which you assent to; I do not tell you, that you may without sinning obey the Church contrary to this your judgement, that you ought not to obey her; or, when your judgement is, that you ought not to obey her. Where ever the mouth or hand goes contrary to the heart, 'tis hypocrisy and lying, contrary to Christian simplicity, and unlawful. But if the mouth and hand go with the heart, and the heart go not right; here also will be sin, though not the same sin.  
2. Now, in the 2d. place, if you ask me; Whether, hoc dato, 
§. 21. Infallible certainty to be had in some things.  that such a book is the word of God, rightly translated &c, you may be infallibly certain of the sense of it in some things? This, I also grant, you may be: for, hoc dato, that the New Testament, which we have, is the word of God; and that God, in this word, meant to speak so, that it should be intelligible to us, (else it were no revelation of any thing): a private man, that hears, or reads it, may be as certain of something therein clearly delivered; as, for example, that, Jesus is the Lord, or that he died, in some sense or other; as, hoc dato, that he is the Lord, he may be certain that he is the Lord: or, as he may be certain of identicals. (And, as I think, one may be certain of this, so I do not think, that ever there was any heretic, that allowed the Scriptures, i. e. as we have them, that ever denied any such thing in general terms: for this would be to affirm contradictories both true.) Again; since the Ch. may be infallibly certain of something in the Scriptures, from the evidence of revelation; why a private man may not be so too, I see no reason: since the Church consisteth only of so many particular men; and the reasons appearing to the Church may also be clear to him. Tho here I must put some difference; because as there is a certainty arising from clearness of revelation; so there is another from illumination of the H. Spirit, (see Jo. 16. 13.) which illumination is promised to the Councils of the Church; but not so to particulars: and, for this it is (I think well) said; that the conclusions of such Councils may (from the superintendence of God's Spirit over them) be orthodox; when the reasons, upon which they are grounded, may be fallible, or not proving such conclusions.  
A private man, then, in some things may be infallibly certain; 
§. 22. Of the difficulty of knowing, when one is infallibly certain.  but, since he (also) may be mistaken, not only in * very plain Scriptures, by † not comparing them with other places, that say something contrary to the sense, which they seem to him to bear; † by education in such misinterpretations, and many other thousand ways, (as we have much experienced of late in the Socinians, and our English Sectarists, both great Scripturists); but also, * in thinking himself infallibly certain of something there, when he is not; (which conceit many times ariseth, not from the places incapability of any doubt, but from his not being then acquainted with any objections against his sense of it): The chiefest signs, that I know, by which any one may gather that he is infallibly certain indeed, when it is in any point that is controverted, are these two, (and they are such, as will little nurse him in his opinion of infallible certainty.). 1. The first is; that no other man, or at least not the major part of men, having the use of reason, understanding our terms, and granting all the suppositions which we do, doth contradict, or frame any objections against, our tenet. The 2d. That all having use of reason, &c, or the most that were formerly of another persuasion, to whom we propose all our grounds, become certain of the same thing also. I say the most, because it is not here altogether, as it is in Mathematics; the demonstrations whereof never any, that see them, contradict. Now, that you may not think these marks of certainty too rigid, see the same proposed by the Reformed against the Puritans, whom they think too rashly to pretend certainty in heterodox opinions. See Hook. Eccl. Pol. preface 6. sect. and Bishop Laud, §. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1. Therefore thinking one's self certain, and his not having any doubt at all of the truth of the thing he holds, is no sure note of certainty. For potest non subesse dubium, where yet subest falsum, from the ignorance of those texts or arguments which prove the contrary of what he holds. And though there may be no doubt from contrary arguments, yet is the greatest reason that can be to doubt from a public contrary judgement, where the much major part of such, as I have opportunity to know their opinion (these having all the same evidences as myself) descent from me.  
Now, against these indications of certainty proposed by us, it may be, and is, said: That passion, self-conceit, pride, love of contention, 
§. 23.  and especially contrary education and custom in error, may blind some men's judgement, so as not to discern the plainest things. But mark first, that this is said, ordinarily, by a man that is singular against the contrary judgement of the Church of God. Thou that judgest another, judgest thou not thyself? What can be a better argument for the Church, than her former customs, which thou accusest to misled her present judgement? Who are liker to be clear of passion, those that submit to another's judgement, or those that adhere to their own? Lastly, from this it will follow, that we also, to be infallibly certain of a truth, must be infallibly certain, we are not misled by passion, or education in an error, as well as that others may be so; and this surely is very hard to know. In dissent from our Pastors (saith Dr. Jackson) we cannot but doubt, whether we have learned, as we should, the precepts of Christian modesty: whether learned to deny ourselves, and our affections, to reverence him as God's Minister, taking no offence at his person: whether we have abandoned all such delights, and desires, as are the usual grounds of false persuasion. And in another place, he grants, that to the disobedient, and those who hate the light, even plain Scriptures are difficult. If we cannot be resolved in these, then must we doubt (whether we will or no) whether our doubt and scruple be of faith and conscience, or of humour. What Dr. Jackson saith here of doubt, I may say of certainty, (since many also are deceived, in thinking themselves certain, when they are not): that till we are certain that we are void of such passion, we cannot be certain that we are certain, etc.  
Again; 'tis said: That in points, which we must needs grant to be most certainly plain to any rational man, yet some heretics 
§. 24.  have been of a contrary judgement: as 'tis instanced in the Manichees, and in some frantic people of late, acknowledging no obligation to the practice of Christian virtues etc. I answer: this comes about, for the most part at least, by their denying some principles, which others argue upon. The Manichees acknowledged divine Scriptures, but not such as we have them; but said, that our Scriptures were miserably corrupted. Our Sectarists of late acknowledge our Scriptures; but say, they were writ for, and belong only to, new beginners in Christianity, not to the perfect, etc. So likewise, those that vary in their conclusions, 'tis notable to see, how much they vary also in their suppositions. Some, in Scripture, hold those to be counsels only, which others take for absolute commands: some suppose those precepts temporary, (as I think we must needs confess that Act. 15. to be) which others will needs have to be eternal: some will have the practices set down in Scripture to oblige, as well as peremptory precepts; others not, etc. And upon these various grounds, which others grant not, every one builds, from those grounds most infallible conclusions; which all the world, if they yielded to his principles, would also with him assert. Meanwhile he, looking at the plainness of his deductions, and seldom examining the soundness of some ground, which he (irrationally) takes for granted, becomes infallibly certain (as he thinks) of what is indeed an error, and many times a gross one.  
But it may be said again; that where we can show none of these differences in principles, yet there have been heretics, that 
§. 25.  have gone against tenets even in fundamentals,, of which tenets we must needs grant, that any man may be infallibly certain: as the Arrians, Socinians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. To you I may speak my opinion. In all these, and many more, which, being chief foundations, we usually also call most manifest truths, yet the most of Christians (E will not say all) are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church, from time to time; by which they are kept fixed, and not shaken in them. And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason, where the authority of the Church is laid aside. Certainly (to name some of them) the omnipresence of God, not in his power, but substance; his certain foreknowledge of, not only what may, but also what shall, be, yet so, as not to destroy man's free election; Christ's non-inferiority, as touching the Godhead, to the Father; and all those particulars about the Trinity, Person, Natures, and Wills of Christ, can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture (to every one that grants it to be Scripture) that all men, without the Church's guidance, and education in such a faith &c, would have been infallibly certain of them.  
2. But, to let these pass, and suppose, in private men, what infallible certainty you please, of them, or also of many other divine 
§. 26.  truths: yet in the 3d. place, I do not see how, from the former instances, we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible 
3. The plea of infallible certainty at least not usable against any general contrary judgement of the Church.  certainty, against the judgement of the Church of many former ages, for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church, against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of.  
One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on 
§. 27. An instance in the controversy about giving the Communion in one kind only.  their side, I suppose, is Communion in one kind only: which hath this prejudice also accompanying it; that it was practised by the Church Catholic in the public ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation. Yet, I think that none will offer to affirm that he is (I say not, much persuaded, but infallibly certain, of) the unlawfulness of such a practice, when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him: * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church, and some precepts there only temporary, not perpetual, (as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it): * That the Church hath altered many other things, not only without our complaining thereof, but with our imitating her. Nay further; * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds, not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture, but amongst Apostolical Traditions only. See Montag. Origin. Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scriptures Infants baptizari, aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare? And Bishop White on the Sabbath, p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us. Such as are these which follow. The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scripture. The Baptism of Infants. Perpetual Virginity of the B. Virgin. Observation of the Lord's Day. The Service of the Church in a known tongue. The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds.— When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times, even in the Eastern Churches also, of giving it in one kind to sick men, to Seamen, to Travellers, to the absents (upon necessary occasions) from church; to those also, who came to church, to carry home with them, that they might there reserve it in readiness, and communicate themselves therewith, when they thought fit, on those days when there was no public communion, or they hindered from it by distance, danger, (as in times of persecution), or necessary secular business; that which they carried home with them being only of one species, viz. that of the bread. And * these things; though so done, to avoid some inconvenience, (I suppose the spilling, and the not-keeping of the wine, as also it is now); yet so done, without any absolute necessity; for, the sick can take wine sooner than bread; and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling, and those vessels also be first consecrated; and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time. When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to Infants newly born and baptised (to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary) only in one kind; namely that of the wine.— When one considers, * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent (in the Greek Church, for all days save Saterdays and Sundays (because, saith Balsamon, Deo sacrificium offer, they accounted to be, festum diem agere) in the Latin Church, for Good-Friday) to communicate expraesanctisicatis; i. e. on what was consecrated on another day, and reserved till then; which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread. * The great cautiousness of the former times, against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood (which could not be gathered up again, as the bread might) in their receiving it, in some places sucked up through a pipe; in others, by intinction, and dipping only, or sopping the bread in the wine; a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches. Again; (whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect communion, and robbing the people, as it were, of the chief part of their redemption, yet) when he hath considered, * their never questioning the completeness of such Communions, who thus received it in one kind; which it most concerned people going out of the world, and some of them perhaps then first communicated, for their last viaticum, to have most perfect. Where note also; † 1. First; * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so constantly believed; that the use of the Cup also in public communions was (upon many abuses committed about it) by little and little, in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice, some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it: and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess. was only to warrant and justify the Church's former custom against those, (Petrus Dresdensis, the Hussites, and others,) who then began, to inveigh, against it, saying; 
AEn. Sylv b●st. Bohem 35. c.  hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum & illicitum; as likewise against that custom, to communicate men fasting; and hence began to change it, and to communicate after Supper, and in both kinds. And 2ly, † * That some of the Reformed also acknowledge, totum Christum to be contained in, and exhibited to us by, any one species, and by the least particle thereof. See Confessio Wirtenberg. Chamier de Eucharist. 9 t. 8. c. our Saviour's body, and blood, and soul, and Deity, suffering now no separation. See a further proof of the things said above, in the discourse on this subject. And lastly, if he hath considered a case not much unlike; i. e. the communicating of Infants; wherein if the Protestants had retained a contrary custom to the rest of the present Church, perhaps they might have accused the Church for changing it, not with less evidence than they do in this. For first; the Scripture saith plainly, as of Baptism, he that is not born again of water &c. so, of the Eucharist, he that eateth not my flesh &c, shall not inherit eternal life. 2ly. And then the Primitive times, according to these precepts, practised it. 3ly. No more knowledge and preparation is required to the Lord's Supper, than to Baptism; for examining one's self, and repenting, is required to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist; therefore, if such things are not required of children for the one; so neither are they for the other. And I could press the like in Extreme Unction; which suppose that we had retained, and the Roman Church left off (as it is contrary); how easily could we have charged them for abrogating a plain Apostolical precept, Jam. 5. 14? And the same may be urged concerning the great act of humility, washing one another's feet before the Communion: for which, after that our Saviour himself had first begun the practice thereof, there seems to be a plain precept. Jo. 13. 14.— And so the Church's changing the celebration of the Lord's Supper into a morning exercise, and that it should be received fasting, was not done without some men's scrupling it; See Januarius his consulting S. Austin about this, Epist. 118. etc. But, if we can allege in this matter the desuetude of former Church to be a sufficient rule and warrant to us for omitting of it; then why may not the same plea of the Church's desuetude be as well by some others enlarged to some other points, wherein Scripture is urged against them? I say therefore, if such cases as these be well considered, together with the understanding and the holiness of these men, who, after our reasons given them, are not convinced by such an evidence, as we pretend; methinks for one to say, notwithstanding all this, not, that he is much persuaded, but that he is absolutely infallibly certain, of the unlawfulness of such a practice, would not consist with that Christian humility which we ought to have, and to which only God gives true knowledge; nor with that charge of the Apostle, not to be wise in our own conceits. Whereas it is noted, that the more eminent in sanctity any one hath been, the more eminent obeyer and defender (not opposer) hath he been of the Church's authority. A like instance might be made in that mainly opposed doctrine of Transubstantiation: where, as long as a possibility thereof is granted, (as it is by many of the Reformed); and such a declaration is found in Scripture as this, [Hoc est Corpus meum,] (the most literal and proper sense whereof that can be, though the most heightening this mystery, is Transubstantiation of the Elements; See Treat. of Euchar. §. 28. n. 2.); and as long as this Scripture is not found contradicted by any other Scriptures, but that with less force the literal expression of them may be brought to comply with it, than the literal expression of it to comply with them; we also adding to these the final determination of the Church (long before Protestancy thought on) after so long and subtle disputes for about 300 years, from the 2d. Nicene Council till the days of Berengarius, and after so curious an examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius, Bertram, and others, 800 years ago; I do not see, where a man can ground an absolute infallible certainty against it. 'tis a dangerous case to disobey, where we see others of great judgement and integrity yielding obedience with alacrity, saith Dr. Jackson. And indeed I cannot but approve of that constitution of Ignatius; and think him a too much selfconceited man, who, when he hath, I say not, to the Church, but, suppose only to three or four, whom he knew wise, and learned, and uninterested men, showed his reasons, and they have weighed them, and concluded against his former opinion, would not quietly acquiesce in their contrary judgements, supposing no superior judgement to have prejudiced them; and this especially in a point not fundamental. Tho (I know not how it is, that) when we plead our security in our dissent from the Church's judgement, we presently say, that the point we differ from her in is not fundamental, and that unity of faith in those fundamentals is sufficient: but again, when we plead the necessity of using our own judgement, and not trusting or relying on any other man's, we presently represent the same Not-fundamental truths, as of great consequence; and say, the blind (meaning the Church, which may perhaps err in such things) leading the blind, both may fall into the ditch: and that that ditch also is damnation.  
I cannot conceive therefore, how any man can assure himself (in any thing that is not of fact or sense, but that is only a deduction 
§. 28.  from Scripture and Tradition) contrary to the judgement (I say not of his private Pastor, but) of the supremest Court of the present Church, that he is infallibly certain of any thing, small, or great. Small, I say, as well as great: for from the Church's being liable in some things to error doth not follow any likelihood of his being infallibly certain in those things of the contrary truth; but rather otherwise: because 'tis a sign, that such things are not clearly revealed, and that they being dark to her, will be so much more to him. To confirm which, add these two. 1. That in Fundamentals this thing is granted; That none can be certain of the contrary to what the Church defines: and then, that how many points are fundamental, is to him uncertain. 2. That amongst many tenets of the Church, this is one; That private men are bound in all things to yield their consent to the Church's decisions, where they are required so to do. This tenet is plain in the practice of General Councils; which Councils, as well for Nonfundamentals as Fundamentals, and for things of practice as well as of belief, have anathematised the (not only contradicters, but) Dissenters and Non-conformists. Now then, unless any one be infallibly certain of the contrary to what the Church determins, and that this is no fundamental point also; his judgement, against hers, cannot be infallible in any point whatsoever, where she requires submission of his judgement. In prosecution of which submission of our judgement in Nonfundamentals, also it is to be noted; that, if our submission to the Church in fundamentals were performed from any such obedience, as we confess is by the command of God's word due to her determinations; then the texts, which may be urged to oblige us to obedience in these points, would oblige us also in others: for these texts are without any limitation of our obedience to fundamentals only. But indeed, our not so much assenting to her, as consenting with her, in fundamentals seems to proceed from other motives than obedience: as from this; that our Saviour hath promised, that the Church (for fundamentals at least) shall not err: and from a second; that all fundamentals are most plain in Scripture: and therefore, as they cannot be hid to us, so neither can they to her; and therefore in fundamentals we must necessarily both agree; in which agreeing, we obey not her, but, together with her, the Scriptures. Mr. Chillingworth well saw this. And hence, those who withdraw one of these motives, as those amongst the reformed, who say, Christ's promise (beforementioned) is only conditional, (i. e. if the Clergy shall do their duty); or who say, that Christ's promise is more general, i. e. made to Christianity, but not to the Clergy thereof, or to any General Council; those, I say, make nothing to descent from any Council, or any Church, that can authoritatively declare her opinion. To conclude this Query; I do not see then, how any man can be, or at least can know, that he is, infallibly certain of any point, wherein the Church's judgement is contrary to his.  
4. Now (next) if you be not infallibly certain, then, though you have never so great probability (that is short of certainty) for your 
§. 29. 4. The greatest probability, short of infallible cer tainty, not excusing one dissenting from the judgement of the Church,  private opinion, yet I think, and I think the Reformed Divines conclude, that you are notwithstanding to consent to the contrary determination of the Church or Council. Else if only probabilities may serve to counterpoise the Church's or Council's authority, when or where will these be wanting? You have seen Mr. hooker's, and Bishop Laud's, and Bishop White's opinion in Church-gov; 2. part. §. 36.— Infallib. §. 45. And Dr. Jackson on the Creed, 2. l. 1. §. 6. c. I find saying thus, Our disobedience is unwarrantable, unless we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposition between the injunction of Superiors, and express law of the most high. And elsewhere he saith: Every doubt or scruple, that the Church's edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's law, is not sufficient to deny obedience. And again: In doubts (saith he) [and I say, all is but more or less doubt until we be certain] it will abundantly suffice, to make sincere protestation in the sight of God, or before the Magistrate, if need require, that we undertake not such actions upon any private liking of the things enjoined, but only upon sincere respect of performing obedience to Superiors etc. And elsewhere: We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands, but he is to be obeyed, till we can prove the contrary. Again: We can no more obey, than love, God whom we have not seen, but by obeying our Superiors whom we have seen. True Spiritual obedience will bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for Authorities sake, than to disobey Authority for the private dislike of the things commanded. Again: If Pastors are only to be obeyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture, what obedience perform we to them more than to any other man whomsoever? for whosoever shows the express undoubted command of God, it must be obeyed of all. If we thus only bound to obey, than I am not more bound to obey any other man, than he bound to obey or believe me: the flock no more bound to obey the Pastor, than the Pastor them: and so the donation of Spiritual Authority, when Christ ascended on high, were a donation of mere titles. You see how we plead for obedience, against our own Non-conformists: yet, for the former Church, we support ourselves against her authority, with having infallible certainty. But the Non-conformists cease not to plead this certainty also against us. But indeed, this, he saith here, is most reasonable. For if you do not submit to the Church's judgement, when you have greater probability to the contrary; you never submit to her judgement at all: for when ever you have not greater probability to the contrary, you have either greater probability of what she saith; or are in a pure equilibration: and in either of these you do nothing with, or for, which you would not, and may not also, do without, her. Well, than we may not exact of the Church that she should prove, nor may not only then yield obedience, i. e, consent and conformity, when she doth prove, to us that that is truth, which she commands us to believe; and that that is lawful, which she commands us to do. But it is our duty to obey, if ourselves have not infallible certainty and proof that such things are untrue or unlawful. It is not enough, to licence us to withdraw our obedience or assent to her, that she may possibly err in what she commands us, unless also we know, that we cannot err ourselves: for the power of giving our assent requires not infallible knowledge, that the thing, we assent to, first is true; but only, a not knowing infallibly, that it is false. It is not enough, that we are not certain that she erreth not; not enough, that we have some scruples, some reasons and arguments, whereby it seems to us that she erreth: but only certain infallibility that she doth err, this indeed excuseth our nonobedience. Else our Spiritual Superiors are in the place of God, and of Christ, to us: and we are to show to them, whom we do see and hear, the humble obedience we are ready in all things to render to God, whom we do not see nor hear: and, as we are to show our love to God in our Neighbour, so are we to show our obedience to him in his Substitutes. 1 Thes. 4. 8. compared with 2. And it is not only lawful, but a great virtue in us, (since the contrary is most-what an effect of self-conceit and arrogancy of wisdom and knowledge), as to suppress the seeming suggestions of reason and sense about natural things, which suggestions are against the revelations of God and divine truths; so, to captivate our understandings also, and crush the suggestions of any singular interpretations and senses about these divine revelations, which are against (I say not, every private teacher, but) the common exposition of the Church.  
Were then all those, which are the Church's, decrees acknowledged; and 2ly, our infallible certainty (so much pretended by 
§. 30.  us) so strictly examined, that weak probabilities be not accepted by us in stead thereof; how few would the points be, in which (upon our concessions) we could oppose the H. Church? But again; were all those people, that had not, in these few points, that infallible certainty, which the others (learned) have, (as one may be certain of a thing, of which another is not, though he also might be, certain), conformable to the Church's definitions, how near would this come to a perfect union? Thus Dr. Jackson, on the Creed, 2. l. 1. §. 6. c. Superiors are to be obeyed in all such points as their inferiors are not at leisure to examine; or not of capacity to discern, whether they be lawful or no. And in another place. Some may sin in obeying authority, whilst some others do not sin. And again, ib. Unless a man can justly plead some peculiar reason or privilege, it is a very dangerous case to disobey lawful authority in such matters, whereunto he sees many men by his own confession of great judgement and integrity of life yielding obedience with alacrity etc. (For indeed I suppose all inferiors not bound to examine the doctrines they receive from the Church.) But how is it then, that those that are not certain, are taught to believe those, that (upon this certainty) depart from the definitions of the Church, rather than to adhere to the Church? Surely, they ought to be taught otherwise, even by these that are departed. For suppose Luther, upon some private certainty, might not yield his consent to former Church-definitions, yet all the rest not having the same certainty (even by the Protestants stating of this question) ought to adhere still, not to Luther, but to the former Church. And again, Luther, in this certainty, being bound at least to Noncontradiction of the Church, neither might he then go about to teach others that infallible certainty which he had, of those points which oppose the Church.  
You know the ordinary objection, against what is abovesaid, out of Rom. 14. c. 23. Where the Apostle saith: He that doubteth 
§. 31. An explication of Rom. 14. 23.  of the lawfulness of a thing, and yet doth it, sinneth: and therefore it is urged, that he that practiseth a thing upon the Church's command, whereof he doubts, whether it be lawful; or subscribeth to the Church's judgement in a thing, whereof he doubteth whether it be true, sinneth. To this I answered before, (§. 2. and §. 20.) that he that believeth, or is persuaded, that he ought to yield obedience to the Church in things contrary to his private judgement, sinneth not in this sort, because such a one doubteth not, but is satisfied in what he ought to hold, or to do. But, if the question be asked of those, who have some doubt whether they ought to obey the Church, or to follow their own judgement; whether such at least ought not to follow their own judgement, to avoid sinning? I answer; neither do such sin in obeying the Church, rather than themselves. Indeed where one side is undoubtedly lawful, and the other only is doubted of, whether lawful; he who doth that, which he doubteth of, sinneth. But where one hath, or hath reason to have, a double doubt; and a doubt of the lawfulness of both sides: you see, that here he must (go what way he will) do something, when he doubteth, or hath reason to doubt, of the lawfulness thereof. And thus it is, where ever the Church commandeth me to do a thing on one side, and my particular judgement in the thing dissuades me from doing it on the other; for here, in not doing it, I may, or aught, to doubt, that I sin against the obedience I owe the Church; as well as, in doing it, against the obedience I owe to my own judgement or conscience. Here therefore, I am not to say, [my judgement being against it I must not do it,] or [I sin if I do it,] and so oppose the Church's authority out of conscience, as I think: but when a command of the Church is now come in upon me to do it, and so it is not left free to me in respect of external authority (as before, and as it is in the Apostle's instances) not to do it; here I am first to examine, whether this my judgement is not to be submitted to the Church's judgement: for if I am persuaded, or so much as doubt whether, it ought to be submitted, I may now sin, in not doing according to her judgement, against my own; i. e. I may sin in not doing it, though it is against my judgement to do it. As in two instances it will be plain. For, suppose a Church-injunction come forth for Christians not to observe Jewish Sabbaths, and some Christian, Judaic in his own particular judgement, thinks such Sabbaths are to be observed; yet such a one sinneth, if he doth according to this judgement, after, and against, the Church's injunction; (see Gal. 4. 10.) though before this he had sinned, if he had not done according to his own judgement. (See Rom. 14. 5. 14.) Again; suppose a decree of the Nicene Council, that all men should subsubscribe their Creed, and that some particular Christian thinks (thinks, I say, is not certain) in his own particular judgement something in it to be false: if such a one doth not subscribe it, though against his own particular judgement, he sins: because he either knows, or aught to know, that, in fundamentals at least, his particular judgement is to yield to the judgement of the Church. But 3ly, if the question be asked again; Whether he that doubts not, but is fully persuaded, that he owes no such obedience to the Church; and that he is to follow his private judgement rather than to follow that of the Church, when they cross; whether such, I say, may or aught to obey the Church, against his private judgement? I answer; No, by no means: because an erroneous conscience obligeth; i▪ e. our words or actions may never go contrary to our heart. And if any one, though in doing well, thinketh he doth evil, he (in his intention) doth evil. But yet, if his judgement oweth obedience to the Church's, though he doth not think so, in this following of his conscience he sinneth, because he doth against his duty; of which he ought to have informed his conscience better: and this no small sin, after such a known declaration; He that heareth you, heareth me: and, If he will not hear the Church, let him be accounted as a heathen, etc.   

Concerning the Use of Private Judgement.  
1. FIrst, it is true, that we are in all things to follow our own judgement, as our judgement, reflecting on the former acts of the intellect, and considering all reasons, (as well those taken from authority, as those taken from the appearance of things in themselves to us) finally determines what we ought to do. (But note, that such judgement, when ever culpably mistaken, excuseth not from sin our acting according to it). But 2ly, it is false that we are always to follow or act after our own judgement, as our judgement is taken for our own private argumentations, reasonings, and evidences, concerning the subject we examine and judge of against the authority of whomever judging otherwise. See Oblige. of Judgement, p. 1. and the Canons quoted before, Ch. Governm. 2d. part, how far the Reformed Synods have thought fit to restrain men's private judgements in obliging them to that of the Church. 3ly. It is granted, that as our judgement is taken in this 2d. sense, namely, for the private reasons and evidences we have of a subject in itself secluding from authority, in some things we are allowed to use and follow it, or to follow such reasons. But we cannot collect from hence, that we are permitted by God, or have equal reason to follow it (I mean our private opinion or reason) in every thing; unless it be proved [1.] That all things are equally easy to be discovered by it: and [2ly,] That there is no divine command for our yielding obedience in some things to another's judgement. If any one should advise one to find out some reputed wise and experienced person in such affairs, to consult with about something wherein himself knoweth little, and, such a one found, wholly to rely on his directions and judgement therein; answered he well that should say: If I may rely on my own judgement in seeking out such a person, why may I not as well rely on it for the matter about which I seek to him? which only is well answered, if these two be equally easy or difficult. So the Reformed granting, that we are to use our own private reason for discovering what books are the true word of God, yet will not allow us, having found such books to be his word, to use our own private reason to examine by it, whether what we find delivered to us therein be truth or no; or when ever any thing therein seems (I say not is) against our reason, (as a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of Essence), then to follow our reason in expounding it otherwise then it appears: but now we are to lay aside the arguing of our reason, and to believe all these Scriptures proposed, after that by our reason we have found them to have divine authority. So supposing that some Church were infallible, it will not follow, that if one may use his judgement in finding her, he may afterward also use his judgement against her, or any her decrees. 4ly. If you ask therefore in what things we may use and follow our private reason and opinion; I answer, in all things wherein God or right reason hath not submitted us to the judgement of another. We may use it therefore in the discovery and search, whether there be any such Judge at all appointed by God over us in Spiritual matters: and what person or court it is, to whose judgement he hath subjected us: And in order to this, we may use it in the finding out, which, of the several religions that are in the world, is the true; and which, in the several divisions and sects that are in the true, i. e. where some truth is by all retained, is the Catholic; and whether that particular Church, wherein we were bred, hath any way departed from it. So in the finding out which Councils, in some doubt concerning them, are legitimate and truly General, to whose acts we are to render up the submission of our judgement, and which is the right and genuine sense (where any ambiguity) of their decrees; in finding them out (I say) by the judgement and testimony, which we find the present Church of our own days, or that part thereof which seems to our private reason the Catholic, to give thereof. In this search, that Proposition of Dr. La: is very true; Intellectus cujusque practicus judicare debet, utrum is, qui pro Judice haberi velit, sit utique verus & legitimus; & an media, quae adducuntur ad hoc probandum, fidei faciende sufficiant. But, such a Judge by our private reason being found to be, and found who it is, we may not, for the things once judged and decided by him, use or follow our own private reason any further; but are now to quit it; and our judgement, having once discovered that such is appointed our Judge in such matters, in this excludes itself: and this Resignation we make of our judgement is also an act of our judgement. In this manner the Apostle exhorts elsewhere, not to trust every teacher, but to try their doctrines, whether agreeing with those of the Apostles, i. e. with those of the appointed Governors of the Church; and elsewhere, that doctrine which they find the Church-governors to have delivered to them, to stand constant and steadfast in it. (See Col. 2. 7, 8. 2 Thes. 2 15. compared with 1. 1. Tit. 1. 9 Eph. 4. 11. compared with 14. Judas 3. 4.) But you will say; What if upon using my private reason, I find not that there is any Judge or Lawgiver in Spiritual matters, cannot I then in all such matters use my private reason, and follow the dictates thereof without sinning? No, if your reason in such search was faulty; for, as I said, viciously contracted ignorance never excuseth omission of duty. 5ly. As it is our duty (where any cause of doubt) diligently with our best reason to seek out the true Spiritual Guides; and then having found, to submit our judgement and reason as readily unto, them: so it seems much more easy to find out the Church, which is to be our guide, and to decide things to us, than to find out the truth of all those things she decides: more easy to find out, who are those Spiritual Magistrates and Substitutes of our Saviour, left to govern and guide his Church until his second coming, (lights not put under a bushel, but set on high upon a candlestick to give light to all, and a corporation and city set on an hill to be seen of all), or, amongst several sects and divisions, to find out which is the Catholic communion (from which all the rest in their several times have gone forth, at the first very few in number, v. Trial of Doctrines, §. 32.) than by our own guidance and steering, entering every one as a rasa tabula upon search of truth amongst the many subtleties of contrary pretences of contrary traditions in Antiquity, to find out what is orthodox in all those points: which points wean-while after so many hot contentions, and wavering of opinion, and misquoted Authors, the Guide, we neglect, in her several Councils hath prudently fixed, that we might no more like children be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. What wise work have the Socinians made, and what strange truths have they discovered, by waving the authority of Councils, and laying hold of private reason to conduct them, and be their judge, assisted with plain Scripture, after that they had made quest after some other Judge, and could find none sufficiently infallible for their turn? Who have been so much, so dangerously, deceived, as these wise and wary men, who would trust none but the infallible? 6ly. (Against that which is usually said, that the words of Scripture are as plain and intelligible as the decrees of a Council, and therefore our private reason or judgement may make use of the one for its guide as well as the other; and, when there seems contradiction, against the other); it seems much more easy by our private understandings to apprehend the Councils decision, than to apprehend the sense of Scripture in such points as the Council decides; and many may learn (for example) the orthodox tenets concerning the Trinity out of the Athanasian Creed, that could not learn them out of Scripture without mistaking in some of them. For though it is true, that a text of Scripture may be as plain as any decrees of a Council; and that as we may judge what is the sense and meaning of such a decree, so we may also of such a place of Scripture: yet it may be presumed, that none of these plain Scriptures will ever be found opposite to the decree of such Council: for if the place be so plain and intelligible to us, surely so it would have been to so learned and numerous a Council, as well as to a private judgement. Again, what is said in Scripture, concording with the decrees of Councils, yet, it may be presumed, is not there every way, considering the counterpoise of other Scripture-texts, so plainly said. Else such Conciliary decisions are vain: and we must likewise say, that all expositions, comments, catechisms, are no plainer than the text, and, to those who read Scriptures, useless. For words are only multiplied without necessity, where what is said before is as plain as what is said after, and the authority of the first infallible. Thus, if the Council remained as ambiguous as the Scripture, supposing the Church infallible, yet those who followed her sentence could receive no more satisfaction to their doubts than they had before; and the sense of the Conciliary definitions might be disputed as much as of Scripture, and both sides, who subscribe to the Scriptures, would also subscribe to them; which we ordinarily see refused.  
FINIS.   

Concerning Obedience to ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNORS, and Trial of DOCTRINES.   

CONTENTS.  

SUfficient Truth always to be found in the Church. §. 1.  
Yet false Doctors must be;  
And their followers not safe. §. 2.  
Doctor's therefore may be tried. §. 3.  
Several ways of Trial §. 4.   

1. By the H. Scriptures. §. 5. Where 

1. Concerning Trials of Doctrines, and Commands, wherein Scriptures are silent. §. 6.  
2. Concerning Doctrines, and Commands, where the Scripture seems to us doubtful. §. 12.  
3. Concerning Doctrines etc. to which Scriptures seem to us contrary. §. 13.    
1. Where we must proceed to use a second Trial of Doctrines by the Doctors of the Church. §. 14. 

And beware of depending on our own judgement made upon the Scriptures. §. 14.  
That there is always some external Communion of Christianity or other, not erring in knowledge necessary. §. 18.  
We necessarily to follow the judgement of the Church's teachers, where universally agreeing. §. 19 n. 1.  
Where divided; 1. We to follow either side rather than our own judgement opposite to both. §. 20.  
2. Of the two, to follow those, whom the other acknowledge to have the judgement or practice of former times on their side. §. 21.  
Where this judgement or practice is pleaded by both; we to search, and to follow that, which we find so by our experience. §. 22.  
That this thing is not hard to be found. §. 23.  
The Father's being not, for the main, either repugnant to one another; or ambiguous; or impertinent. Where,  
Of certain Cautions in making judgement of the tenets of the Ancients. §. 23.  
And some Church also in all ages being like the former. §. 30.  
And Heresy still either going, or being thrust, out of this Church. §. 32.  
And its beginning discerned by its paucity.  
So that discreet Trial cannot mistake. §. 33.  
Who can search no further, They to adhere to the judgement of the Christian Church wherein they live, rather than to their own judgement against it. §. 36.    
3. Trial of Doctrine and Doctors, by the Holiness those produce, and these practice. §. 37. 

Where more Truth, more Holiness. §. 38.  
And where more Holiness, more Truth. §. 39  
Where more Error, more Vice: and è converso. §. 40.  
In Churches therefore, we to compare 1. the strictness or liberty of their doctrines, discipline, etc. §. 41.  
2. Their abounding, or deficiency, in doctrines tending to Perfection. §. 42.  
3. Their writings of Devotion. §. 46.  
4. The Lives of their Saints, or Holy men. §. 47.    
4. Trial of Doctrines by the Conversion of Nations. §. 49.    

Concerning Obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors, and Trial of Doctrines.  
THat God, by his Great Apostle Jesus Christ, sent the clear 
§. 1. Sufficient truth always to be found in the Church.  light of all the mystery of our salvation into the world; and that Christ hath, and will, continue it (so much as is sufficient) to us, by his Substitutes in the same office, unto the end thereof; so that we need not remain in darkness but by our own default, hath been showed you elsewhere, in Sau. Ben. p. 12. etc. and Succession of Clergy, p. 1.  
But yet 1. it seems, that notwithstanding these Substitutes there shall be some false teachers; and as we hitherto see not all his other enemies, so neither all error, put under our Saviour's feet; as, not sin, so neither ignorance yet quite vanquished: (1 Cor. 13. 12.) because it so seemed good unto him, (for whom are all things), as to permit evil always, to make good arise more gloriously out of it; so to permit error always, (2 Pet. 2. 1.) the more to illustrate truth; and to make the followers of truth, as well as of righteousness, by these oppositions, more approved (for their adherence 
Yet false Doctors must be.  to God) and capable of greater reward: it being far more glorious, more acceptable, to have discerned, held, defended, the truth; where there was a possibility, a facility, a pattern, an opposition, of error. (See for this 1 Cor. 11. 19 Matt. 10. 34, 35.— 17. 15. Act. 20. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 20. compared with 16. etc. 1 Jo. 2. 18. Luk. 2. 34. Jo. 9 39 Rom. 9 32. This is showed also by experience: even when there were infallible teachers, there were also false ones mingled; a contending for the law at Antioch; Nicolaitanism at Ephesus, (Rev. 2. 15); Divisions about their teachers at Corinth; Circumcision at Galatia; opposers of the Resurrection; deniers of Christ's true Incarnation; (Hymeneus, Diotrephes, etc.) Else; could not God at the beginning have published his truth to all Nations, as well as to Abraham? or spread the Gospel, at first, over all the world? Could not our Saviour have laid the chief foundation of the Gospel so firm and evident, that the whole Nation of the Jews, together with the chief Priests, and Pharisees, and Herod, and Pilate, should have been convinced thereof by their own senses; in showing himself with his wounded side, and pierced hands and feet, publicly at that grand Festival, (as formerly he had done,) in the Temple and in the Streets, in their Palaces and Courts? and then before all the people have ascended into Heaven to God? and so have sealed for ever to that whole Nation the Confession of his being the Messias, and thus, with a great access to his Glory on earth have prevented their so great and long Apostasy? What meaned he then to appear so sparingly, and in corners, the doors being shut, and not to all the people (saith the Apostle), but to some few chosen to be witnesses, though he was not here defective in what was sufficient? Again; could not his Spirit (that hath led some) have led all, into all truth, if he had pleased to give it to them, in a greater measure? How easy had it been for our Saviour, who foresaw that sharp controversy concerning observance of the Ceremonial law by Christians, (the maintainers of which ceremonies contended only for them, because they thought Christ had not abrogated them), to have declared himself openly in that point, when he was here on earth? How easy for him, foreseeing the controversies ever since, even those so many about his own person, those now between the Reformed and the Roman Church, to have caused (instead of an occasionally-written Epistle) such a Creed as the Athanasian, or such Articles as those of Trent, or of the Augustan Confession, or such a methodical clear Catechism as now several Sects draw up, for the instruction of their followers in the principles of their religion, to have been written by his Apostles? Will any one say, that had such writings been H. Scripture, yet these controversies had not been prevented, or at least not in some greater measure prevented than now they are? Or would not (brieflier) all controversies have been prevented, had our Saviour as plainly said, that the Roman Bishop should regulate the faith of his Church for ever, as it may be said, and is said by others? There must be heresies then; and 
1 Cor. 11. 19  therefore it seemed good to the wisdom of the Father, that all things should not be done (that might, but only so much that was sufficient), whereby they should be prevented. Neither is it a good reasoning; This was the best way for taking away all controversy and error in the Church, that the Scriptures should plainly, so as none may mistake, set down all truths necessary to salvation; or, that there should be a known infallible Judge; therefore, they do so; or, therefore, there is so: because this seemed not best to God (for the reason's forementioned, and for many other perhaps not known, which made the Apostle cry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! Rom. 11, 33.) to take away all controversy and error &c, no more than it did to prohibit in the world the being of evil. I know not whether Tertullian's saying, in prescript. cont. haer. concerning this matter, be not too bold: Ipsas quoque Scripturas sic esse ex Dei voluntate dispositas, ut haereticis materiam subministrarent.— And,— haereses sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum accidere non poterant. But we may make good use of it, in being less rash, and more circumspect, in interpreting, (especially when we are singular), where we may be so easily mistaken.  
2ly. It seems, (since there is supposed sufficient means, for all 
§. 2. And their followers not safe.  those who are in the Church, to attain to the knowledge of all necessary truth; for God and our Saviour have not been wanting to his Church in necessaries), that those, who blindly obey such false guides as shall be in the world, shall not be free from punishment, though they offend thro' ignorance. See Matt. 15. 14. Ezek. 33. 8.— 3. 18.  
3ly. There being some doctrines false, and danger in being 
§. 3. Doctrines therefore may be tried.  misled by them; it seems all doctrines may be tried, and that by all persons. See, Jo. 5. 39, our Saviour bidding them try his;— Act. 17. 11. the Bereans;— and, Act. 15. 2. the Antiochians, trying S. Paul's.— See to this purpose 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Rev. 2. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 15.— 11. 13. And the more trial the better; so it be rightly performed, whereby we may discover false doctrines and teachers, that we may not be seduced by them; whereby we may know more of God; may confirm our belief (of which there are many degrees) in what we are taught; and may be able to give better account to others of our faith, (1 Pet. 3. 15. Col. 3. 16.) and whereby truth will always have a great advantage of error. For verum vero consonat.  
4. Now seeing that all Spiritual knowledge cometh first by 
§. 4. Several ways of Trial.  Revelation from God, the trial of any doctrine, we doubt of, is to be made either by the holy Scriptures, written from the beginning by men inspired by the Holy Ghost; or, by the Interpreters of these Scriptures, and those who were ordained by these men that were inspired, and who had the form of sound doctrine committed unto them, viz. by the Doctors and Pastors of the Church: where also the doctrines of some Doctors, whose tenets we doubt of, are to be tried by the rest of the Doctors of the present times; or the doctrines of all the present Doctors to be tried by the writings of the Doctors of former times. Trials by the Scriptures were those Act. 17. 11. Jo. 5. 39 2 Pet. 1. 19— Trials by the Doctors of the Church, those Act. 15. 2. Gal. 1. 9 Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 14. 32. etc. 2 Jo. 10.— Now these H. Scriptures and Holy Doctors collectively taken to the not-yet-so-far-grounded and illuminated are capable of being tried too. The first Scriptures and Teachers, by those who lived in the same times, were tried by Miracles; by those who lived afterward, are tried by Tradition: the second Scriptures are tried by their accord with the first, as also by Miracles: the 2d. Teachers are tried by their Ordination from the first. which Teachers, if we find all agreeing in one judgement, we need try no further, our Saviour having promised his perpetual presence with them, and that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the truth taught by them.  
5. Now first concerning trial of our Superiors commands and doctrines 
§. 5. 1. By Scrip tures.  by Scriptures; of which there are many several ways. As trying, 1. Whether such doctrines or commands be contained or commanded in Scripture. 2. Whether the contrary to them be contained or commanded in Scripture. Again, if the contrary of them be contained there, 1. whether, as fact only, 2 or also as precept.  
1. Now the first of these trials seems not necessary to be used. 
§. 6. Concerning trial of Doctrines and Commands, which are not also enjoined in Scripture.  1. For it doth not follow, that it is unlawful to do or to believe a thing, because H. Scripture doth not say or command it. Angumentum ab authoritate non valet negative. Some things both in doctrine and discipline may possibly descend from the Apostles, that are not set down by them in writing, (and these, though not absolutely necessary, which very few points are, yet very useful, to Salvation.) Timothy might hear some things from S. Paul more than are set down in his Epistle, (see 2 Tim. 1. 13.) and Timothy might also commit these things again to other faithful men, (for them again to teach others), and not perhaps write them, or not, all. (See 2. Tim. 2. 2.) So, when he was sent to Corinth, 1 Cor. 4. 17. he might acquaint them with more of S. Paul's doctrines and ways in Christ, than St. Paul writ to them. See 1 Cor. 11. 34. where the Apostle possibly might order somewhat more concerning the receiving of the Sacrament, which is not mentioned in the Scripture. As S. August. thinks, he ordered receiving of it fasting. See Epist. 118. ad Januarium, near the end.— See 2 Thess. 2. 15.  
2ly. As we may not argue things unlawful in themselves, or untrue, so neither useless, or superstitious and will-worship, because 
§. 7.  we do not find them in the Scriptures. For there are many things which may be enjoined by Ecclesiastical authority, which are not only not unlawful; or which are required only for the preservation of order and unity in the Church for God's public Service &c. but which are very useful, and much helping us for our Salvation, for the advancing of holiness, suppressing of lusts, &c, and granted to be so, even by those who think them not all commanded in Scripture. As Confession of sins to the Priest; observing certain times of Fast; frequent hours of Prayer; several Penances. (See Common-prayer-book, Preface to Commination.) etc. And there are also many other customs received from a constant tradition; which those, who think them not to be set down in Scripture, yet do not therefore deny them to be true and Apostolical, or affirm them unlawful to be observed: as Episcopacy; Baptising of Infants; the Eucharist administered only by the Priest; the observation of the Lord's day, etc. Nay, some precepts in Scripture there are, quietly acknowledged to be temporary and antiquated, (as that of observing that day of the week on which God rested, and that Act. 15. 29.) and some other things, not in precept, willingly admitted to oblige, for no reason, but only because the first were anciently laid aside, and the second practised by our Mother the Church. And by the same reason as some admit these, though not contained in Scripture, they must admit many more.  
3ly. But were some of these things enjoined needless, yet as long 
§. 8.  as they are not by God's word forbidden, and are by the Church commanded; if S. Paul would abstain from flesh, whilst he lived, not to offend his brother; how much more should we obey in these, not to offend our governors? or rather, to perform the divine command of yielding obedience to our Governors? which submission to them is due, I suppose, in all things not contrary to the Scriptures. In which our Superiors may offend many times in their injunctions, when we do not in our obedience. the preservation of so reverend an authority, (which cannot in all things be managed for the best,) and of the unity of the Church, being more benefit to any member thereof, than the observance of a command, which is fruitless, yet no way contrary to the Scriptures, can be inconvenience. Our Superiors may offend, I say, in enjoining, when not others in obeying. Because injunctions and laws become unjust and unlawful (not one, but) many ways; as in respect of the matter, when contrary to God's word, so (where the matter is not a thing evil) in respect of the end, author, or other circumstances. As when such injunctions are no way conducing to the public good: when enjoined, as God's command; or, as to be preferred before something that is so; or, as something necessary to Salvation; when not enjoined by a lawful authority, etc. Now the matter of the command being not faulty, the thing may be done; (provided, that no unlawful end be expressed in the injunctions, for thus it becomes part of the matter and substance of the command:) because the end, by them that obey, may be changed; and, as concerning the Legislator, 'tis no fault to obey another, who ever he be, in that which we may impose upon ourselves. Lastly, for the matter; though it is everlastingly granted, that I may do nothing that is contrary to God's commands; yet I have no reason to refuse obedience to my Superiors, unless it be a thing, which (not, I think, but) I am sure is so, (as the Apostles were sure in their refusing, Act. 4. 19) for where there is reason to doubt concerning the matter, whether it be contrary to God's command or no, (and so, I think, there is always, where the Church's judgement is opposed to mine), there 'tis a duty to obey my Superiors.  
But here, what if that which is not commanded in the Scripture be 
§. 9  enjoined by the Church to be obeyed as a thing commanded there; or as commanded by God? (Which thing our Saviour blamed in the Pharisees, and justified his Disciples in not observing their commands: In which if we may conform to authority, it seems that there will scarce be any superstition, or will-worship at all, but only in the imposers of laws). Answ. 1. 'tis to be noted: 
1.  that the Pharisees traditions, in which the instance is made, were many of them other than those here supposed; some being contrary to the Scripture, as that tradition mentioned Matt. 15. 5. some recommended before the commands in Scripture; and whilst those done, these omitted; in which respect such service became most odious; (see Mark 7. 8. Matt. 23. 23.— 15. 9) others required to be done as necessary, which were not only needles, but upon a false ground recommended: as that of washing hands, because they held that unwashen hands defiled. But 2ly, this shall be granted; 
2.  that, that which is commanded, though it be not contrary to Scripture, yet when it is pretended by the imposers to be in itself necessary, (as, when it is pretended either to be Scripture, or, to be reverenced and equalled to the Scriptures, and God to be as much worshipped in it (when as men only, and not God, require it) as in what himself hath commanded, and that rather to be omitted than it, and when it is by others obeyed and reverenced as such;) is superstition and will-worship both, in him that commands, and in him who obeys, whenever he hath sufficient evidence for conviction. [And this, I suppose, was the fault of those who sat in Moses' chair, not that they required obedience to their decrees, such as were not contrary to God's word; but an equal reverence and belief of them (in this obedience), as of the written law; nay, placed the substance of holiness and of God's honour in these, wherein it did not consist, more than in the other; and so required the omitting of the other rather than of these: as should one now impute the power of prayer to the posture or place he makes it in, or to the number of times he doth it, and not to the devotion and purity of the Suppliant, the mercy and promises of God, &c, this would be Superstition and will-worship, i. e. a worship, which himself deviseth, put in the place of that which God requireth. So not only men's traditions, but divine commands, from a mistaken end and use of them, become will-worship too; as, * Sacrifice; (See Psal. 50. 8. Isa. 1. 12, 13. compared with 16. and see Jer. 7. 21, 22. compared with 23.) the chief service not consisting in the offering, but in the devotion of the offerer. And * Fasting; (Is. 58. 3, 4, 5. compared with the 6th. Zech. 7. 5. compared with the 9th. See the like Matt. 23. 23.) Therefore God calleth those lower duties himself hath commanded, when done with an omission of the higher duty and service of him, to which they were ordained, will-worship. See Isa. 1. 12. compared with 11, 13. who hath required &c, because though he commanded the thing done, yet the doing of it was not according to his command.] 3ly. Were therefore any one certain, that something not commanded in the 
3.  Scriptures, or by God, were enjoined by the Church to be obeyed as commanded by God, or also were preferred to something commanded by God &c. he ought to refuse to obey what the Church commands, in such a manner, or with such an intention, as she is here supposed to command it. But 4ly, there may be an obedience performed to such ordinances (so long as we think them not 
4.  also contrary to the Scriptures; but if we think them contrary, then see the course we are to take §. 13.) without being guilty of the Superstition: for we may do them, though not in that way as they are commanded, (when we certainly know the contrary concerning them,) yet as things in themselves indifferent, and commanded by the Church. [As doubtless the Disciples, upon an injunction from the consistory, might have washed their hands before meat in obedience to such order, so that they had no opinion that they were defiled in not washing them. So the Feast of Dedication, kept by our Saviour; of Lots, Esther 9 20. their Fasts mentioned in the Prophets, (Zech. 7. 5. Joel 2. 15. etc. Zech. 8. 19) and ceremonies in burial of the dead, in which the Priests were dispensed with, (Leu. 21. 1. &c,) and many other practices mentioned in the Old Testament, were no where commanded in the Law, but acts passed by the Consistory; which yet were not neglected to be observed.] Which doing of them avoids offence, and sufficiently preserves the peace of the Church; and doing them not as God's commands, satisfies our own conscience. All this is said, supposing that we certainly know these things not to be God's commands, which the Church enjoins▪ as such. But 5ly, we being secure, upon our Saviour's promise, that the Supreme Guides of the 
5.  Church cannot misguide us in necessaries to Salvation; and again not being infallibly certain, that that is not commanded by the Scriptures or by God which they say is so, so long we ought to yield obedience to such injunctions, in the same manner as it is required; and if we err herein, we are excusable, though the Church-Guides should therein be faulty. For it is not so easy a matter with the same infallibility to discover the Superstition of the traditions of the Church, as our Saviour did of the Pharisees; especially since all sides (in some things) besides Scripture, must, and do, allow of useful Traditions. And therefore let it be well considered by every private man, when the Church pretends Scripture or Tradition for their Articles, whether he, or they are more likely to be mistaken; and then, whether he should not yield obedience to this command of theirs, (of which it is doubted, whether it be God's also), as well as he doth to their commands, in matters which are of themselves indifferent. Thus much of the trial of Commands, the contrary of which is not contained in Scripture.  
2. Next; of the trial of our Superiors doctrines or commands: 
§. 10.  whether the contrary of such commands be contained in the Scripture. Where 1. first, if it be contained there, as fact only, and not 
1.  precept; here also seems no opposition ought to be made to the Church's authority. For we find, * both the Apostles themselves, according to change of times and circumstances, to have changed something also of their former institutions and practices: (See 1 Tim. 5. 9 compared with Act. 6. 1. [Widows being formerly admitted without limitation of age,] 1 Cor. 8. 7. etc. and 1 Cor. 10. 25, 29. compared with Act. 15. 29. 16. 3. and-18. 18. and-21. 24. and 1 Cor. 9 20. comp. with Act. 15. 1. and Gal. 4. 9, 10. 5. 2. and Gal. 2. 3, 4, 14. circumstances altering the practice): And the Church, to have changed others since with general approbation; as, abrogating Love-feasts; receiving the Lord's Supper in the morning; and, by the same reasons that these have been altered, others may be.  
2. In the Second place then, to come to the trial and search by 
§. 11.  Scripture, Whether the contrary to what the Church commands, 
2.  be not contained therein by way of precept? And here this is certain, that we are to obey no commands whatsoever, that we are certain to be contrary to the precepts of Holy Scriptures. But it happens, that in many controversies the Scriptures are not clear, (for we may not call that a clear truth in Scripture, that some one, that reads it, is confident of, whilst others, as intelligent, think contrary; for so that is many times clear to the ignorant, not comparing places diligently together, (for qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat) which remains doubtful to the more learned); and there we must either look after some other trial of such controversies, or leave them undecided. Now to say here (with some), that Scriptures are clear to all in all necessary credends, &c. and, for all things not necessary, that we need not be inquisitive of truth, satisfies not: for though Scripture be so perspicuous in things absolutely necessary to salvation (which are very few), yet, that it is not so in many truths very useful, and of great importance to be known, the differences between the Reformed and the Roman Churches plainly show; the Scriptures being so ambiguous, that whole Nations, both using them, are of contrary opinions; and the points of difference so considerable, that both doubt of, or deny, one another's salvation, in a mis-credence of them.  
In this case therefore: 1. First, where our spiritual Guides determine a thing on one side, wherein the Scripture seems to us 
§. 12. Of Doctrines and commands: where the Scriptures seem to us doubtful.  doubtful; and this doubt is in aequilibrio, and, as I may so say, on both sides equal and indifferent, (as much Scripture seeming for, as against, it); here the authority of such Guides, pro, or con, aught to sway us, as it doth in things in their own nature indifferent.  
2. But if the Scripture seem clear to us on one side, and the determination 
§. 13. Of doctrines &c, where the Scriptures seem to us contrary.  of authority be on the other; that is, the contrary seems clear from Scripture to others: than we are to use the 2d. trial, by the rest of the Doctors and Teachers of the Church, present, and past; by whom we may learn what is the constant tradition of the Church: which Church hath always preserved and perused the Scriptures; and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.  
2. To conform our minds the better to the expositions of which 
§. 14. Here we must use a 2d. Trial, by the Doctors of the Ch.  Doctors of the Church, we are advised not to rely much on our own reason and judgement. See Rom. 12. 16. Prov. 3. 5.— 28. 26. Is. 5. 21. Prov. 12. 15.— 11. 14. And to be the more perfectly convinced by experience also how easily our reason is misguided, (by Reason, I mean reasoning upon, not its own, but Scripture-principles), 
And beware of depending on our own judgement upon the Scriptures.  after having recollected how many times ourselves have changed our opinion in Theological matters, (the same holy writings guiding us at all times), being as confident in our former then, as now in our present, tenet; 1. Consider; that whilst in every Nation doubtless there are many, of excellent judgements, 
1.  turning the same Gospel, reading the same books of controversy, which they both mutually answer, yet in a manner all those of one Kingdom or Government do so espouse one opinion, and all of another a contrary, that they will both lay down their lives in defence thereof; and so their posterity after them. And this happens partly because there is no tenet, but that there is some verisimility in it, and some reason for it, that seems to many hard to be answered, which reason (according to our party) we lay for a foundation: and then fit all other contrary arguments by distinctions (how absurd soever) unto it; being certain that no truths contradict one another; and hence do both sides, especially in answoring objections, accuse the other of going against their conscience. But this happens more from, (not equality of arguments for every side, but) opposite interests of the controvertists; which interests commonly prevent the access to, or just force of, those arguments upon the understanding, where the truth, if it should prove contrary to those interests, will undo them. Therefore they make either none, or a very negligent search into their adversaries tenets and reasons, as delivered in their own writings; or into the doctrines of Antiquity, when quoted against them. Notwithstanding which interest (being rather hereditary, than by themselves contracted) they mistake themselves to be indifferent, and any way unbiased.  
2. Consider; how those, who have the Scriptures most common, 
§. 15.  yet when free from the yoke of Ecclesiastical authority, do run into most diversity of opinions; and those not slight, or void 
2.  of danger to their salvation. In particular, the Socinian, abstracting from all Church-authority, and committing himself only to Scripture and his reason, yet who more than he opposeth things which seem most clear in Scripture? For what more plain there, than that this world was created by the Word, the Son of God? Jo. 1. 1. Heb. 1. And therefore also the Reformed, more than the Romanist (though in both there are many differences), is censured for diversity of opinions. Nisi adsit spiritus prudentiae, nihil proderit verbum Dei, saith Calvin: witness those of Munster. And worthy here of serious consideration is the reason, why Timothy and Titus▪ are advised to avoid [i. e. not to interest much, or practise, themselves in, or meddle with] vain curiosities, and questions of science, (falsely so called,) because they will increase [still] unto more ungodliness, and eat further as doth a Canker or gangrene, and strife gender strife, and questions minister more questions. See 2 Tim. 2. 16, 17, 23. 1 Tim. 1. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 7. Tit. 3. 9 compared with 10. [which argues he was forbid much disputing with such perverse men]. And 'tis likely Hymeneus, &c, at their first differing from doctrines delivered, attempted not the denial of the Resurrection.— Which continually greater entanglings of Reason, left to itself, do extremely prove the weakness of it, and the unreasonableness of trusting to it.  
3. Consider; that as the Pharisee, that was so blind, (Matt. 23. 16.) thought he only saw, (Jo. 9 41.) and that others were 
§. 16.  blind (Jo. 7. 49.); so whilst we think others misled with passion, 
3.  we are no less misled therewith than they, (and so they also think of us), only we do less discern it: And in thus standing upon, and preferring our own judgement before others that search the Scriptures as well as we, we presume, either that we have better naturals than they, or else more integrity and honesty than they; and what root can this proceed from, but pride, and uncharitableness? no good predispositions for the discovery of truth: see 1 Tim. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 2.  
4. Consider; that, for ordinary readers, over the New Testament is spread a veil, as was over the Law for the Jews; 2 Cor. 3. 
§. 17▪  14. and the knowledge thereof is attained not thro' the strength 
4.  of Reason, but illumination of the Spirit; and the like entertainment, as the word preached then found with several persons, the 
Heb. ●●●.  same now doth the word written. Now, self-conceitedness of their own wisdom was then the greatest impediment that could be to the understanding of the mystery of the Gospel; for that which was truth, was some way or other, to them, foolishness. And no where were there so few converted, as at selfconceited Athens. See 1 Cor. 1. 17. etc. 1 Cor. 2. 6. etc.— 3. 18. etc. Rom. 1. 22. Lu. 10. 21. Why so? because knowledge, or a great stock of (falsely so called) reason, maketh proud, 1 Cor. 8. 1. and pride hinders the Spirit; by which Spirit only is had true knowledge; the way to which is humility, mortification, and abnegation of that, which of all things is most ourselves, the rational part of man; and extremely addicting ourselves unto holiness, that so we may discern truth: (see Psal. 25. 12, 14. Ps. 111. 10. Jo. 7. 17.— 14. 21.— 8. 12. see below §. 39) And he, that is so disposed, is more inclined to obedience of others, than reliance on himself; and then Qui didicit obedire, nescit judicare. And if we prove this way also betrayed to error, yet is this error more excusable before God, accompanied with these qualities, than truth can be acceptable to him possessed with pride.  
There is great reason then, that we should not depend only on 
§. 18. Always some external Communion, or other, not erring in knowledge necessary.  our own judgement, or on the Scriptures as we interpret them; but diligently search also the former practice and tenets of the Churches of God, and consult the present judgement of those, * who have the promise of not erring, at least in knowledge necessary to salvation, nor in other things so far, as that any may therefore lawfully reject their external communion; (for which see Church-gov. 2. part. §. 31. 3d. part. §. 62.) * who are, the Successors of the Apostles, 2 Tim. 2. 2. the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ, 2 Cor. 8. 23: * who are appointed by Christ for the building up of the Church, and perfecting of the Saints, and especially, that they should not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine by the state of men, till they may all come in the unity of the doctrine of faith to the fullness of Christ Jesus. Eph. 4. 11. Heb. 13. 7, 9 Neither may we say, that so also we quit only our own reason to accept another man's; for as we are guided by their authority; so are they guided, not by their own reason only, but by former authority, till we ascend to the first founders of Christian religion: See Ecclus. 8. 9 To the judgement therefore of such visible Doctors and Teachers of the Church we ought to repair; to some or other of these, nay to some or other external communion of them. For the promises of perpetual assistance &c, are not made to the Church at random, or in obscurity and unknown, viz. that some man or other on earth either of the Clergy, or if not, of the Laity, shall be an orthodox Christian, so far as to be capable of salvation till the end of the world; but * to those, to whom our Saviour also committed the Keys, (to whom indeed 'tis most necessary, they being the Shepherds, and the rest the flock committed always to their guidance). See Matt. 16. 18. compared with 19— 28. 20. compared with 19— 18. 20. compared with 18.— * to such a Church, † as people might know, and repair, and make their complaints, to, (Matt. 18. 17.) † as is a light of the world set on a Candlestick, and shining before men; a city set upon a hill that cannot be hid, (Matt. 5. 14, 15, 16.) never was, nor never shall be hid; of the perpetual being of which we make confession of our faith in the Apostolical Creed, [the holy Catholic Church], and yet plainer in the Nicene; [one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church]; which who so understands not of an external visible profession and communion, as theirs than was, may retain the words, but not the sense and faith of that Council. See this matter more largely discoursed in Succession of Clergy, §. 2. etc. and in Church-government, 2. part, §. 25, 26.  
First therefore, in this humble repair to their Judgement, where we find all these Doctors of Christianity disagreeing from what 
§. 19 n. 1. We necessarily to follow their Judgement, where universally agreeing.  we take to be Scripture, (which holds also in the determinations of any Christian Church whatever, so long as we can come to know no other, or no better, (see §. 36.) we ought in such a case to relinquish our judgement, and submit to theirs; who also have the same light of Scripture as we, and (in humility we ought to think) more ability to judge of it; and who likewise have the promise of indefectibility in truths necessary to salvation. Therefore here also, the more high and weighty the point is, the more firmly ought we to adhere to them, trusting to the protection of our Saviour, the Head of the Church; that, in these points especially, they shall not all so conjoined be mistaken. And again, in smaller points, since there is less danger in our erring in them; and the more guilt still, the smaller they are, in our making a schism from, or division in, the Church, for them; more humility exercised in obeying; no truth of consequence vindicated by contention; wisdom perhaps would think it fit to subscribe to the same Guides. For, as the Apostle said in another case, If they are sit to judge the greatest, are they not so to judge the smallest matters? 1 Cor. 6. 2. And if any thing herein may be indulged to singularity of opinion, 'tis only so far, as to make known the reasons, that move us to it, to the Church or some few therein, whom we count men of learning and integrity, and void of passion, and after this to submit to whatever they (who now together with us apprehend all the reasons which sway us) shall determine. The contrary to which can be only the fruit of self-conceit, or obstinacy. This, if they unanimously deliver any thing to us which we think against Scripture; and much more yet ought we to submit to any order of theirs, though we do not find it in Scripture, if we find nothing in Scripture against it, without calling such their sanctions Will-worship and Superstition; making sure to use the same charity to the Church, which we are obliged-in to private men: in whom nihil est damnandum, quod ulla ratione bonum esse queat.  
Neither is this assenting to them against our own reason or judgement, as we call it, going against conscience; which conscience 
§. 19 11. 2.  is nothing but our judgement; and that we call judgement many times nothing but our own (and that a slight) opinion. In not following of which opinion or judgement we are faulty only then, where we have no wiser person, caeteris paribus, nor no established law to guide and direct it. Nor is it going against our reason; when as nothing is more reasonable than to go against some of our own particular reasonings, when we have another stronger reason to the contrary, that is, the submitting of it to such an authority: nothing being more ordinary than for arguments from a Reason, to give place to those from an Authority, (upon which Authority also, and not upon Reason, is grounded our Faith.) See Submiss. of Judgement, §. 2. etc.) But let me add this for our further contentment, that he who not only demands of the Church, but takes pains also (as all aught) to be informed by the Church, concerning the proof and evidence of what she requires him to believe, shall seldom or never be put to believe, that what she saith is truth only from her authority, because she saith it; but also from his own judgement, because she manifests it. Obj. But doth not an erring conscience then bind us to follow it, though it be so? or may I sometime do a thing which I think unlawful, upon another's judgement, without sinning? Answ. He that is persuaded in conscience, that, though he thinks such a thing unlawful, yet he ought rather to follow a wiser man's judgement than his own, whose judgement saith, 'tis not unlawful, cannot absolutely say he is persuaded that it is unlawful. And he, who thinking such a thing is more likely in reason, yet thinketh likewise, that he ought rather to obey the Church's judgement than his own reason, if he here follows his conscience, (that is) in respect of his own reason he goeth against his conscience (as I call it), in respect of the submission he thinks he owes to another's judgement. For whilst his judgement prefers another man's judgement before his own, this man, in following the others, must needs also be said to follow his own, judgement, and consequently his conscience. Now he that is not thus persuaded of the duty of submission of his judgement &c to wiser men, or men authorized to guide his judgement, 'tis true, that he sins in doing against his own opinion or conscience, so long as he is not so persuaded: but then he ought better to inform his conscience; not only or chiefly in the confutation of the reasons he hath for his opinion, (which confutation cannot always be had, or, when had, perhaps is by him not well understood): but in the reasonableness, and many times duty, of the submission of his private and singular judgement and opinion to those more wise, more religious than himself, or to those authorised to direct him,  
2ly. Where the Doctors of the Church are not all of a mind, 
§. 20. Where divided to follow either side, rather than our own judgement opposite to both.  but divided in their opinions, it seems better to follow any party of them, rather than our own judgement opposite to both; because they having the same light of Scripture as we; a calling to teach and interpret it; being those to whom Christ hath promised more assistance; using perhaps more means to understand it; having more understandings agreeing in such a sense of it; though they may (possibly) err, yet we are the more likely to mistake. And experience daily shows, that they, who renounce (fallible) authority, and stand to their own judgement, to avoid one error, incur twenty, and those (by God's desertions) sometimes in the most plain points of practice, * far grosser, than ever any Church-authority or Synod hath lapsed into: Neither are the diversities of opinion between Churches any thing in comparison of those millions of private men's singularities; and as in sight we say many eyes see more than one, so in blindness or dimness of sight many eyes are never so blind as one. Let us avoid self-conceit, and put on humility, and then we * shall be glad rather to use the judgement, for our way, of another eye; which if it hath motes in it, we have reason to think that ours hath a beam; and * will be ready to say, [if the Church be not infallible, how much less I?] rather than [the whole Church is not infallible, therefore let me trust to my single judgement:] an illation not more unreasonable, than usual.  
3. In following one party of the divided Clergy, we are to avoid 
§. 21. Of the two to follow those whom the other acknowledge to have the practice of former times for them.  those rather, who acknowledge the former practice of the Church against them, and appeal to Scripture; as long as the practice also pretends the same Scripture, either for it, or not at all against it. For though Scripture is a more sure foundation than the Church's practice; yet, since the practice also pretends, as well as those who oppose it, to be guided by the Scriptures, so that Scripture and Practice is pretended on one side, and Scripture only on the other side; and since there is so great odds, in number, of those judgements concerning the Scripture, that have ever so practised, and also a succession of truth promised to be continued in the Church, 'tis more probable, I say, that the practice is not mistaken in the sense of Scripture; and of two, we are to choose the more probable.  
4. But if, besides Scripture; there be practice or tradition of 
§. 22. Where this pleaded by both, to search, and follow that we find so by our experience.  some times of the Church (the more ancient) pretended against the practice of other (later) times; here search is to be made by us: and if such an opposition of the present and former Church seems to be discovered, (which indeed can never be, by reason of our Saviour's promise in any matter of necessary faith), the contrary course to heady Rehoboam is to be held, the old men's counsel is to be taken, and the former times are to be preferred; except it be in matters not prescribed by God's word, wherein the Church of all times hath power to constitute what she thinks fit. Where therefore the Scriptures, though pretended by both sides plain, yet are not so plain that both sides agree; there let all the trial rest, not * upon reading arguments pro and con in controversy-writers, where wit and continual agitations of the question make any side tenable, as men are biased by interest and education; but * upon this search of the Fathers, and history of the Church; and I am persuaded most controversies will quickly end.  
For who tries them; 1. First, he will find in those voluminous writings many things more express, and full, and positive, than 
§. 23. That this is not hard to find.  they are in Scripture, especially most of the practices of the Church put out of all dispute; so that though several men read those writings, with a several interest, as they do the Scriptures; yet they shall find too much clearness there to be corrupted by such interest. (For example; those who dispute Episcopacy to be against the Scriptures, yet are clearly convinced in the Father's writings that it was practised in the primitive Churches, and thought consonant to the Scriptures.)— 2. Again he will find a most unanimous consent among them in most things, and in many 
Of Father's being not (for the main) repugnant, ambiguous, or impertinent.  of those of present debate; contrary to the opinion of many, who seeing them quoted constantly by both sides almost in all controversies, (and that, not only one Father against another, but the same against himself); seeing likewise books written of their many disagreings, which books are silent of the many more things wherein they accord, do in this prejudice condemn them of the same ambiguity as the Scriptures, and of much opposition besides; and lastly of impertinency to modern controversy, and so forbear to consult them, and laugh at Vinc. Lirinensis his Rule, Quod omnibus &c, as, though most true, yet utterly useless.  
But here some cautions must be given to the searcher, which it were most unreasonable that he should not observe.  
1. * That in a search of the antiquity of opinions, and not of 
§. 23. Certain Cautions concerning making judgement of the Tenets of the Fathers.  the reputation of authors, he would not reject writings which are evidently very ancient, and likewise then approved, (since they are quoted by latter Fathers and Councils, (suppose those of the 3d, 4th, and 5th age after Christ) Because (though granted by all very ancient for the time) they are uncertain for the author, and bear a false title. Such are, for example, the Apostolical Canons; Clement's Apostolical Constitutions; Dionys. Areop. works, (of which it being disputed so early, as A. D. 420. whether these were the genuine works of St. Dionysius, shows that they were very ancient.) Again, * that, from discovering some corruption in some of the Father's writings, he would not argue there not to remain so much purity and incorruption in the rest, as that in any thing controverted their true opinion can be known; neither argue, from his discovering their erring (perhaps every one) in something, and that many times in a thing very inconsiderable, that therefore in nothing they can be fit witnesses of truth; and lastly, from his finding them obscure or ambiguous in some places, that they cannot be clear, upon such subject, in any other place, or also in that place, cleared by the context. Yet such we find are most of the arguments that are urged for weakening their authority.  
2. That, for the primitive times of the Church, he would not only take those, wherein she lived in persecution, and left few records of her doctrines or customs, as the first and second age; but extend them to the end of the 6th or 5th, or at least of the 4th age, so as to involve S. Austin etc. these being the times wherein she flourished, under the protection of Christian Governors, more ample in her power, public in her doctrines and discipline, frequent and copious in her writings, active against all sorts of heretics, as also more exercised with them: which the present times (as enjoying still the same happiness) must needs and aught more to resemble than the other; and to which, taken in this extent, ordinarily differing Churches appeal.  
3. That he would not think, that those practices, which he observes to be used in the latter of these times, and omitted in 
§. 25.  the former, therefore are justly to be rejected, unless they be also (in that sense as they are afterwards used) disallowed and opposed by the former; and that by the more general vote thereof. For what is said of Scripture, (§. 6.) may here be said of the Church; that it follows not negatively that such practices are either unlawful or unexpedient, because a former age did not recommend, or did not use them. Therefore that he would compare the practices and tenets of the present Church, not with those of every, but of any age of those primitive times, (so not contradicted by the rest): In which age if any doctrine held, we may lawfully say; such is no new, but an ancient, doctrine; or a doctrine of the Fathers.  
4. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them, as if he should find, in writers, of so many ages, and of so many several 
§. 26.  countries, no differences at all; for there he will find several, both † of the former of those times, or at least of a many in them, from the latter. [* As the more common opinion and practice of the more ancient times of the Church are by some quoted somewhat to differ from the succeeding; in the Millenary doctrine, communicating of Infants; vision of God before the day of Judgement; in the rarer use of Images; less observance of the Relics; in Invocation of Saints; in the punctuality of Auricular Confession for some sorts of sins, etc. Quoted, I say; not, that the difference in these is granted so great altogether, as it is by some made, concerning which, as to some of these particulars, see what is said in Church-government §. 55. &c. but that, in the more and less practice of some of them, and in the commonness of the belief of other of them, there may be some difference in several times. So the Millenary doctrine, and non-vision of God, in some places and times, perhaps was the opinion more common. So a common practice in some times was used, of communicating Infants: Images in some times also were less used, though (then) not the use of them (I mean as practised by latter ages) opposed; and so of the rest that follow. (Concerning such things see what the 3d. caution saith.) But observe touching such things, wherein difference is named; That it is either difference of practice, secundum magis & minus, not opposition of doctrine: or opposition of doctrine, only in some matters of small moment; or the opposition of such times not universal, but only of some places, or Churches, others practising or teaching the contrary.] And, † in the same times he will find many differences, of those of one Church from another. [As of the Eastern and Western Church about Easter; the Roman and African Church about Rebaptization; and afterward about Superiority of the See of Rome for Appeals &c. and so many things practised in the Eastern Churches, not at all, or latter used in the Western.] And † in the same Church he will find, one party against another, (as Epiphanius and Chrysostom, &c): And the same party (when of a more mature judgement) differing from himself, (as S. Austin in the business of freewill, and Grace, etc.) But it is sufficient (if in some other differences he finds them (all, or by much the most) agreeing in most, or in many points of those, which are now controverted, especially points of practice, which are of greater moment) to render up his judgement to them in those uncontrollable and plain things, wherein they consent; and more is not desired of him: (amongst which are the contradictories to most of those hurtful opinions related below §. 41. etc.) and not to make that fallacious induction, (with which many satisfy themselves.) * They are not sufficient Guides in this, or that point, wherein they differ; ergo they are in none at all; or not, in the many other, wherein they accord; and in this main point especially, that universal obedience is due to Church-decrees, and that it is lawful in no case to desert her external communion, which settles all the rest: * Or, they clash in this and this point, (which truly, for the most part, are things of less moment, (see Church-gov. 2▪ part. §. 55. etc.) though by the then contenders much aggravated,) ergo they clash in all, or in almost all: when-as such arguments have force only against their infallibility, or absolute unanimity in all things; not against their accord in those things which are more necessary, and for which we have occasion to search them. So, whereas we find the Millenary tenet, and the place of faithful souls out of heaven till the day of Judgement, and Infant-Communion, (anciently common tenets, by latter times, as is thought, justly rejected), to be urged as a proof of no safe adherence to all common opinions and practices of former Church, because in some things errable; we are to consider, that these, besides that they never were Church-decrees in any Council, nor granted to be universal, are not points of such consequence, as to prejudice the ancient Church her authority, judgement, or guidance in all other necessary matters. Hear what Dr. Ferne (Preface to Consider. touching Reform.) very judiciously saith of two of them, after he had made much use of those instances. Having spoken (saith he) the intent of this Treatise, I must, before I leave him, entreat the Reader to remember one thing in the former, (the error of the Millenary belief, and Infant-communion often instanced-in there,) and to take notice; that nothing was intended or can be concluded by those instances to the prejudice of the whole Church; as if thereby might be proved, that the whole Church universally, and in all the members of it, may err, and be infected with error in points of concernment, or prejudicial to the faith: For that of the Millenary, as it was not universal, so not of such moment; and that of the In-fant-communion, though more universal, and of longer continuance, was but a tolerable mistake. So that all errors of the whole Church by his concession are ever either not universal, or not of concernment.  
5. That he would not with such a conceit repair to them, as if 
§. 27.  he should always find in them an unanswerable reason or justification of such and such practices or tenets, (for this we promise not); but that such things they practised, such things they held; and then perhaps this may be a sufficient reason to him to admit them, that so the Church of God hath always done or taught, before him.  
6. That he would not repair to them, as if he should find every thing now controverted, there considered, or stated: but that for 
§. 28.  what he shall find there stated (at least) for the substance of the practice of it, (as most points of government and practice are), though not for the quatenus, or in what respects it is performed, that to it he would conform.  
7. That he would not entertain such a conceit, † as if in this search he should find any Church of present being so perfectly to 
§. 29.  resemble Antiquity, as in no point to differ from the general customs thereof, for in some all differ, none giving the Eucharist to Infants: Nor, † as if he should not find several Churches, in some one thing or other, more to resemble the primitive, than a Church of a better constitution doth. (As, the Reformed is said to resemble the Primitive times in celebrating the Communion in both kinds; and the first or 2d. century thereof, in not using Images, not invocating Saints, etc. The Roman, in the obligation of, and obedience to, the decrees of the Church, and her Councils, in prayer for the Dead, merit of works, penances, Church-ceremonies, the Christian Sacrifice of the Altar, Real presence, Reservation for communicating absents, domestic Communion in one kind, frequent celebration of the Eucharist, frequent hours of Prayer, and set times of Fasting, Confession, recommendation of Evangelical counsels, vows of Poverty, and Celibacy, single life of the Clergy): But that he would conform to that Church rather, which he finds to tread the footsteps of Antiquity in the most points, (as all do in some), or in those of the most moment and consequence, especially in those of government and practice; which, as they are not so easily changed as those of simple belief; so, do they more concern this search, when-as the absolutely necessary points of faith are perhaps sufficiently acknowledged by all those of differing communions. Thus much of the Cautions to be used in searching Antiquity. Now to go on.  
3ly. He will find one present external visible communion and body of Christians much more, than all the rest, (though perhaps none 
§. 30. Some Church in all ages like the former.  in all things) agreeing with the doctrines and discipline of Antiquity, especially if considered after the settlement of it under Christian Emperors. Which things if they be found, (which discovery presupposeth first his. search), this I desire may presently be granted; that any one hath little reason to bear himself up upon the arms of his own, or others newer, interpretations of the Sacred text, and not-unhandsomly stated theses, and subtly-urged objections, against so constant, so strong a stream.  
And here also note; that if any side rip up the faults and errors 
§. 31.  of the Fathers; and, whilst they seem to appeal to them, yet, as much as they can, weaken their authority; if they defend their own differing from them much more, by showing that the other side differs from them in something, but yet much less than they; if the more candid of them at least confess a recession from the Fathers in many points, [for informing yourself in this, turn over Calvin's Institutions, and see in how many places he ingenuously confesseth the opinion of Antiquity opposite to his decisions. 2. lib. 2. c. 4, 9 sect. compared with 3. l. 11. c. 15. sect.— 2. l. 14. c. 3. sect. 3. l. 3. c. 10. sect. 3. l. 4. c. 38. sect.— 3. l. 5. c. 10. sect.— 3. l. 22. c. 1. sect.— 2. l. 3. c. 7. 10. sect. [where, multis saeculis, is as high as Chrysostom.]— 4. lib. 4. c. 10. sect.— 9 cap. 8, 9, 10. 11, &c, weakening the authority of Councils.— 12. c. 8. sect.— 12. c. 19, 20, 24, 27. sect.— 18. c. 11. sect.— 3. l. 3. c. 16. sect.— 4. l. 17. c. 39 sect.— 4. l. 13. c. 16, 17. sect. many of which places I have transcribed in Church-gov. 4. part. §. 100] and if some others of the same side, who yet maintain the same opinions with those other of them that appeal to the Fathers, do refuse a trial by the Fathers at all, to say nothing that this relisheth of much pride and self-conceit, and pride is an ill Reformer; this shows, that such a side, though not willing to confess it, yet is convinced of losing their cause in this trial, by the practice of former Church; and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this appeal; and then the resolution set down before in §. 22. is in all reason to take place. Again: if the contrary party seems on the other side to attribute too much to the Fathers, in quoting them, in their disputations and conferences, as well as the Holy Scriptures; and as it were superstitiously treading in their steps in the external forms of Government, and in the most inconsiderable ceremonies; adhering still to the same expressions which the Fathers used in those points which are now controverted, [as Merit, Satisfaction, Supererogation, Sacrifice, Altar, &c,] which the other more willingly change; compiling their Body of Divinity out of the Father's common doctrines, (as the first beginning of School-Divinity, (see Peter Lombard), was only a design of putting the Father's tenets in an orderly method): This argues, that these rather are the true Successors of the doctrines of the Primitive Church, and that they are unjustly charged to recede from the Fathers in those points which are controverted; and then, according to the resolution above §. 22. we are to adhere to them. For what likelihood is there, That he who thinks their testimony makes much for him, and much against his adversary, will, all he can, strive to weaken the authority of these Witnesses in showing their errors in general, their contradictions of one against another, of the same against himself etc. (See Daille's Uray usage des Peres): and that the other, who is conscious that they are more against himself than his adversary, should by all means establish their testimony, even by holding them in all their joint-verdicts infallible? What probability, that they should most declaim against the certainty of Church-tradition, whose doctrines it most confirmeth?  
For we are to believe this, (or we, for as much as I can apprehend, 
§. 32.  nullify our Saviour's promise, and his mission of other teachers, and all appeals to the Church, &c,) * that there shall be a Church of God in all ages like itself in the former: and * that as the Jews might, (Jo. 5. 39) and the Bereans did, (Act. 17. 11.) find the Old Testament to confirm the doctrine of the Apostles of the New; and the Gospel to establish the Law, (Rom. 3. 31.) so the Church's practice shall establish the Gospel; and the latter practice thereof the former, to the end of the world; * that Christ's sheep shall always know his voice, and shall not follow strangers. And though there shall be Antichrists, and falling away from the faith, (as there was even in the Apostle's times), yet that falling away from the faith shall be also from the Church; but the Church itself (i. e. that whole external communion which was, in times before, the Church of Christ, (for I speak not of any one particular place, from any of which I conceive, one time or other, Christianity may be 
Heresy still either going, or being, thrust out of it.  banished), or (if you will) the visible body of the Clergy openly cohering in that external communion, shall never go into Apostasy: Nor shall the Apostates fall away in, (but out of) the external communion of the former Church, and so always be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not in respect of their opinion, but decession; not in respect of the truth of, but their dissent from, the Church, in what they maintain, and shall for ever be known; * either by their going out of the former, and setting up new, communions, (Jud. 19 Heb. 10. 25. 1 Jo. 2. 19 2 Tim. 3. 8. Judas 11. [opposing those in authority:] and so Tertullian, Praejudicatum est adversus omnes haereses, id esse verum quodcunque primum; id esse adulteratum quodcunque posterius): * or by the former Church thrusting them out; which shall never join with them. [But 'tis to be noted, that most of those divisions of the Church, if not all, which have separated from a former communion, are such, as have not been first expelled by the Church, and then set up a new communion upon necessity, but such as have left it; always pretending that there be some tenets or practices in the former Church, for which, though she permitting to them all their own opinions, they could not communicate with her. Now that communion which they, though indulged their own tenets, will not return to, 'tis plain that at first they did reject, whatever they pretend to the contrary, and though the other Ch. also ejected them; for both these well consist.] And such Apostates also may be known always at their first going out (though not so well afterwards) by the smallness of their number. As Arrianism, which was the greatest division that ever happened in the Church for 1500 years, never prevailed upon all parts of the Church's communion, the Western continuing for a major part untainted with it: touching which see Ch. Gou. 2. part. 40. §. etc. and, in both the Eastern and Western, it ever had an external communion 
And in its beginning discerned by its paucity of followers  of the Catholics opposite to it; and in its first rise was easily discerned by the paucity of that Sect; as the beginnings of all heresies are easily known: neither are they, though some of them of very speedy growth, yet of long continuance. See 2 Tim. 3. 1, 8, 9 Judas 11. Act. 5. 38. Neither had the contrary conceit, to wit, of the external visible body of the Church her falling away from Christ (by which the sheep are to seek for a right shepherd) ever got so much strength amongst Christians, but from a supposing of Antichrist to be in profession a Christian, and one of that Church, in which it is said he shall sit, notwithstanding that others, of whom the same thing was said, viz. that they shall sit in the Holy place, (see Matt. 24. 15. Dan. 11. 41.) were not in their outward profession members of the Church. But this is an opinion (as is elsewhere showed) groundless; and the going out of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4. which is there spoken of place, not of former communion; as suppose it were said to the Christian Churches, that are now in Turkey, to remove from thence) interpreted in this sense is a dangerous principle to breed Schisms, and ruin souls, in causing men's forsaking of the external communion of the Catholic Church of Christ that is in present being. [Which Church, many think, shall be (always) so conspicuous, and set on an hill, that it shall in all time's outnumber any separating Sect, both for the multitude of people, and extent of Nations. And we have found it so till Luther's time, the forementioned Arrianism never ruling in the most of Christians, (who adhered still to the Nicene Creed), but in some of the chiefest of the Clergy, the Bishops, such as were intruded by the Emperor, (the orthodox Bishops being thrust out,) and carried away with his inclinations, and these chiefly in the Eastern Churches. As for the objection of Antichrist's times, those who think the Supposition, that he shall be a professor of Christianity, false, will easily grant, that the Church then shall be a smaller number in respect of Infidels, but not in respect of Heretics. And, for that objection Matt. 24. 11, 12, 13▪ Luk. 18. 8. we have seen our Saviour's words fulfilled in Mahomet, and those seduced by him, and in many heretical Sects also, and in a more general corruption of manners even amongst the orthodox, without any infringement of what is here affirmed. See more of this in Success. of Clergy §.]  
1. First therefore, those within the bounds of the Church, that follow blind leaders without all trial, are void of excuse. Not because 
§. 33. So that difence trial cannot mistake.  they do not quit all leaders absolutely, and guide themselves by the Scriptures; but because (the Church of God, i. e. the Pastors and Teachers thereof) having our Saviour's promise never so to be blind, but that salvation and escaping the pit should be always had in her; (as it in all times hath been, both in the Jewish, and since, in the Christian Church) there are at all times other leaders, who are illuminated with God's Spirit, and whose light, not put under a bushel but set on a candlestick, shines before them, whom they may securely follow. So that the people are never left nakedly to the Scriptures, or to the Law, without orthodox Teachers and Guides therein, or without an external communion lawful and safe to be adhered to; nor such Teachers left without manifest testimony (to all that will look after it) that they are sent from God, and that their communion is the true Church, either by their showing miracles, and other signs of their mission; or by their succession to, and consent with, the former Church which showed miracles; and by all other Sects, though perhaps at length out-numbring them, yet discerned always to be few at first, and to go out from them. So under the Law, the whole Order of God's Priests never fell so away at any time, neither before, nor in, nor after, the Babylonish captivity, till the coming of Christ, (according to the promise Gen. 49. 10. and our Saviour's testimony Lu. 16. 16. Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 23. 2.) but that there was always a remnant of them (by the former marks to be easily discerned from the Apostatizers) serving the Lord with a true worship, and having a flock amongst the people obedient to them. And at Christ's coming, when Satan was let loose to deceive the Sanedrim, and 
Lu. 22. 53.  infatuate all the former chief Ecclesiastical Governors, God gave all the people sufficient testimony by miracles &c, (see Jo. 5. 36. Matt. 16. 3.) that Jesus was the Messias, and the Prophet whom he had promised to raise unto them like unto Moses, to whom they were now to obey in all things, and to hearken to none contradicting his doctrines. The many expressions therefore in the Old Testament, that seem to speak of a total falling away of the Priest, and a failing of the Church, (many of which were urged by the Donatists, and answered to by St. Austin and other Fathers, which see more fully discoursed in Success. of Clerg. §.) either speak not of the Priest's ignorance at all, but viciousness and neglect of duty; or not of their teaching false doctrines as Priests, but of their making false predictions as pretended Prophets: or are texts Prophetical of their falling away after the coming of the Messias: or speak not of their falling into Heresy, but of their open Apostatising unto Idolatry. For Heresies and Sects, retaining a distinct communion in the worship of the same God, and acknowledgement of the divine law, in those times of the Jewish Church we find none, but both the Priests and people divided between true worshippers of God, and flat idolaters. Here therefore the Trier had always those to whom he might safely adhere, and might always clearly discern who they were.  
2ly. Nor those that try, and after it make choice of falsehood, 
§. 34.  are thereby excused, because since there is evidence enough one way or other given of the truth, they, who in searching find it not, are some way or other defective in their trial. Perhaps because they will not try, * by all those ways which God hath left to witness his truth; as both by Scriptures, and also by the authorized Expositors thereof; but only by one way, which themselves most fancy. Whenas doubtless the Jew, or the Berean, after their search of Scriptures, had not been excused in dissenting from the Apostles or from our Saviour's doctrine, so long as this doctrine was also confirmed to them by other sufficiently evident and convincing arguments besides the testimony of former Scriptures, viz: * by the mighty signs and wonders which our Saviour and the Apostles did thro' the power of the H. Spirit given them from God; * by the Resurrection of Jesus, and their mission by his authority, etc. After which confirmation the Apostle's advice to believers is, to hold to Tradition; to the doctrine formerly delivered, Rom. 16. 17. Heb. 13. 7, 9 and to prove and try the new spirits, (1 Thess. 5. 20. 1 Jo. 4. 1.) that perhaps might speak under pretence of that frequent gift of prophesying (which the Devil also then imitated) something dissenting from doctrines formerly received: as appears by 1 Thess. 5. 20. and the clause of 1 Jo. 4. 1. the one bidding that they should not altogether despise these Spirits; the other, that they should not altogether credit them. But of the Apostles doctrines, coming with such a testimony of the Spirit, (Gal. 3. 5.) they would not have them at all to doubt, pronouncing Anathema to any that should contradict these. Gal. 1. 7, 9 Col. 2. 6, 7, 8. 1 Jo. 4. 6. [Which 6th. verse showeth, that the first verse is meant, of the Church's or others trying the spirits of private men, 1 Cor. 14. 29, 32. not of particular men trying the Spirit of the Apostles, or of the Church.] And should any now, not out 
See Submiss. of judgm. §. 15.  of affection to learn, and to strengthen his faith, nor to know, what was the reason of them, but whether there be any reasons for them, try the doctrines of the ancient Councils, as some have lately, and (by the just judgement of God upon curiosity) have dissented from them: such trial would argue much infidelity against our Saviour's promise, and his vigilancy over his Church; would much offend, against the obedience we owe to the decrees of the Church, and against the humble conceit we ought to have of ourselves. Whereas, on the contrary, the more indisputing obedience is, which is the daughter of true humility, the more christian the spirit; especially where one is not in a communion of a Church of a later original, nor that hath professedly departed out of another Church elder than itself.  
And if any think, that such an humble submission and assent 
§. 35.  to Church-decrees forfeits the use of reason, and patronizeth ignorance. 1. First, the same thing may be said of our assent being tied to the larger Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. 2ly, Again, the Church's decrees are but very few (if we take only the decrees of Councils, and not all the Theological controversies and determinations of private Divines of any side, for such) in comparison of the large field of divine knowledge, wherein great intellects may still freely expatiate: as appears in that great liberty which we find in the Roman writers, (I mean, the Schoolmen,) freely dissenting from one another in many points. Which differings when-as we also urge against them, they defend themselves, that such are points undefined in Councils. But 3ly, in things defined also; we must acknowledge, that learning, and searching all arguments for truth, well consists with obedience to Church-definitions, (as it did with our Saviour's and the Apostles): inasmuch as we find those, who most profess this submittance, as skilful and copious in giving reasons of their faith, as any others; and no way laying aside the use of reason, or pursuit of knowledge. Even as they, who, from the testimony of Scripture, believe there is a God, yet seek arguments from the Creation and Nature, to strengthen or, if I may so say, multiply their faith. Faith, both to what the Scripture, and to what the Church saith, being always capable of a further growth. And as, oportet discentem credere, so credentem discere. See more concerning this in Infallibility, §. and Ch. gov. 3. part. §. 39  
But next; since one may be born and bred in a Church Schismatical, 
§. 36. Who can search no further, to adhere to the judgement of the Christian Church they live in, rather than their own against it.  and here also, by his condition and profession, not capable of making this trial by comparing his present teachers with other modern and ancient Doctors; yet, upon the reasons above (§. 20.) he is in far less danger in obeying his Spiritual Guides, than in steering himself: and, in obeying them, so long as heknows none better, though they be Schismatical, he is free from Schism; (whereas following himself, he becomes guilty of a 2d. Schism); and being free from Schism, he may attain in such Church life everlasting▪ nor can there any doubt be made, but that a pious man, living in the state of Schism, and free from the crime, is in a far better condition than an orthodox christian, living in the habit and state of sin. For though Heresy, (Gal. 5. 20.) (i. e. either an error opposite to some truth necessary to be explicitly known to enter into heaven, (such as that Mar. 16. 16. Act. 4. 12.) or an obstinate professing in other things against the known definitions of the Church); and though Schism, (i. e. a factious breaking the unity and peace of the Church) unrepented of before death, must needs, as other sins do, exclude all such out of heaven; and though the Excommunications of the Church have also here a dreadful power, whereby he is deprived of her prayers also, and receives her curse: yet in such a Church, by the great light of Scripture therein retained, there may be and ordinarily is so much truth asserted, as, joined with christian obedience, is sufficient for his salvation, who is guiltless in these crimes. Neither are the Church-Excommunications further powerful in their censure, than others are guilty of the offence. But yet such a one must know; 1. First, that he becomes guilty of Schism, not only by not forsaking a known error, or a byhim-counted unlawful communion, but by (where there is any remedy for it) a purposed ignorance and carelessness of further knowing truth, where he hath reason to be jealous; and sees a breach made in the Church of Christ. 2ly. This misfortune happens to those not guilty of the Heresy or Schism of the Church wherein they live, that, the matter of the Heresy or Schism most times being in doctrines or practices if not necessary, yet very beneficial, for attaining Salvation; that I say, either by erroneous doctrines taught in such Church's, or many profitable doctrines not taught, or loser discipline practised there, they run a much greater hazard of their Salvation. (See Dr. Potter, sect. 4. p. 115.) Yet blessed be God for those, whom he hath so far enlightened, as to abide, without obstinacy in their errors, in any christian Society; for we may presume, that thence also many go to heaven, and these not only hearers, but perhaps some teachers also; if not with their doctrines destroying the foundation Jesus Christ, nor acting against conscience, nor wilfully negligent to inform it, (as I fear many of them be.) See Ch. gov. 3. part. §. 84.  
Besides trial of Doctrines by Scriptures, and by the Doctors of the Church, there is also a 3d. way of trial both of the Doctrines, 
§. 37. II. Trial of doctrines, and Doctors by the holiness these produc● 〈◊〉 they practise.  and Doctors, and Churches, which is much recommended by our Saviour, Matt. 7. 15. etc. and by his Apostles, 1 Tim. 4. 7.— 6. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 16. Tit. 1. 1. Jam. 3. 17. and that trial is; as their doctrines tend more unto holiness of life; and as this fruit is more or less produced by them. For though this holiness is by all doctrines equally pretended, yet is it not by all doctrines equally advanced. For many ill consequences there are following some doctrines more than others; which though they are disavowed and shaken off in the expositions of the teachers, yet do they still adhere to them in the people's practice. As there are other doctrines, which whereas perhaps, as some misunderstood them, they seem pernicious, yet we find the followers thereof excelling in holiness; where the doctrine seems to commend and induce ignorance, very studious and knowing; where the doctrine seems to nourish boasting, presumption, and pride, very humble and contrite in spirit: whom when we find, and that frequently, walking just contrary to what we suppose their doctrines, we are to imagine their doctrines not to be what we suppose; the practice of the Church being the best expounder (generally) of her opinions. But were it otherwise, yet I conceive, far better it were to have faulty doctrines misunderstood so as to produce holiness, than even those that are good misunderstood so, as to produce profaneness and impiety. Again; there are fewer divine truths acknowledged in one Church perhaps than in another, and so obedience less perfect; and in a Church where there are no false doctrines affirmatively and positively taught, yet perhaps many true ones areo mitted, or also rejected, such as are exceeding beneficial to produce sanctity.  
Now 1. first, this is certain; that no lie abounds so much to the producing of holiness, as truth doth: and the more true and 
§. 38. For where mor● truth, more holiness.  orthodox any Church is, and the more truths of God are embraced by her, and none of his counsels rejected; the more purity is in her. For the whole design of our Saviour's coming into the world; of the moulding of all the doctrines of the Law and of the Gospel; these, and not others; was the advancing by them her sanctification. So that I may say; had there been an error that could more have advanced it than these truths, truth had been error, and that error had been made truth. Where then more of these divine rules are known and observed, there will flourish more holiness. And therefore we may reflect, Where more holiness is found, there probably are these better known and taught; because where they are most taught, there in all likelihood also they are most observed. Therefore since all acknowledge the excellent sanctity and purity of the primitive times, they must likewise grant that Church more orthodox, which more closely retains their doctrines, their discipline, etc. And it is an astonishment to me to see, that those who so much admire the one, yet so freely cut off and reject the other, that effected it, (and now, where practised, do still effect it); which they might by this know to have caused it, for that where all other doctrines are put, and these (which, used anciently, are now cast aside in some Church's) abrogated, there such sanctity grows not; nor is the brick made at all, where the straw is denied. How is it then, that the fruit is so much commended, and yet the root that bears it called superstition, will-worship; tyrannical abridgement of christian liberty; * the equalling of things indifferent and of men's traditions (so are all things called, which (in their conceit) are not strictly commanded in Scripture, notwithstanding all the holy examples which they may find in these Scriptures thereof, and that the commands of God are made thereby not of none, but of much more, effect) with the commandments of God; * the placing salvation in men's devices, and in the practising of their own inventions.  
Again: besides this, that, where more divine truths (for I speak not here of other knowledge, which many times proves a great 
§. 39 And where more holiness, more truth.  enemy to piety) are revealed, there (generally) must be more holiness; because all divine truths tend to it, (see Psal. 119. 104, 128.) and ordinarily where the judgement is very much illuminated, the affections cannot but follow it, and the more light the soul hath in it, the less likely it is to miss its way: 'tis yet further to be observed; that holiness, where ever we find it, if not begotten by, yet quickly begets, truth; that the passions brought into order do readily admit that heavenly light, which less or more enlighteneth every one that cometh into the world. The H. Ghost is a fire, Matt. 3. 11. so that wheresoever the Spiritual light thereof is, there is heat also; and much more, e contra. And the mortification of lusts soon brings in orthodoxnesses of opinion, when the inclinations of the soul are so well regulated, as truth is rather for, at least not against, them. So that in that Church where most holiness is, is also most truth, either causing, or else caused by, it. See for this those many promises * of illuminating the Saints, Jo. 7. 17. Psal. 111. 10. 2 Pet. 1. 9 Eph. 3. 17, 18. Phil. 1. 9 2 Cor. 3. 16, 17. Psal. 25. 12. Jo. 8. 12. Jo. 14. 21, 23. Jo. 15. 2. Wisd. 1. 2, 3, 4. Rom. 12. 2. Psal. 37. 23, 30. Prov. 2. 7. Matt. 11. 25. 1 Cor. 2. 11. &c 16. Psal. 119. 100 Jo. 14. 15, 16. Act. 16. 14.— 10. 34, 35, 44, compared with 2.— 15. 8, 9 Jam. 4. 8, 10. Matt. 25. 29.— and * of granting it the Spirit unto prayer and devotions. Luk. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 3. compared with Col. 1. Jam. 1. 5. 1 King. 3. 9 11. For true knowledge, not only of understanding divine truths revealed, but of understanding the revelation also of them, I mean the Scriptures, cometh more from the operation of God's Spirit, than the discourse of Reason; Jam. 1. 5. 1 Kin. 3. 9, 11. (though this Spirit is working with Reason.) See Act. 16. 14. Luk. 24. 32. Heb. 4. 2. Eph. 1. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 14.  
And the same connexion that is found between truth and holiness, 
§. 40. Where more error more vice, and e converso.  is also between vice and error or blindness; they also mutually producing one another. For, † whether we say, that the passions run counter to the judgement; (so they will soon vitiate it, especially in things, though very reasonable, yet not plainly evident, as matters of faith are; and, by hindering any light that may descend into it, they will make it study things only in their defence; suffer it to consider no arguments that make against them; and over-aw it with fear, lest any truth should oppose the satisfaction of them, Facilè deos non esse credit, cui deos esse non expedit; and so vice begets error;) Or, † whether we say, that the affections follow judgement; (so error and blindness here will soon cause in ordinacy there): the unholy are always, some way or other, blind. See 1 Jo. 2. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 2, 3.— 2. 14. Host 4. 11. Rom. 8. 5, 6, 7. 1 Cor. 3. 3. compared with the first. Jo. 3. 19, 20.— 5. 44. 1 Tim. 1. 19— 6. Tit. 1. 11. Lu. 16. 14. Phil. 3. 19 2 Thess. 2. 12. 2 Tim. 2. 19 compared with 18. Our Saviour accused the blind Pharisees of many vices, especially of ambition and covetousness, who therefore placed religion more in ceremonies, washing, fasting, &c, than in justice and judgement. Lu. 11. 42. And the Apostles noted the false teachers much guilty in their lives both of sensuality (lust and gluttony), and of covetousness, and vain glory, by which their doctrines became such as pleased men, such as tended to liberty and licentiousness. See 2 Pet. 2. 3, 18, 19 and were contrary to mortification and the cross. Phil. 3. 18, 19 See 2 Pet. 2. cap. and Epistle of Judas,— Men of corrupt minds. 1 Tim. 6. 5. Lovers of their own selves. 2 Tim. 3. 2. Selfwilled, or self-pleasers. 2 Pet. 2. 10. Loving to have the Preeminence. 3 Jo. 9 Their spirit proud, 1 Tim▪ 6. 4. contentious: Jam. 3. 17. Tit. 3. 9 1 Tim. 6: 5. ever learning and never able to come to any certainty. 2 Tim. 3. 7. Separating. Jud. 19 Heb. 10. 25. Nor can such teachers, unholy themselves, by the truths they teach, propagate holiness easily in others. For though many truths are taught by the most erroneous, yet are they truths not such as more immediately tend to holiness, or not to those parts of holiness, wherein himself is deficient; else if their doctrines could have had any effect in the auditor, they would have had so in the teacher: which as long as they have not, and that he wanteth experience and the practic; the theory is nothing worth, but like him that reads a lecture of war, and never was Soldier. Or, if they be such as tend more to holiness, yet they are but a few, with the omission of many other that are mainly conducing to the production of piety; so that the effect follows not a partial cause. or, if they be sufficient, yet are they ineffectual and unpersuasive, whilst he speaks them from the brain, and not from the heart; from the memory, not from the affections: and whilst they are unaccompanied with the power of the Spirit, (Judas 19 2 Cor. 3. 6. [the Spirit applying what they say.] See Luk. 18. 34. compared with Act. 16. 14. which (ordinarily) doth not cooperate in the word with such a ministry, (see 1 Cor. 4. 19, 20): the ministry, though not for necessary Sacraments, yet for many other things, becoming much less effectual, when in the possession of a wicked person endued with a lawful mission, yet void of the sanctifying Spirit. Certainly it much matters, whether we be recommended to God, and God's grace recommended to us by the prayers and teaching of an holy, or of a wicked, man. S. Cyprian saith, Oportet eos ad sacerdotium deligi, quos a Domino constat audiri, quoting Host 9 4. Jo. 9 34.— And S. Hierom saith the like, quoting Leu. 21. 17.— And Gelasius. Quomodo coelestis Spiritus invocatus adveniet, si sacerdos, qui eum adesse deprecatur, criminosis plen●is actionibus reprobatur? And very much every where is said in the Prophets of the mischiefs descending on the people, from the superintendence of a vicious Clergy. Whereas the holy man speaks with power; the Spirit, both in, and from, him; working upon the people, (God imparting it unto his auditors, as Moses' unto the Elders: See Matt. 10. 20. Act. 6. 10.) and also * from God cooperating with him, 1 Cor. 7. 9 God both hearing his prayers and intercessions, Jam. 5. 16. Job. 33. 23. and also blessing his labours more than other men's.  
Now what hath been said of particular persons, is to be understood 
§. 41.  the same of Churches, being a collective body made up of particulars: in all of which Churches, though there are some men holy, and in the best of Churches many bad; yet where more light and truth, there doubtless are the more good, and the fewer wicked, and so è converso.  
1. To try then what Church is such. 1. You are to observe and 
§. 42. n. 1. 1. In churches therefore to compare the strictness or liberty of their Doctrines, Discipline, etc.  weigh well † their Teachers and Divines; who are educated and prepared for their office, in speculations and controversies more; and who more in mortifications; who strive rather to rectify the people's manners, and who rather to inform the people's understandings: † their doctrines, their discipline, their ceremonies; which Church gives stricter education to her children, whose doctrines tend more to liberty; whose discipline is more remiss; whose ceremonies are more reverend, and by all manner of ways helpful to devotion. For, the severest religion is the best; and Spiritual comforts are in it to such a degree possessed, as worldly consolations are by it retrenched; and wherever more liberty, there less holiness. For liberty is 1. First, both the most used pretence of false teachers, and is absolutely the aptest instrument for bringing in vices, and making men (in stead of being free from) servants to their lusts. See 2 Pet. 18, 19 And we know what was the art of Jeroboam, 1 Kin. 2. 28. [It is too much for you etc.] Which thing wise Bacon also hath observed: Nova secta ita se tantum late diffundit, si portam luxuriae & voluptatibus aperiat, authoritati repugnet. And 2ly, when such pretence of liberty is not used for these things, (as doubtless many times it is not by the Doctors), yet where there is no express restraint made of it, it is almost irremediably abused to these ill ends by the people, I mean, to licentiousness and satisfying of lusts; to an occasion for the flesh, Gal. 5. 13. to a cloak for wickedness; and particularly (as that place imports) disobedience to authority, 1 Pet. 2. 16. Therefore S. Paul, (much mistaken to be a patron of it, Gal. 5. 1.) though he so much vindicated it, in one thing, against Jewish ceremonies; and against these in one case, that is, when required as necessary to salvation; for else himself many times conformed to them; yet, in the free using of all things, lawful unto us &c, no man opposed liberty more than he; nor practised it less. See Rom. 14. cap. 1 Cor. 8. & 9 cap. 1 Cor. 6. 12. He would teach for nothing, and work at his trade; would not eat and drink; would not carry about a wife; would keep under his body so, as that he might not be brought under the power of any thing, so as not to be able to abstain from it; nay would not eat a bit of flesh as long as he lived, if (not himself, but) another, should but receive any hurt by it. And so no man more strict in his orders, than he, (see 1 Cor. 14. cap.— 11. 2, 16.— 4. 17.) and in requiring obedience in all things. For indeed, however we slight small helps, maxima pendent ex minimis.  
2. In Churches therefore, in prosecution of this search, we are 
§. 42. n. 2. 2. Their abounding, or deficiency, in doctrines tending to perfection etc.  to observe; † not only, whether they retain all truths absolutely necessary to be known to attain salvation, (for, I think, both the soberest of the Roman Church grant this to the Reformed; and of the Reformed grant this to the Roman: and both of them grant, that the Scriptures plainly set them down); † nor only whether their doctrines are not untrue; or their commands not unlawful; or either of these contrary to antiquity: but also, whether these Churches be not deficient in, or also oppose, many truths and practices delivered by Antiquity, and taught and enjoined elsewhere, which neither are absolutely necessary to men's salvation, nor yet absolutely indifferent, but things very profitable, and much conducing to it. Where note, that it is a great wrong to the perfection of Christianity, if any should rank all points, not absolutely necessary to salvation, amongst things purely indifferent and of free use, and wherein we may take our liberty of opinion or practice. Those points, which receive no excuse of impossibility, nor no exception of time, place, or persons, for the believing or practising of them, are very few; perhaps one Sacrament, Baptism, one Article of the Creed, [the belieiving in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.] And yet those points, without which the Church nor Christian religion cannot subsist, and which those, who have sufficient revelation, are not to oppose, or neglect to practice, under some peril of their damnation, are many. We are therefore to observe in a Church, whether these are not some way deficient; whether, as all vice is disallowed by her, so all those means are recommended by her, whereby vice may be destroyed; and contrarily whether, not some, but all, virtue, and all the perfection thereof, be proposed and pressed: whether Christian virtues be recommended by her in the whole latitude of their efficacy and use, or only in some part thereof. As if something by her be pressed only as a duty of obedience to a command, when as it is a special means also to procure some benefit. [As should she recommend alms only as a duty, when as it is also a special means to appease God's wrath, and to procure (thro' Christ) remission of sin. So should she recommend works only as a fruit of true faith, when as they are a necessary condition of salvation;] since men will much sooner do these, pressed to them in one sense, than only in the other. As many would sooner give some alms, to appease God's wrath for some sin that afflicts the conscience, than only not to commit the breach of a precept. Again; whether not only the precepts, but all the higher counsels of the Gospel are held forth to her children.  
For we must know; that as, under the Law, none of all the Sacrifices were more grateful to God than the free-will-offerings; 
§. 43.  i e. when they willingly did more than God exacted from them, in, and conformably to, those ways wherein he was pleased then to be worshipped by them: So, under the Gospel, there is an acceptable free-willworship answering to that legal; i. e. when one doth something, for the measure, time, place, and other circumstances (of those holy duties, wherein God is pleased to be served by us, not in any thing else that is besides, and unconformable unto, them) more, than the Gospel hath prescribed. Yet so, that he, who meanwhile omits to do the like, sinneth not against any command. And this acceptable free-will-worship consists * either in an higher degree of performing some duty, than is required under penalty of sin; as praying seven times a day with David; giving half his goods to the poor with Zacheus; or yet more with the widow, Lu. 21. 4. &c. * or in using some means, truly conducing to better performance of such duty, more than is required, or than we are confined to by any command. As, abstaining from some things lawfully used, to help us the easilier to avoid some vice, or excel in the practice of some duty: as † when one liveth single; useth course apparel; plain and spare diet; chooseth an Ecclesiastical vocation (more duly to wait on God, more to subdue lust, more to help the poor, etc.) and † when one restraineth his liberty with Vows. Provided always, that this free-will-offering which is not required, be always undertaken for the better doing of something commanded and required, and be only a circumstance as it were of something that is in itself duty, and be such as God hath recommended, though not enjoined, and Saints of God before us have practised. Now since such things may lawfully be done upon our own undertaking, much more are they not to be refused upon the Church's injunction; which, always with the command, fails not to express a profitable end, concerning which, it is the duty of our humility to submitunto, and not question her judgement. See more of this in Dr. Hammond's excellent note upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coloss. 2.  
We are therefore well to consider, whether a Church be not, in such profitable helps of an holy life, deficient. For example: If 
§. 44.  a Church should impose no affirmative credends, nor enjoin no practices, but what all the Christian world will subscribe to; and yet should hold, That to abstain from any thing, which it is lawful by God's word to enjoy, is fruitless, will-worship, and superstition;— should disallow professedly or tacitly (i. e. by suffering any such good custom to be diswonted, for want of being recommended) the confessing of sin to the Priest, whether it be for more shame and humiliation of ourselves for it; or for their advice against it, or their ministerial absolution from it, or for their prayers and intercession against it, etc.— should affirm, confession to God or the Priest sufficient for remission without reformation of life;— or being sorry for them sufficient repentance, without any further penances, humiliations, or punishing of ourselves for them; or without those of the body at least, (yet which, still pampered, no way consists with a soul afflicted);— or that these are necessary only, when they are imposed to satisfy the scandal of the Church, not to appease the wrath of God:— or, that they are remitted by money or indulgence, which is not preceded by penitence:— should not teach her children * the distinction of greater and lesser sins, that so they may be more extraordinarily cautious of those which more provoke the wrath of God;— and * the several degrees of penitence required according to the several measure of their faults, that so they may practise greater humiliations upon the commission of more grievous offences:— should hold, that good works are not necessary to salvation; or necessary only out of gratitude, or as fruits that will necessarily spring out of true faith; or that promises of reward are not made to good works, but only to faith:— should require for our salvation faith only in our Saviour's merits, i. e. his good works so as to avoid inherent righteousness; or faith in Christ's satisfaction, (i. e. his sufferings,) so as to avoid all our self-afflictions, mortifications, and conformity to his death:— should teach our inability, though we be in the state of grace, to keep all God's commandments and fulfil his law, as touching all greater sins and offences against any part thereof; and to please him in our works:— should hold no degrees of perfection in obedience; nor any latitude of goodness beyond that of being void only of sin; making none better than him that sins not; or him, whoever is not most good, an offender; and the falling-short of the highest degree of prayer, charity, &c guilty of sin, to the taking away of all confidence in God from our good deeds, and emulation of being perfect, and pre-eminence of Saints:— should make the heavenly reward equal to all, so that who is more holy than the least that enters in thither (suppose S. Paul than the Publican) in the overplus of his mortifications &c, serves God for nought:— should extol predestination, election, grace, certainty of salvation, &c (i. e. the mercies of God) so far, as to remit and weaken all humane endeavours:— should deny the continuance of God's miraculous works now, as hath been in former times, to holy men; to the great weakening of prayer, and faith, and making use of the intercessions of holy men:— should make an equal facility of attaining heaven to all conditions of life, not noting to the people those, which have more temptations or hindrances in them than some others; as marriage, wealth, honours:— should disallow or discourage Vows, and other prefortifications against those things which have been former-occasions of sinning:— should not exact of her children frequent hours of prayer in the day, (but discommend rather frequent repetitions, i. e. importunity, of prayers); not exact frequent days of solemn worship in the year, frequent celebrations of the Eucharist, frequent fasts and macerations of the body,— or should not require some of these, more especially from her Clergy at least.— Should use no public, or at least private, Sacerdotal censures and penitences upon greater sins, and should remit the reins of the obedience that is due unto her authority; making herself uncapable to restrain, except where her children are first persuaded she judgeth right, (i. e. according to Scripture as they understand it).— Should by her doctrines, That such and such christian duties are not required with such and such a quatenus, in such and such a sense or respect; as, not good works, i. e. to justify, or to merit, or to obtain remission of sin by them; not penance, i. e. to satisfy God's justice; not confession, i. e. as jure divino; not such and such ceremonies, set times of fast, hours of prayer, &c, i. e. as divine commands, or essential parts of worship: not poverty, celibacy, &c, i. e. as counsels to all; but only contend that they are necessary duties to some, whilst none know to whom in particular they are so, (which thing quite voids the duty)— Should, I say, by teaching much more vehemently how such duties are not required, than how they are to be understood, (especially to one considering both the peoples and the teacher's practice), as if they argued that they were not required at all; or by teaching that such and such practices are not absolutely necessary, should be conceived to say they are no way beneficial, or no way useful at all, because they are not useful alone; as is true of all manner of mortifications and castigations of the body.— If any Church, I say, should hold, or is ordinarily by the people understood to hold, such tenets as these; who sees not that in such a Church, though commanding nothing unlawful, yet omitting only the contrary doctrines to these beforenamed, the people must needs desert many good duties, grow cold in devotion, and left to their (most grateful) liberty, use it to their destruction. But were it not so, and that such a Church were free from blame; yet were that Ecclesiastical Economy more to be preferred, and would have a reward and something to glory of beyond the rest, (as S. Paul beyond other teachers. 1 Cor. 9), that should, thro' these restraints of lawful liberty, aspire to the more perfection.  
That Church therefore seems more safely to be preferred and 
§. 45.  adhered unto, which is more accused of excesses in religion, than which is blamed of defects; as that which is said to attribute too much to good works; to extol too much the virtue of self-mortifications and penances; to superadd to God's commands a great deal of spontaneous and free-will-worship; to abound too much in religious rites and ceremonies; too much in corporal bowings and gestures; too much in fasting-days; to use too many vain repetitions in their prayers; to reverence holy places, and things, and persons in excess; to give too much authority, and require too strict a submission, to the governors and laws of the Church; excessively to practise and recommend religious vows; to make too great a mystery of, to attribute too great a virtue, to give too great a reverence, to the Holy Sacraments, etc.  
3. You are to peruse their writings and books, not of controversy, but of devotion and instructions for the practice of holy 
§. 46. 3. The●r writings of Devotion.  living. In which you shall find certainly what fruit their doctrines bear, and what strength and virtue they contain in them; and a great difference between them in their operations upon the affections: a much fainter and more languishing heat from the one than from the other, (as indeed what fervent motives to piety could one raise from such foundations as have been abovementioned?) Some teaching as it were from Experience, the other from Art; some full of wit, the others of zeal; the one more enlarging, the other straitning, the way to heaven; some laying light, the other more heavy, burdens, but more full of hope and present consolations: more punctual and particular in their directions, as from those who have first tried the way wherein they direct others; more high in their aim, carrying men to these heights, which the other imagine impossible to attain. It remains that you observe, which do inflame you to more sanctity and purity of life, and to them adhere; for there is the power, there is the Spirit, of Christ. And commonly the purer the Church, the more with these writings doth she abound, as others do with controversy and questions, (as error is ever unsettled); laying foundations; always learning, but never coming to the perfect knowledge of the truth; whilst one controversy still gendereth another, after the business is committed wholly to our reason. 2 Tim. 2. 23, 16.— 3. 7▪ 1 Tim. 1. 4.  
4. Last; after their books and precepts, peruse their lives and 
§. 47. 4. Th● l●ves of the●r Saints.  practices, by reading the stories of the pretended holy men of all sides, and those the nearest to the present age, wherein the relations are more certain: of which stories those Churches that afford very few, 'tis to be suspected, that where little is said, there is likewise little done, that may be talked of. In which compared you shall find, a plain difference in their strictness according to their doctrines, and a transcendency in their virtues according to their principles; some much more mortified and weaned from the world, and accordingly more enlightened and honoured of God than the other; in each of them their doctrines perfectly designed and copied out. And here, in perusing their lives, as their rules and doctrines, 'tis wisdom to adhere to those, by whom you most profit.  
And since we find, in the Church which the Reformation forsook, 
§. 48.  frequent relations concerning holy men therein, as having frequent ecstasies and revelations, doing many miracles, foretelling things future, exercising most rigid abstinences and penances, every day confessing and communicating, &c, and find not in the Churches reform any one holy man at all, of whom the like things are told by them in the histories of their lives; methinks it follows, either that all those writers of Saints lives in the Church reformed-from, have been most intolerable liars, and this in all ages, as well those before, as those since, the reformation began, (for in those ages we find the like stories); or else that this Church is much more favoured of God, than that of the reformed is. But if those writers of lives have been all such intolerable liars, 'tis a wonder (in so frequent a fault) that no Protestants at all should fall into the same, but all be so strict observers of truth, that none of them should at any time, for the advancing of the reputation of their religion, make the same fictions. But from their universal silence herein, may it not rather be guessed, that such things as are writ in these lives, involving the testimony and knowledge of so many nominated persons, living in the same time and place where such facts are alleged, cannot be so easily forged and counterfeited, as some would persuade. Not that I affirm, that there is any Church or Religion, wherein you may not find some persons that are virtuous in their conversation, and exemplary in their lives. For many excellent men also have there been amongst the Philosophers, and in the heathenish religions, walking only in the light of nature; much more therefore may some such be found in any Christian Sect whatever, who enjoy, besides that of Nature, the light of Scriptures. But yet in that Church, where the doctrines are purest, and tend most to holiness, certainly will be found a much greater number of holy men and Saints, than in any other; and these also of a greater purity and perfection, and consequently more honoured also with singular favours from heaven, not unlike to those of primitive times.  
To these three ways of Trials of Doctrines &c, me thinks, upon the weighing of our Saviour's promise [That the Gospel and the doctrine 
§. 49. IVth. Trial of Doctrines by the conversion of Nations.  of his Kingdom should be published to all Nations] may be added a fourth, not unconsiderable. And this is, diligently to observe (in the many divisions of faith, and diversity of opinions that are in Christianity) what profession of faith (doubtless sometimes attested by miracles, if histories deceive us not) that was, or is, to which usually the heathen nations have been, and are now, converted; and of what persuasions and communion those men are, whom God hath made his instruments of their christianity. For we cannot rationally think, (though it may so happen to some few particulars; as the Goths are said to have been at first converted by Arrian Bishops, under an Arrian Emperor, yet so, that God's mercy soon promoted them into the faith of the Church Catholic), we cannot rationally think, I say, that, for the general, the good God, having promised to the nations bread, would give them a stone; having promised them the revelation of his truth would plant amongst them instead thereof, a manifold idolatry, (as worshipping of dead men; and of bread, as God &c, as some would persuade us,) and would not give them the waters of life to drink of, unless these poisoned with such errors, as from which the external communion of all true believers ought to separate. And if (considering the promises of God Rom. 11. c.) at the time of the conversion hereafter of the Jews to Christianity, no wise man would doubt to conform to their external communion; why should we not also choose rather (as more safe) to be of the external communion and faith, in which the Nations generally, both who have been, and are, converted to the faith, have been, and are initiated? and that upon the same promise, Matt. 24. 14. Mar. 13. 10. as the Jews hereafter shall be. Now to these I will add only one thing more: That the most part of the Northern world have received (at least) the public plantation and profession of the Christian faith in, or since, the times of Gregory the Great; as the Ecclesiastical histories plainly show). In whose time we know what were the public doctrines in most of the modern controversies; and by whom God hath visited the people that sat in darkness in China, in the East and West Indies, we cannot be ignorant. One Religion granted muchwhat the same as at the present, for the last 1000 years, in its Liturgies and Public Service; in its Altars, and quotidian Sacrifice; in its high veneration of the celestial Favourites, and daily communication, by a commemoration of the Saints in glory, with the Church triumphant; as likewise in its unbounded charity even to the Souls of its supposed-necessitous brethren of the next world; in its variety of Religious Orders, Fraternities, and Votaries; in its holy love to chastity, silence, solitudes, and poverty; in its unarguing (and miscalled blind) obedience to the laws of its Superiors; in its glorying, thro' all the past ages, of miracles, and prophecy. One religion, I say appearing in all these for so many ages much-what the same, and very reverend for its antiquity; yet still going on resistless, flourishing, and spreading its arms abroad further and further toward the East and toward the West with continued and unwearied missions. And another religion every day varying from its self, and subdividing into smaller Sects, after the 70th or 80th year of its age beginning to decline, and wither, and loose ground in many places where it was formerly well rooted; and, whilst it promiseth its self still to destroy Antichrist, growing each day feebler, and He, that it names so, stronger.  
To sum up all; the surest trial of the doctrines of any Church after that by Scripture, (which is pretended for all sides) is 
§. 50. Conclusion.  First, by their conformity with Antiquity, i. e. by the doctrines of the former Church. 2. By the holiness which these doctrines produce in the members of such a Church. For the first, we are to search the Fathers, or some of them; or if it be but one of those who are more voluminous, concerning such points as are now controverted: not as such Fathers are quoted by others, but in their own writings. For the 2d; to read the books of Devotion, and the Lives of Holy men of either party. Which two who carefully examines, (notwithstanding the commonly used objections of disagreement, ambiguity, or impertinency in the first, the Fathers; of forgery in the second, the Lives of Saints,) he shall be abundantly satisfied concerning truth and error. And the grand causes of the continued distractions of opinions, I conceive, are, either the not perusing of the Father's writings themselves, but quotations of them in others, where many times a sentence, taken by itself, may be (without any forcing) capable of a sense contradictory to the context: or the not casting of the search upon the Fathers, but Scriptures only: or the searching of the Scriptures also not only in an affirmative, but negative, way; taking all that for false, or unlawful, or unuseful, not only what is against them, but what is not in them. Again, in the searching of the Fathers, Councils, &c, the reasons why we assent not to them, when found contrary to our former opinions, are 1. The being bred-up in doctrines repugnant unto their decrees, and in places persecuting such tenets; which makes us averse from truth, that will destroy us: averse, not by denying it when we know it; but by preventing to our power the apprehension of arguments persuasive to it; and by a willing entertaining reasons (which are never wanting) against it. Now, that this conformity to opinions happens by education and interest, rather than argument, is plain, in that all other things remaining the like, (i. e. as much judgement, and diligence, and books, &c,) and our education or interest being only changed, contrary opinions are, as readily the one as the other, entertained. See before, §. 14. 2. A general inclination in our nature to opinions that give more liberty, and that more throw off yokes. 3. A conceit (false), that Antichrist is to be a Christian in profession, and a ruler in the Church. Which, with the texts of S. John 1 Ep. 2. 18.— 4. 3. at one blow cuts off the head of all Church-authority, Tradition, Fathers, Councils, how ancient soever, farther than we find them to agree with Scripture; and that is, with our fancies upon Scripture, or sometimes upon one, uncompared, text thereof.  
According to what hath been considered in this Treatise, methinks some of those passages urged long since by Sr. Edwin Sandys (in his Relation of the Western relig. p. 30. etc.) as the ordinary plea of the Ch. of Rome, and her adherent Churches, have something in them not easily to be answered, if we join with them the notion of Catholic Ch. as explained by Mr. Thorndyke (in his printed letter to his brother) and the experiences of our times, since Sr. Ed. Sandies decease.— Mr. Thorndyke's words are these. Christians, when they profess to believe [i. e. in the Creed] the Catholic Ch. do not believe, that there is in the world a number of men, that profess to be Christians &c, but that there is a Corporation of true Christians founded by our Lord and his Apostles, which heretics and schismatics cannot have communion with; and this is that which the stile, Catholic and Apostolic Church, signifies; as distinguishing the body of true Christians (to wit, so far as profession goeth) from the conventicles of heretics and schismatics. For this title of Catholic would signify nothing, if heretics and schismatics were not barred the communion of the Ch. Thus far he. Where his interpreting the believing of the Catholic Ch. to be the believing of a distinction of the profession of Catholics from the conventicles of Heretics, must needs infer; that the Church Catholic (which soever it is) is a Church (or Churches) distinguished not only in its internal communion with Christ its head, but in its external profession and communion of its members amongst themselves, from the external communion and profession of heretics.— Sr. Edw. Sandies discourse (by way of objection) is this.— If all other Churches [besides the Roman, and those united with her] have had either their end and decay long since, or their beginning but of late: if this being founded by the Prince of the Apostles, with promise to him by Christ, that hell-gates should not prevail against it, but that himself will be assisting to it till the consummation of the world, hath continued on now till the end of 1600 years, with an honourable and certain line of near 240 Popes, Successors of Peter; both tyrants and traitors, pagans and heretics in vain wresting, raging, and undermining: If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world, have from time to time approved and honoured it; if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above, as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings; such armies, of Saints with their holiness; of Martyrs, with their blood; of Virgins, with their purity, should sanctify and embellish it: If even at this day, in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children, yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world, newly embracing whole nations into her bosom: If lastly in all other opposite Churches there be found inward dissensions and contrariety, change of opinions, uncertainty of resolutions, with robbing of Churches, rebelling against governors, [much more experienced since this Author's death in the late Presbyterian wars,] confusion of Orders, [invading of Episcopacy, etc.] whereas chose in this Ch. the unity undivided, the resolutions unalterable, the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the very lowest of all subjection; all, with admirable harmony, beauty, and undefective correspondence, bending the same way to the effecting of the same work, do promise no other than continuance, increase, and victory; let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious Spouse of God etc.— This then being accorded to be the true Church of God, it followeth, that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further disquisition; she having the warrant, that he that heareth her heareth Christ; and whosoever heareth her not, hath no better place with God than a publican or pagan. And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority, [the authority of that Church that was before Luther's times], and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit? And if God should not always protect his Church from error, [i. e. dangerous to, or destructive of, salvation], and yet peremptorily command men always to obey her; then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of mankind: which conceit concerning God (whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent) were ungrateful and impious. And hard were the case, and mean had his regard been, of the vulgar people, whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit, whose capacity will not suffice, to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity, and to search out the truths of intricate controversies, if there were not others, whose authority they might [safely] rely on. Blessed therefore are they, who believe and have not seen; the merit of whose religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps, in honour and acceptance before God, the subtle and profound knowledge of many others.— This is the main course of their persuading at this day etc.  
FINIS.   

Concerning SALVATION possible to be had in a SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION.  
AND Concerning the danger of living in, and the necessity of departing from, a KNOWN-SCHISMATICAL COMMUNION.   

CONTENTS.  

Tho it be conceded,  
1. FIrst, That the Catholic Church contains in it not many opposite, but only one, external Communion. §. 2.  
2ly. That there is no salvation out of the communion, (i. e. internal) of the Church Catholic.  
3. Yet Salvation must be allowed to some, that are out of the external communion of the Ch. Catholic.  
4ly. That of those who live out of the Catholic, and in a schismatical external Communion, there are several sorts. 

1. Those, who make such separation; who are not salvable without repentance.  
2. Those, who follow such leaders, and continue the division, upon the same motives and passions: not salvable without repentance.  
3. Those, who follow such leaders in simplicity of heart, and out of (their condition considered) invincible ignorance. Such seem to be in a salvable condition; though incurring great disadvantages for their salvation. §. 7.  
4. Those who, convinced of Schism in such a Church, yet rejoin not themselves to the external communion of the Ch. Catholic, though consenting in all things with her, Hindered, 

1. Either by some respects merely temporal. Such faulty; but how highly, is hard to determine.  
2. Or by some considerations and designs merely spiritual. Such less faulty than the other: yet seem not wholly justifiable. 

1. † Whether they continue still in a communion schismatical. §. 9 n. 1. Which communion seems forbidden both 

1. By the Scriptures.  
2. And by the Injunctions of the Church Catholic. §. 10.  
— To which all owe obedience. §. 11.    
2. Or † whether they communicate with no Church at all: who seem of the two the less unjustifiable. §. 13. yet not wholly excusable. §. 14.      
5. Those, who 1. much doubting the Church, they live in, to be schismatical, yet are not fully convinced thereof. Or 2. convinced, defer their intended reconcilement till an expected opportunity. §. 17.  
That (several circumstances considered) both these may, or may not, be culpable.  
A Query: What is to be done, if the Ch. Catholic require some conformity to doctrines or practices against his conscience or particular judgement, who seeks her Communion. §. 19  
Several propositions tending to the solution of this Query. §. 20.      
Bishop of Chalcedon (in Protest. plain Confess. 2. c.) 
— If Protestants allow not saving Faith, Church, and Salvation, to such as sinfully err in Not-fundamentals sufficiently proposed, they show no more charity to erring Christians than Catholics do. For we allow all to have saving faith, to be in the Church, in the way of salvation, (for so much as belongs to faith) who hold the fundamental points, and invincibly err in not-fundamentals: because neither are these sufficiently proposed to them; nor they in fault, that they are not so proposed.— 13. c.— If they grant not Salvation to such Papists as they count vincibly ignorant of Roman errors; but only to such as are invincibly ignorant of them; then they have no more charity than we: For we grant Church, saving Faith, and Salvation, to such Protestants, as are invincibly ignorant of their errors.   
Id. (in Survey of L. Derry, 8. c. 3. §.) in answer to Bishop Bramhal's objecting the Pope's excommunicating of such Churches. 
— Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Africa, Asia, Greece, and Russia; but only such as vincibly, or sinfully, err; such as are formal or obstinate heretics, or schismatics. For Excommunication is only against obstinacy: [Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus.] In these Churches there are innumerable, who are but credentes haereticis & schismaticis, because the Catholic faith was never sufficiently preached to them; and these the Pope doth not excommunicate. Nor doth he exclude formal Heretics or Schismatics, but Juridically declareth them to be excluded. (For by their Heresies or Schisms they had already excluded themselves:) or juridically confirmeth their exclusion begun by themselves.   
S. Aug. Confess. 8. l. 2. c. 
— Legebat (Victorinus Doctor tot Nobilium Senatorum &c,) sanctam Scripturam, omnesque Christianas scripturas investigabat studiosissime, & perscrutabatur; & dicebat Simpliciano non palam, sed secretius, & familiarius: Noveris me jam esse Christianum. Et respondebat ille: Non credam; nec deputabo inter Christianos, nisi in Ecclesia Christi te videro. Ille autem irridebat eum, dicens; Ergo parietes faciunt Christianos? Et hoc saepe dicebat; Jam se esse Christianum. Et Simplicianus illud saepe respondebat; & saepe ab illo parictum irrisio repetebatur. Amicos enim suos verebatur offendere, superbos daemonicolas, quorum— graviter ruituras in se inimicitias arbitrabatur. Sed posteaquam legendo & inhiando hausit firmitatem, timuitque negari a Christo coram Angelis sanctis, si eum timeret coram hominibus confiteri, reusque sibi magni criminis apparuit, erubescendo de Sacramentis humilitatis Verbi Tui, & non erubescendo de sacris sacrilegis superborum daemoniorum,— depuduit vanitati, & erubuit veritati: subitoque & inopinatus ait Simpliciano, Eamus in Ecclesiam; Christianus volo fieri etc.— mirante Roma, gaudente Ecclesia. Superbi videbant, & irascebantur: dentibus suis stridebant, & tabescebant. Servo autem tuo Domine, Deus erat spes ejus; & non respiciebat in vanitates & insanias mendaces.   
S. Aug. de ordine 2. l. 9 c. 
— Cum docilis factus fuerit, tum demum discit; & quanta ratione praedita sint ea ipsa, quae secutus est ante rationem, & quid sit ipsa ratio, quae, post authoritatis cunabula, firmus & idoneus jam sequitur.   
Grot. Votum pro pace. Preface. 
— Facile vidi id voluisse Christum, ut omnes, qui ab ipso nominari, & per ipsum beatitudinis compotes fieri vellent, unum essent inter se, sicut ipse cum Patre unum est. (Jo. 17. 11. 21, 22, 23.) Neque vero unum animo tantum, sed & ea communione, quae conspici potest, & maxim conspicitur in regiminis vinculo, & in sacramentorum participatione. Est enim Ecclesia, aut esse debet, corpus quoddam. (Rom. 12. 5, 12, etc. 27. Eph. 1. 23.— 2. 16.— 4. 4.— 5. 30. Coloss. 1. 18.— 2. 17, 19) Quod corpus Christus (caput ei a Deo datus) per varias juncture as praefecturarum compaginari voluit, (Eph. 4. 11, 12, 16.) & in hoc singulos baptizari, ut unum corpus fierent, (1 Cor. 12, 13.) & de uno consecrato pane vesci, ut sic magis magisque coalescerent, & unum se corpus esse testarentur. (1 Cor. 10. 17.)   

Note, that in this Discourse by [Schismatical] I mean in that sort of Schism which is a separating from lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors. And that Churches (not only private persons) may be (thus) schismatical, see Dr. Hammond, Of Schism 3. c. §. 10, & 21.— and what is said in Ecclesiastical Government 2. and 3, parts.   

Of the danger of SCHISM.  
SIR,  
COncerning the heinousness and danger of Schism, I have read over those quotations you directed me to in Mr. Cressy's 
§. 1.  Motives, c. 46. but cannot consent to what he there (sect. 5. compared with the former quotations) deduceth from them: [i. e. that no man, if living in a Communion or Church schismatical, though he hath no influence upon the beginnings of the separation; though he judge charitably of the Church which others have separated from; and approacheth as near to it in his belief, as that which is truth, in his opinion, will permit him, can be saved.] Unless 1. first this be true also, (which he indeed seems to affirm, 47. c. 2. §. that the true Church cannot be hidden from the eyes of any man, who doth not willingly shut them), That any one's opinion, that such a thing as he or his church holds is truth (I add; or, that that Church, wherein they are baptised and educated, is the true Church), of what condition, age, calling, capacity, soever he be, must needs proceed in him from some corrupt passion, (as S. Austin instanceth in two such passions which chiefly make one's error an heresy; qui, alicujus temporalis commodi; or, qui, gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas & novas opiniones vel gignit, vel sequitur), and from ignorance, not invincible, but obstinate and affected. Now I hardly think any one will affirm this of every man whatsoever, that is born and educated in a Communion schismatical. [Tho indeed I believe that this may be truly said of very many (especially the learned), who notwithstanding think themselves very free from it. For, the necessity (which is ordinarily pleaded) of following or not-doing contrary to our conscience freeth not us from being guilty of Schism in doing after it, (no more than it could free a Donatist &c) if there be any defect, from negligence, interest, passion, &c, in the information of it. See Notes of Necessary Faith, §. 6. And see Archbishop Lawd, Conf. 37. sect. 6. n. where he saith; That an error (and that in points Not-fundamental) may be damnable to some men, though they hold it not against their conscience:— If they neither seek the means to know the truth; nor accept truth, when it is known: especially being men able to judge. Now, I conceive, in most learned that abide in a Schismatical communion, such a fault there is. Namely, either † much negligence: and this, either in not reading the controversies of religion at all; or in their reading the tenets of their adversaries only in their own writers; or in their taking, and arguing against, the extremities of some private men's opinions for the Catholic doctrines of that Church, from which their Ancestors have departed. Or (if they deficient in none of these) 2ly, † much interest, and passion, and addiction to worldly conveniences or honours, (therefore S. Paul and S. Judas observe much carnality in Schism, 1 Cor. 3. 3, 4. Judas 19): which passion (unknown to them) restrains the free liberty of their judgements. Hence, the ignorant people in a Schismatical Church may well be saved, whilst the learned thereof (in their uncharitableness to, and opposition of, the true Church) perish.] Or 2ly, unless this be true, that where invincible ignorance is, and no actual breach of charity at all, yet the pure want and privation of external unity or communion with the Church, without any their default, damns such men; though meanwhile they do receive all the benefit of the Sacraments, well know and believe all the necessary Articles belonging to faith and manners, and conform in their lives thereunto, even in strict obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors of that Church which they live in, and which they only know. Now this I think as unreasonable an assertion as the former. See §. 6, 7, 8.— Now, to consider the quotations in Mr. Cressy, and what may be said in this point, you must give me leave not to shuffle all together; but to distribute the matter into many Propositions, that we may see which of them are disputable, which not.  
1. Let it be granted for the present, that the Church cannot 
§. 2. Upon confession; 1. that the Ch. Catholic. contains not in it many opposit●●● but only one, external Communion.  have in it many opposite external communions, but only one: so that he, that enjoys not that one external communion, is rightly said to be out of the communion of the Church, i. e. out of the external communion thereof. Only here note; that one may elsewhere, out of this external communion of this only true Catholic Church, be partaker of the Sacraments, and those the true Sacraments: for none deny that the administration of true Sacraments may be in a Church Schismatical, or also Heretical. So S. Austin (de vera Relig. 5. c.) acknowledgeth the Arrians and Photinians, Heretics, to have had all the same Sacraments with the true Ch. Qui [i. e. Photiniani, Arriani, &c,] paria Sacramenta celebrantes, tamen, quia sententia dispares, sunt— exclusi a Catholica communione etc. And of the Donatists' schismatics he saith, (Ep. 48. near the end); Nobiscum estis in baptismo; in symbolo; in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis etc. And the Roman Church, which esteemeth the Greek schismatical, denieth not them to have the true Sacraments. And if some of them deny it of the Protestants, 'tis only from the Protestants not using some forms which they count essential to the Sacraments, (especially the form in the ordaining Priests); not from their being a schismatical Church. See 6, 7, 8, §. Therefore of that place of Fulgentius, de remiss. peccat. 22. c. quoted in Mr. Cress. Motiv. 46. c. 4. sect. [Out of this Church neither doth the title of Christian secure any man; neither doth Baptism confer salvation; neither doth any man offer a sacrifice agreeable to God; neither doth any man receive remission of sins; nor attain life eternal, &c,] the meaning of it is only; That the Sacraments, though true, do not profit to salvation a Schismatic; as they neither do, a drunkard or adulterer &c: because as the drunkard, notwithstanding these, is damned for his drunkenness; so is the Schismatic for his faction, and uncharitableness, and pride, in not submitting his judgement to the Church. And many the like sayings concerning the inutility of the Sacraments to Schismatics, before Fulgentius, hath St. Austin, in his writings against the Donatists, who urged, from the true use of the Sacraments, and the belief of the Creed, &c, the security of their salvation. See de Baptismo 1. l. 3. c. Esse baptismum & apud Donatistas' nos concedimus, sed apud Donatistas' Baptismum non recte accipi &c,— Qui ab aliqua haeresi veniunt ad Communionem Catholicam, incipit illis prodesse, quod inutiliter habebant.— Certus est in ea sola [i. e. Catholica Ecclesia] illi prodesse baptismum Christi, etiamsi alibi acceptum fuerit etc. But then the reason given by him of these Sacraments not profiting &c is, the want of charity in those, who, in such Church, use or receive them: as we may plainly see by his fuller arguing the business in other places. (Epist. 48. near the end.) Nobiscum estis in baptismo, in symbolo, in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis; in spiritu unitatis, & vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique catholica Ecclesia, nobiscum non estis: Haec si accipiatis [i. e. vinculum pacis &c] non tunc aderunt, sed tunc proderunt, quae habetis. Here the want of spiritus unitatis & vinculum pacis renders the true Sacraments received, as to their salvation, uneffectual. And (de unitate Ecclesiae 19 c.) Accipiat vinculum pacis quod non habebat, sine quo illi prodesse non poterat baptisma quod habebat. Utrumque enim necessarium est ad regnum Dei adipiscendum, & baptismus, & justitia. Baptismus autem & in eo qui justitiam non habet, potest esse; sed non potest prodesse. Justitia autem haereticis deest, quam sine charitate ac vinculo pacis habere nullus potest: and for this also he quotes 1 Cor. 13. 1. But then take one in a schismatical Church that is void of that fault, which the Father allegeth here to render the Sacraments uneffectual to them, and to expel them from salvation, (as you must grant to me some are, when I name a child to you that is not yet come to the full use of his reason), and such a one, baptised, and then dying, is certainly saved. And then I ask; Why not some other? who, though living longer, yet thro' an invincible ignorance may be as free from division, and faction, and breach of charity, in this kind, as when he was an infant; or as any others are, who are educated in the bosom of the true Church. For which purpose see S. Austin de Baptism. contra Donatistas' 1. l. 10. c.— Ecclesia Catholica quicquid suum habet, etiam in communionibus diversorum ab unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in iis habet [i. e. per baptismum, of which he is there speaking] ipsa utique generat [i. e. filios Christo, non illae]. Per hoc quod suum in iis habet, therefore the Church hath aliquid suum in other heretical and schismatical Churches. Generate filios, therefore some also in Schismatical Churches thus may be said to have the Church for their Mother. Else if Baptism, when administered by such, were utterly effectless in itself; how could it profit them to salvation, without any second administration thereof, who afterward return into the bosom of the true Church?  
2. Be it granted: That there is no salvation to any that are out of the communion (i. e.) internal of the Church. (For certainly 
§. 3. ●. That there is no salvation to any who are out of the internal communion of the Ch. Catholic.  none are saved that are not the members of Christ, the Head; and then, 'tis impossible, that any should be one of the members of Christ, and not have those of the church for his fellow-members, unless Christ have two distinct bodies.)— Of this S. Austin against the Donatists, De unitate Ecclesiae 2. c. speaks very fully. Quaestio certe inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesia; utrum apud nos, an apud illos? Quae utique una est; quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt. Haec autem Ecclesia corpus Christi est. Unde utique manifestum est, eum, qui non est in membris Christi, Christianam salutem habere non posse. Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem capiti suo coherent, quod est Jesus Christus. [He continues afterward, cap. 4.] Quicunque de ipso Capite Scripturis sanctis consentiunt, [i. e. are never so orthodox in their belief,] & unitati Ecclesiae non communicant, non sunt in Ecclesia; quia de Christi corpore (quod est Ecclesia) dissentiunt ab ipsius Christi testificatione, [i. e. that she is toto orbe diffusa, and shall never perish, &c,] & apertissimis ac notissimis Scripturarum testimoniis contradicunt.— Again: Quicunque credunt quod Christus Jesus in carne vener it &c, sed tamen ab ejus corpore, quod est Ecclesia, ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur; manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Catholica. In aliqua parte separata, for the reason given by him above; because they want charity: Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & capiti suo; and because notissimis Scripturis contradicunt.  
3. But, all this being granted, yet 3ly, if any happen to be extra 
§. 4. 3. Yet that salvation must be allowed to same who are out of the Ch. Catholics external communion.  Ecclesiam, out of the Church's external communion, or also in part separata; so he be not guilty of that fault which makes such separation damnable, but still retains the necessary bond of charity; such a one, (once joined unto it by baptism), though amongst other Separatists, seems to remain himself still unseparated (though not from the external, yet) from the internal communion of the Church. And if any be so strict, as, besides this internal (effected by the same Spirit of Christ in all the faithful, and always seen to God) always to exact an external also, such assertion will in many instances prove false, even in S. Austin's concessions; who freely acknowledgeth both many, that are in the external communion of the Church, no true members thereof; and many to be true members of the Church, who are out of the external communion thereof. See de unitate Ecclesiae 20. c.— Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, & tamen jam non sunt in Ecclesia: Alioquin & tunc quisque praeciditur, cum excommunicatur. Consequens erit, ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum visibiliter communioni restituitur. Quid si ergo sictus accedat, atque adversus veritatem & Ecclesiam ●or inimicissimum gerat? Quamvis peragatur in eo illa solemnitas, nunquid reconciliatur? nunquid inseritur? absit. Sicut ergo, jam denuo communicans nondum insertus est; sic & antequam visibiliter excommunicatur, quisquis contra veritatem, qua convincitur & arguitur, inimicum gest at animum, jam praecisus est. Again; the Baptism 1. l. 17. c. Semper ab illius Ecclesiae, quae sine macula & ruga est, unitate divisus est, etiam qui, in carnali obduratione, congregationi Sanctorum miscetur.— Spirituales autem sive ad hoc ipsum pro studio proficientes, non eunt for as [i. e. when they are excommunicated]: quia & quum aliqua vel perversitate, vel necessitate hominum, videntur expelli; ibi magis probantur quam si intus permaneant; cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur, sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur. Add to this the place quoted below, §. 13. and that Discourse of his de unit. Eccl. 20. c. of the several degrees of their culpableness who may live in a Schismatical communion, set down §. 7: Where the Father affirms, God hath some good corn amongst those tares: ubi radice viva herbae vigor atteritur, etc. Several instances therefore there may be given, wherein such assertion will prove false. For example: It is granted to be false, in those who are unjustly excommunicated, (as some, 'tis by all conceded, may be); and in Penitents, after a just Excommunication, who are not yet actually reconciled. Of whom Bellarm. de Eccl. 3. l. 6. c. saith; Tales esse in Ecclesia animo sive desiderio, quod sufficit illis ad salutem: bringing in St. Austin's saying, de vera relig. 6. c. of such like; Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns. (See below §.)— Again: false, at least, in those dying after baptism, before the use of reason, in a schismatical Church.— Again, false in Catechumeni, that die before they receive baptism, or are entered into the Church. Of whom Bellarmin (de Eccl. 3. l. 3. c.) saith: Quod dicitur, extra Ecclesiam neminem salvari, intelligi debere de iis, qui neque reipsa, neque desiderio, sunt de Ecclesia, (sicut etiam de baptismo communiter loquuntur Theologi); quoniam autem Catechumeni, si non re, saltem voto, sunt in Ecclesia; ideo salvari possunt. Neque repugnat similitudo Arcae No, extra quam nemo salvabatur, etiamsi voto in ea fuisset: nam similitudines non in omnibus conveniunt. I add, that some of the Catechumeni were such, as, for secular reasons &c, deferred baptism long after they might have been admitted to, and received, it: and amongst such, I suppose was Valentinian; who dying before baptism received, after baptism willingly deferred, yet S. Ambrose doubted not of his salvation. What then? was there no fault in baptism so deferred? Whether in all, I know not; in many, I believe there was. But we must put some difference, between the committing of a fault (in the want thereof), and the incurring of certain damnation. And doubtless, this fault, as others, was remitted to them upon a general or a particular repentance, the votum meanwhile of what they wanted and purposed, that in convenient time they would receive, and presumed they should, saving their souls. I say therefore, in such cases, the position above, being meant of external communion, is false: and then why may it not also be so in some other cases? As namely in one, whose ill hap it is to be born in a Schismatical communion, yet where he partakes the true Sacraments; when it is supposed, that such a one may be guiltless of that crime, for which the Schismatical are damned.  
4. In the next place; of those who all live in the same Schismatical communion there are several sorts: who must be carefully 
4. Several sorts of those who live in an external communion Schismatical.  distinguished.  
1. The first are those, who make a separation, and set up a new 
§. 5. 1. Those who make such separation, not salvable, without repentance.  communion divers from the church Catholic; be it upon any pretence of error, or other thing whatsoever, (for there can never be, to the end of the world, a just cause of so doing). [See Aug. Ep. 48. Si possit (quod fieri non possit) aliquis habere causam justam, qua communionem suam separet a communione orbis terrarum, etc. (See this place quoted and approved by Dr. Hammond, (of Schism, 1. c.) only let me add to his words there, visible Church; else no division from the church Catholic can ever be known.— And again: Ibi enim erit [i. e. Ecclesia] ubi primum forsitan factum est [i. e. separation] quod postea vos fecistis, si potuit esse ulla justa causa, qua vos a communione omnium gentium separare possetis. Nos autem ideo certi sumus neminem se a communione omnium gentium juste separare potuisse; quia non quisque nostrum in justitia sua [as the Donatists did, saying no wicked could be of the Church,] said in Scriptures divinis quaerit Ecclesiam, &, ut promissa est, reddi conspicit, [i. e. toto orbe diffusam, civitatem super montem positam, crescentem in messem etc.] See contra Ep. Parmen. 2. l. Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas.] Such men therefore as make this separation dying in this guilt unrepented of, though this their death should be a martyrdom for the truth, cannot be saved (no more than a drunkard or adulterer impenitent, and continuing in such a sin till his death, that dies for Christianity), for without charity (saith the Apostle) none can be saved. 1 Cor. 13. 1. And this falling out (so causeless) with their mother the Church, disobeying her, and violating her peace and unity, accusing her of error, (for no Schism but pretends some error in the Church, that it may have a just cause of departing from her), and of error also so intolerable, that none at all ought longer to live in her society. [Asdruball, if any should say of her, (what the more moderate Protestants say of the Roman Ch.) That by reason of her superstitions, or her (material) idolatry, or her Antichristian principles, none may safely communicate with her: That, in the division made, not they, but she is the schismatical Church: That she retaining the expression unchanged, yet hath, in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils, quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of the Articles of them: That there is great peril of damnable both Schism, and Heresy, and so of damnation, by living and dying in her faith and persuasion, tainted with many superstitions: That her errors are reductively fundamental, if any pertinaciously adhere to them. (See Archbishop Lawed's Conference, 35. §. punct. 5, 6.— and 37. §. 1. numb. 5. numb.)]: Such things, I say, are a very high breach of charity, and that to a person of nearest relation to us, our Spiritual Mother; though perchance many Schismatics are so far charitable to her, as not to say, that her errors exclude her from all salvation; or that she is no Church at all: but this spark of charity left in some toward her little excuseth their many other wrongs. Non video (saith Cassander, Consult. 7. Art) quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit, si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem in observatione tam universalium quam particularium rituum viols, & condemns, & institutis majorum pertinaciter repugns; quod certe est contra officium charitatis, qua maxime internam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est. Thus he. Neither doth it excuse them, if any do all this against the Church out of ignorance and not-contrary to their knowledge, as being persuaded, the Church may apostatise from Christ &c. because, as S. Austin saith, (see before 3. §.) notissimis ac apertissimis Scripturarum testimoniis contradicunt &c, and such ignorance must needs be highly faulty, and proceed from a judgement blinded with pride, ambition, or some other self-interest. And this desperate condition of the authors, or fautors, of Schism, I think, all sides acknowledge. See what Dr. Hammond saith, (of Schism 1. c.) There is no one vice, which hath fallen under so much of the displeasure, and correption, and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the ancient Church, as this of Schism, and the ingredients and preparatives to it, have done. Where also see the aggravations thereof in many pages.  
2. The second sort are those in all after-ages who follow such 
§. 6. 2. Those who follow such leaders, and continue the division upon the same motives and passions not salvable, without repentance.  leaders, and continue the same division (after they know how at first it was made) upon the same motives as the other began it, and blinded with the same passions, and culpable ignorance. And these, being in the same guilt, are in the same condition, for salvation, as the former. Only the first of the two, caeteris paribus, the far greater sinners, because the first seducers; if the followers no way outvie them in further prosecuting the principles received from them, and accumulating their uncharitableness and contumelies against the Church, and resisting greater light given them, and plainer discoveries made unto them. But note, that by reason of these, as many times the Scholars transcend their Masters, the followers may easily become twice as much the children of hell as their first leaders were. See Matt. 23. 15. And of these two only I suppose are meant all those quotations of the Fathers: the reasons there mentioned being ambition, interest, &c, and (upon these) breach of charity, and of the unity of the Church.  
3. The third sort are those, who follow such leaders (being not 
§. 7. 3. Those who follow such leaders in simplicity of heart, and out of (their condition considered) invincible ignorance: such in a salvable state, though suffering great disadvantages.  schismatici so much, as, schismaticis credentes) in simplicity of heart; and out of, not a faulty, but (considering their condition, or age, &c) an invincible ignorance; perhaps such a one not knowing of any other Christian church save his own, (as some travellers have noted, that the Maronites or Armenians in Persia, ignorant of any division of theirs from the Roman Church, heartily joined in Divine Service with the Romish Covents there); or, if knowing of another Ch. not knowing whether it departed from his Church, or his from it; or what its different doctrines, or customs, and practices are, etc. And here, to persuade you that such ignorance may be; consider now an ordinary-Laic-Christian-Greek, what breach of charity or Ecclesiastical unity such a one following his Ancestors and Ecclesiastical governors, who have continued even ever since the Apostles times a visible succession, can be made guilty of, whilst this his Church is meanwhile condemned for Schismatical: and if we find him hereof no way guilty, what warrant have we to deny to him, baptised, and holding all fundamentals, salvation? 'tis true indeed, in some heresy, i. e. such as denies some fundamental point, (without the belief of which none are saved), that the haereticis credentes are in somewhat the same case with the haeretici; and these blind, though led by others, likewise (for want of faith necessary to salvation, and for crimes committed against the light of nature, not extinguished in them,) fall into the ditch. But in Schism it is not so; because it is not necessary, that the follower in the same practices should be guilty of the same breach of charity, or contumacy, as the leader; nor of such irregular passions, (which are the causes alleged, why Schismatics cannot be saved.) And, for other things, Schismatics have, or may have, all the Sacraments rightly administered, (see 2. §. even the Eucharist, as well as Baptism; as is the common tenet of the Schools: Sacerdotes etiam haeretici, & schismatici, & excommunicati revera conficiunt seu consecrant hoc Sacramentum; dummodo neque ex parte verborum, quibus ad consecrandum utuntur, [i. e. if they use the words of Institution,] neque ex parte intentionis, ullum sit impedimentum. Estius 4. sect. 13. d. 3. sect.) may have all necessary points of faith rightly taught and believed, as all confess: and therefore how can such a man, yielding obedience accordingly, following only the good directions of his Schismatical Superiors, but not knowing them to be such, miss or come short of salvation? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. or at. 21. In the Scriptures quoted by Mr. C. (which are Matt. 18. 7. Rom. 16. 17. Phil. 2. 1. Jo. 14. 27.— 13. 35.) those only are by texts of the Apostle condemned, who make, or by whom come, Schisms and Scandals; to which I may add Tit. 3. 11. where S. Paul pleads autocatacrisy; and (in the rest) love and unity is recommended: but such a man, as we here speak of, is free from the first; and possessed of the second. And if, as the position, so the reasons, which the Fathers give for it, had been set down by Mr. C. you would have seen (I am confident) such a man cleared from any such censure. How doth that saying of S. Austin touch such a one? Schismatici sunt, qui discissionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate discedunt: quapropter Schismaticus non pertinet ad Ecclesiam, quia Ecclesia diligit proximum. See before 2. §. etc. But if any say; That, in Schism, not any actual breach of charity, but the bare want of unity, excludes him from heaven, (as pure want of some knowledge is supposed to do, in Infidelity, or in some kinds of fundamental Heresy): what unity, I would know, doth he mean? Internal? But that, I hope, is conferred in Baptism rightly celebrated to all that do not ponere obicem; as 'tis supposed some here in Schismatical communions do not. External therefore? But why not Votum, for this, serve the turn for these, as it doth for some others? (4. §.) Which votum in general of being every way united to his fellow-members in the Church (which is the body of Christ) every good man hath; though every one discerneth not in particular this true Church from all other Sectarists; of which, without his own fault, some may be ignorant. And the Father's so great aggravation of the crime of Schism, That such men divide and rend the body of Christ &c, shows, that they speak not of all (haply) livers in, but the makers of, Schisms; or the continuers thereof upon the same grounds and motives, and with the like passions, as did the Authors. Therefore see S. Austin making much difference amongst the followers of the Donatist-Schism in Africa, and not denying that some of God's wheat might remain amongst those tares. De unit. Eccl. 20. c. Itaque illis relictis [i. e. when discovering them enemies to the Church] mox ad Catholicam pacem multi & Episcopi, & Clerici, & populi redierunt: quod & antequam facerent, in tritico deputabantur. Tunc enim non faciebant, cum adversus homines [i. e. Caecilianus, who was falsely accused] non adversus Ecclesiam Dei illa eorum contradictio tenebatur.— Nonnulli etiam bonae voluntatis per carnalem caliginem etiam post confirmatum malignorum [i. e. the Donatists] furorem in illa dissensione diutius erraverunt, (tanquam si adhuc mollia conculcarentur frumenta, & radice viva herbae vigor attereretur) etiam ipsa tamen frumenta sua noverat Deus; quamvis, ut reviviscerent, arguenda & increpanda. (Non enim eo modo dictum est Petro; Redi post me Satana, quomodo dictum est de Juda, Unus ex vobis Diabolus est.)— Quidam quoque & apertissimae veritati malo studio contradixerunt: Illi vero eradicati, vel praecisi erant. Tunc enim quisque,— cum pro ipsis operibus etiam veritati apertissime (qua redarguitur) resistere coeperit, praeciditur. And— Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, & tamen jam non sunt in Ecclesia etc.— So in answer to the Donatists Query, Utrum generet filios baptismus in parte Donati? (that if he granted this, they might collect that they had a true Church,) the Father answers, (de baptism. 1. l. 10. c.) Una est Ecclesia, quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, ipsa utique generat, non illae. Therefore it may have aliquid suum in such communions. And (Ep. 162. directed to some followers of the heresies of the Donatists) he saith thus to them in the beginning thereof. Dixit quidem Apostolus Paulus haereticum hominem post unam correptionem devita etc. sed qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendant, praesertim qui non audacia praesumptionis suae pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Tales ergo vos nisi esse crederem etc. Nor may any extend those texts Matt. 15. 14. Rom. 14. 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. to all any way misled by others. For, in the first, the follower falls into the ditch together with his leader, because blind in the same manner as his leader, i. e. wilfully, not inevitably, (which is here supposed): for which compare Matt. 15. 14. with Matt. 23, 15, 16. where such blind followers, as our Saviour there speaks of, become many times also worse than their leaders, (though they become so first by occasion of the example of such guides), and so fall much deeper also into the ditch than they. In the second, (Rome 14. etc.) 'tis to be noted, that this brother, weak in knowledge, who upon occasion of another's act (who, by reason of his right-informed judgement, sinneth not) doth amiss, perisheth not for that wherein he is weak, or for the error of his judgement; but for doing a thing contrary to his judgement or conscience, though erroneous, drawn on thereunto by seeing another do the like. But no such thing happens in this case. Tho I here deny not, that, in such a communion, the truly innocent of the guilt of Schism may be in great hazard of their salvation, upon other reasons: namely, by such loser discipline as may be exercised in it, or by such erroneous doctrines taught in it, as are prejudicial, or such omitted to be taught, as are some way beneficial, to a holy life. See Trial of Doctr. §. 42. etc.  
4. A 4th sort are those, who educated in a Church Schismatical, 
§. 8. n. 1.  and afterward fully convinced that it is so, yet neglect, or think not necessary at all, their return to the external communion of the church Catholic; meanwhile agreeing 
4. Those, who convinced of schism in such a Church, yet rejoin not themselves to the external communion of the Ch. Catholic, though consenting in all things with her.  with her in faith; preserving perfect charity and internal communion with her etc. And these are either such as only forbear the external communion of the church Catholic, yet absent themselves also from all other; or such as continue in their former external communion. Again; both these are either such as are, 1. hindered 
Hindered, 1. either by somerespects merely temporal. Such faulty, but how highly, I cannot pronounce.  from professing the Church Catholics external communion, and deserting another's, for some considerations merely temporal: and these doubtless are unblamable in the same kind as those Jo. 12. 42, 43. Jo. 7. 13.— 5. 44. Matt. 10. 27, 28, 33, 37, etc. Jo. 12. 25, 26. Gal. 6. 12, 14. For as it is our duty to confess Christ, so to confess him to the uttermost; as in himself, so in every truth of his; as in himself, so in his members, and in all things that belong unto him; especially in his Body, and Spouse, the Church. And as he that is ashamed of him before men may be peccant in such a degree of shame, as that he shall not be acknowledged by him before his Father, as a member of his body; so he that is ashamed of his Church may be peccant in such a degree of shame, as that he shall not at that day be acknowledged by it as a fellow-member of the same body. But yet I cannot say that all such are unblamable in the same degree; or that all such (whether less, or more, deniers of Christ) shall at the great day be denied of him, and certainly incur eternal damnation: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and others, being, to some degree, guilty of this; (and perhaps I may add to them Naaman the Syrian,) yet not excluded from all mercy: nay, to some degree, who is not so? Yet, who thus deny him in some kind, may be such as confess him in many other; as also Joseph and Nicodemus did. (See Jo. 19 38, 39 Jo 7. 50, 51. 2 Kin, 5. 17.) Neither may I make the return of such a one as lives in a communion less Christian, yet where Christ is professed, and the true Sacraments received, to the Church, as necessary, and his staying out as desperate, as of one relinquishing heathenism, suppose Victorinus, or the like. Austin. Confess. 8. l. 2. c. But doubtless such a one, convinced, and, for motives merely temporal, staying out, must needs be in a very great fault; and how great, we know not; and, on the other side, he oversees an opportunity put into his hands of honouring and serving Christ through difficulties and crosses; the action of his reconciliation being so much more worthy and heroical, by how much the obstacles are greater.  
Or 2ly, such as are hindered &c for some consideration and design 
§. 8. n. 2. Or by some considration and design m●e●y Spiritual. Such less faulty than the other, yet ●em ●●● wholly justifiable.  merely Spiritual; as for the procuring a reunion (upon a better understanding of the Church's tenets) of Churches divided from It; as also some reformation of some manners in the Church Catholic, by which others were scandalised; the best mediators of such business being thought to be such persons, as are not openly engaged on the contrary side. [Such seems to have been the project of Grotius, Militier, &c. if the design were not rather to reduce all Christian Churches to some union and middle complexion, by every Church's relinquishing their several errors and faults i. e. such as seemed to these men to be so in every one) upon some Council of them all to be assembled to compound differences. In which project they seem to suppose either no Church truly Catholic, and the only orthodox communion, distinct from the rest, as Schismatical; or, that they see truth clearer than she that is the Catholic; and that she is not sufficiently able from time to time (assisted by the Holy Ghost) to correct what may be amiss; within herself, without the directions of others who stand without. Now this to me tastes of too much arrogance and self-conceit of their own judgements, in comparison of hers; and also supposeth the Church Catholic fallen into deeper corruptions than can well stand with God's providence and care over her, and his; promises to her.] Or, for the gaining at least from amongst Schismatics of many more [particular] souls; with whom, in such disguise, they may converse and act more freely &c, meanwhile being real factors for the Church; and themselves forbearing, in some way, to confess Christ, only to procure a further confession of him; and staying themselves without the Church-door, only that they may invite the more to come in. In which thing they seem to have much encouragement from the Apostle, who also caught men with [a innocent] guile; who upon occasion used ceremonies of Legal vows, shaving the head; purifying; offering sacrifices for the persons purified, (Act. 21. 23.) Circumcision itself, Act. 16. 3. (though it, in some cases, and for some ends, unlawful and mischievous) becoming all things to all men, even himself as it were without law, yet under the law to Christ, that he might gain the more. 1 Cor. 9 19, 20, 21. Now for such, though I much less dare damn them, than the former, (8. §. 1. n.) for their want of the external communion of the Church; yet can I no way justify such their doing. For charity must be so wise as to begin at home, and we ought not any way to neglect our own souls, to gain other men's.  
Now such a one is supposed either to continue still in the external communion of a Schismatical Church, or else to communicate 
§. 9 n. 1. Whether they continue still in a communion schismatical.  with no Church at all. If he continue still in the communion of a Church Schismatical: First 1. it may be such perhaps, as hath not the right use of the Sacraments in it; or also is defective in some of them, and in many other doctrines and comforts, wholesome discipline and strict orders; of the administration of which almost no Soul is so perfect but that it will have much need. 2. But 2ly, Suppose no want of any such thing in it; yet, what if all such communion be utterly, absolutely, forbidden? For if so, than this is undoubted of; that we may not do the least thing that is absolutely prohibited or unlawful, that all the good in the world may come thereof. Now such a communion seems forbidden both by many passages of Scriptures, and by commands of the Church. 1. First, for the Scriptures; See 2 Thess. 3. 14. 
Which communion seems forbidden them. 1. Both by the Scriptures,  1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 22.— 1 Cor. 5. 9, 11. compared with 6. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 17, etc. 2 Jo. 10, 11. Matt. 18. 17. Tit. 3. 10. Eph. 5. 7, 11.— some of which texts contain a strict injunction for not keeping company, or conversing with wicked livers, and more especially with the infidel, heretical, schismatical (more pernicious than wicked livers) even in things indifferent, as eating with them, etc. Which injunction of the Apostle seems to be made in imitation of the former law of the Jews forbearing eating or companying with the idolatrous Gentile. According to which we read, that S. Austin's mother forbore sitting at table, or eating, with her Son, when addicted to Manichean opinions. (S. August. Confess. 3. l. 11. c.) [Which Apostolical injunction, concerning converse in things indifferent, I conceive always in force: 1. first, where it may probably serve to do some good to those we separate from; as, to make them ashamed etc. and that is most likely, where the heretical or debauched &c are few in number, in comparison of the orthodox and pious. Or 2ly, to do some good to ourselves by separating from them; as, when we are in danger, of infection from them, or also of partaking God's judgements with them. But other cases I grant there may be, where such Separation is not obligatory. As 1. first; when probably more good may come to them by our converse, (if there be no prohibition thereof by the Church); as, where the accompanying of them is used by the more confirmed in virtuous habits, some way to help those who are not found yet altogether incorrigible. See for this Matt. 9 12. 2. Again, when such Separation may bring more hurt to ourselves, to the Church, &c, than the benefit is, we can reasonably hope from it. As, where the most are perverted, the upright few in number; where much hindrance, or sometimes also mischief, may come to the one by it, and no shame or amendment to the other. Quando plus perturbat infirmos bonos, quam corrigit animosos malos. 3ly. When such Separation may offend against some duty; to which we are obliged, either by the Divine, or Civil, laws. As, the children may not abandon their parents, or the wife her husband, on such pretence: neither is it required, where necessary commerce, or natural, or religious relations, will not permit it. This is clear from the Apostle's permission of the Christians commerce with the heathen and idolaters: 1 Cor. 5. 10. [yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world,— with idolaters, etc. for then must ye needs go out of the world.] So likewise, when we cannot communicate in the public, or also private, worship of God, in the Sacraments &c with the orthodox and godly, with whom we ought, without such a mixture of the impious and profane, as is not in our power to prevent: here no necessity of Separation from those impious and profane lies upon us; for so must we needs go out of the Church; or relinquish those, from whom we receive much benefit. The same it is for relinquishing near relations; for so we must abandon our habitations. But note always, that at such times, when such necessities, theirs or ours, do not force or exact from us such converse; 'tis a far better practice, if not a necessary duty, to separate, even for diet, cohabitation, discourse, &c, from the Schismatical in opinions, or notoriously wicked in manners; though by their great numbers we are confined to much solitude.]  
Now, to come closer to our matter in hand; though in some pretences, which may be made here, (as, of ourselves being sufficiently 
§. 9 11. 2.  grounded in truth, and out of danger of seducement or infection, and of our good purpose in our association with the Schismatical, only for converting some of them, (for which our Saviour allows converse with publicans), some of the reasons for separation, contained in these Scriptures, seem to be removed: as, that of avoiding infection, and partaking of their sin; (though give me leave to interpose here, that, in such conversation, 'tis very hard to be so innocent, that some compliances must not be made (by one who would by no means be discovered what he is) both in discourse and actions, some way prejudicial to the truth; neither can there scarce be any Schismatical Church, wherein some of their public practices, prayers, discipline, will not be contrary to the conscience of one that is orthodox): Tho thus, I say, some of the reasons for Separation be removed; yet are there some other of those reasons remaining still of force. As; that we may not seem to countenance them in evil; and that, by our deserting them, some of them at least may be ashamed; when (especially if it be in such a conjuncture of time, wherein the foundations of a Schism are shaken) our open profession of truth may startle those, whom our discourse cannot work on; and our example, in going before them, perhaps be more effectual than our reasons, in only directing them the way. But, in our continuing still in their Society, though our private instructions and reproofs may manifest to some that we countenance them not: yet to most these cannot do so; nor to any perhaps so much as we ought. For whilst we pretend our fellowship with them to be only to reprove them; how can we do this so fully, and so far as duty obligeth, when we are to reprove them chiefly in that also, wherein we continue fellowship with them; namely in their separated communion from the Church? In which separation yet we bid, or seem to bid, them God speed, so long as we also abide with them in it. But, besides these reasons of Separation; the preserving ourselves from infection from their judgements, the discouraging of the offenders, &c, touched in some of these texts; yet some other of those Scriptures (as 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. 1 Cor. 5. 5, 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 17.) seem to lay yet a more special injunction upon us, especially not to communicate with them in their Sacraments, and public Divine worship; and this upon some other yet higher reasons, namely the duty of the public owning and professing our religion, and the keeping it pure, and unmixed with any unbelieving, schismatical, or heretical assemblies. For the Sacrament being instituted, as, for a sacred instrument of our communion with the Deity, so also, for a public testimony and mark of a strict league and amity between all those, who together partake it: neither will the honour we owe to God the Father, who dwelleth in us, and adopts us for his children, (2 Cor. 6. 16, 18.) nor, to God the Son, whose members we are, (1 Cor. 6. 15, 16.) nor, to the Holy Spirit, whose Temples we are, (1 Cor. 3. 16, 17.) suffer us, by such a sacred and solemn ty, to link and unite ourselves to any congregations that are estranged from him, or disclaimed by him. This is making fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, mingling light and darkness, [2 Cor. 6. 14.] joining the members of Christ to a Spiritual harlot; by which they two become one body. [1 Cor. 6. 15, 16.] For the Sacrament hath this virtue, that those become one body amongst themselves that partake it; (See 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17.) and by touching the unclean, we also become unclean [Leu. 5. 2, 3.]: and all those separations, under the law, of the corporally unclean from the congregation of the Lord, because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord, and holy as he is holy, (see Leu. 11. 43, 44.) were only types of the Separation, which ought to be from notorious sinners, which we here speak of; to which the Apostle makes application of them, 2 Cor. 6. 17. [Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, saith the Lord] taken out of Esai. 52. 11. And hence also taketh he strict order for the sudden separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church, (especially from communicating the Sacraments thereof,) as of Leaven from a lump unleavened, that the Passeover may not be celebrated with such a melanage, (see 1 Cor. 5. 2, 5, 7, 13): ejection, or casting them out, where the Church hath the power; or her going out from them, (2 Cor. 6. 17.) where they have the power: but still a separation there must be. Else in consorting with them we provoke the Lord to jealousy, [1 Cor. 10. 22.] as if we are not true and loyal to him, and entirely his. Now though some of the texts urged by us speak only concerning noncommunicating with idolaters; who worship not the same God with us, nor use the same Sacraments; which I grant is a much greater crime in any: Yet 1. first, they may be enlarged upon the same grounds, (namely the public signification of the Sacraments, that the partakers thereof are counited in the same faith and charity) to those congregations, who worship the same God, but not in that way he requires; and who are any way opposite, by a division of themselves from it, to that one Society, which only hath its union with the head. But 2ly, are there not some other of the texts, that speak as plainly of the avoiding of the heretical and schismatical, as these do of the unbeliever, or idolater? See Matt. 18. 17. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him [i. e. thy brother in Christianity] be unto thee as an heathen, [i. e. an idolater.]— Rom. 16. 17. Those that cause divisions, contrary to the doctrine which ye have received, mark, and avoid.— Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an heretic reject.— 2 Thess. 3. 14. If any man obey not our word &c, note that man, and have no company with him.— 2 Jo. 10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him: which is not spoken of plain idolaters, but some half-christians, of whom other Christians might be less aware. But if you say, that some of these Scriptures forbid only private familiar converse with those who are factious, though such perhaps as are not yet excommunicated by the Church; then how much more obliging must they be, for our not communicating with whole congregations, and separating-assemblies of them, in holy things? This last then, or also more than this, is prohibited in them. And indeed were such conformity in the public Service, and the Sacraments, allowed with Sectaries, what a confusion would it cause in religion? there being no sign now left, whereby the orthodox professors may be distinguished from the schismatical. And if we may be thus far dispensed with, to consort with divided communions, only upon design of doing the Church thereby the more service; how many are there, who, engaged only in secular ends, may make use of such dispensation upon holy pretences!  
To conclude this matter, about the restraint found in Scripture: 1. We are not obliged (for any thing I know) as to speak, so neither 
§. 9 n. 3.  in any other action to profess, all that is truth at all times; (though in matter of religion, especially even where it is lawful to conceal something of our profession, it is more honourable and more glorifying of God, upon all occasions, to confess him to the uttermost): We are not obliged, I say, to do all acts amongst heretics, which may show us Catholics; no more than amongst Turks, which may show us Christians. 2. Not obliged to forbear absolutely the company, converse, eating, negotiating, nor perhaps private praying in the same place with heretics, &c: for (as is said before §. 9 n. 1.) many worldly accounts may in a sort necessitate us to such things: and then the Apostle's dispensation [1 Cor. 5. 10.] will be applicable unto us, (I mean, supposing no express injunction of the Church, concerning the forbearing of any such communication; in which (I must add) if she at any time should think fit to restrain us, than would such forbearance become, upon another account, obligatory to us): much more are we not debarred any inteecourses with them, whereby we may the better confute, or instruct, them. Again; 3. Perhaps we are not obliged (especially where probably we, not they, shall suffer some detriment thereby, and that in regard of our Spiritual affairs; as where a country is o'erspread with such an infection) to expel schismatics from our communions, if such not by name excommunicated: for who knows whether some such, having never personally affronted our religion, may not at last also be gained thereby?— Time and place do alter much in all these matters. See S. Aug. Ep. 50.— Ubi per graves dissensionum scissuras, non hujus aut illius hominis est periculum, sed populorum strages jacent, detrahendum est aliquid severitati, ut majoribus malis sanandis charitas sincera subveniat. 4ly. We are by no means obliged to forbear every thing, whereby the facto we may be mistaken by others to favour or profess some heresy or schism: provided, that we give no just, and commonly received, grounds of such mistake. But to do that thing in conjunction with heretics and schismatics, which either is, or there is none at all, the ordinary test and token to the world of such a profession, [such as is our communicating with them in public prayer, and the worship of God, and in the Sacraments,] this I conceive, by the places above, utterly prohibited.  
Last; I would not have this discourse above so misunderstood, as if none could have union with the head, who are out of 
§. 9 n. 4.  the external communion of that body which belongs to him: or also are in the external communion and participation of the Sacraments of the Lord with another sect factiously divided from it; but only, that those have it not, who, knowing them schismatical, yet in their Sacraments dare to join with them. But, where is not such knowledge, nor affected and culpable ignorance; to the integrity and simplicity of such people the true Sacraments, wherever received, are still effectual. (Which makes a great difference of those persons who live in, and communicate with, a Church schismatical, from those who communicate with infidels; in which see what danger there is even to the weak, 1 Cor. 8. 11. compared with 10. c. 20, 21. v. because such weakness can never be blameless.) Are still effectual, because here no guilt in the person factiously disposed, or practising against conscience and known commands, hinders the benefit thereof unto him. (See Levit. 5. 3. If he touch the uncleanness &c, when he knoweth of it, than he shall be guilty, and bound to make expiation for it.) Neither doth here the participation of the same Sacrament by both render one guilty of the impious schism of his fellow-communicants; no more than when, in the true Church it is received in the company perhaps of some abominable livers, it doth render the rest partakers with these in their crimes; or no more, than a good Christian, who, by the fraud of others, without any his own fault, is joined to an harlot in stead of his wife, may be said to make Christ's members the members of an harlot. Tho such, who knowingly join in their external Sacraments with any separated worship, shall thereby be partakers of their guilt. See 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. which I conceive was spoken by the Apostle, not only to the erroneous, who with some conscience of the idol, as if it were something, did eat of the sacrifices, (see 1 Cor. 8. 7.) but to the orthodoxly-minded, who, counting the idol nothing, thought such external compliance lawful and no prejudice to their Christian profession.  
2. Now, in the 2d. place, to come to the commands of the Church; which are justly obligatory, even in such things as by 
§. 10. 2. And by the injunctions of the Ch. Catholic.  the Scriptures are left indifferent, and not prohibited unto us. And therefore we are as well to examine what liberty the Church permits us, as what the Scriptures: or also, what our Spiritual Superiors, according to the obedience which we owe to them (Heb. 13. 17.) think fit to allow us; and not to transgress it. Now if the Church hath in a lawful Council excommunicated and anathematised such congregations; surely this is a sufficient prohibition to all those, who will retain any relation to her, to have no fellowship, at least as to the public prayers and sacraments, with them. For Excommunication, being an expelling of such from being members any longer of the Church's communion, a fortiori is a prohibiting any, who pretends to be a son of the Church, from becoming a member of their communion. If we may not give the holy Sacrament to them, where they submit to us; much less may we receive it from them, where we submit to them. If she will not suffer us to be mingled with them in her society; much less, in theirs: If when they happen to come single to us, we must avoid them; much more may we not, where they are gathered in a body, repair to them. If we may not join with them, where there is also other good and orthodox society; much less, where we have none but theirs. Now, not to examine here, what later Excommunications of any particular heretics or schismatics have been, (of which every one, that professeth himself a son of the Church, is carefully to inform himself), I will set down some ancient Canons &c, (for any thing I know still in force,) expressly prohibiting such society. Concil. Laodicenum held by the orthodox in the times of the reigning of Arrianism before the 2d. General Council, approved by the 6th Constantinopolitan Council, Conc. in Trullo; where, as it is decreed, Non oportet cum Paganis festa celebrare, [39 Can.]— and, Non oportet a Judaeis azyma accipere, [38. Can.]: so; Non oportet cum haereticis vel schismaticis orare, [Can. 33.] and, Non oportet haereticorum benedictiones accipere. [Can. 32.]— Conc. Carthag. 4tum. (Anno D. 436. a little after S. Austin's death) Can. 72.— Cum haereticis nec orandum, nec psallendum.— Can. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato, sive Clericus, sive Laicus, excommunicetur. Here may be considered also, * the cautious and scrupulous practice of the primitive times, in their letters commendatory, called Epistolae formatae; which, because of the Church's careful avoiding of all mixture with sectaries, were procured by those who had occasion to travel from one Church to another; without which testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers, etc. And also, * the strict separation of the Catholics that was made from that potent division of the Arrian sect; who, though in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive heresy; but only omission, in the Creed, of some truth, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (see what is said hereof in Church-government 2d. part §. 40. etc.): yet were the orthodox (though much persecuted by the secular powers, and tho, by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments) strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian assemblies, though these having the same Sacraments with them, and possession of the Cathedrals, and other Churches: and chose rather to relinquish their Temples; to pray at home; to live without the Sacraments; nay, to be without these in their sickness, and at their death; than to receive them from the Arrians. See Athanas. Epist. Synodica in Alexand. Concil.— Ep. ad ubique orthoxos.— Hilarii lib. contra Arrian.— Basil. Ep. 293. to some Egyptian Bishops.— Thus much of the Church's injunctions.  
Now such a one, as intends to have any relation and interest in 
§. II. To which such owe obedience.  her, must know; that, besides our agreement in the faith, and our being in full charity with the Church Catholic, as being a body consisting of our fellow-members and brethren in Christ, there is also a duty of obedience to be yielded to all the injunctions and commands of the governors thereof, as of our Spiritual Fathers in Christ: which none that hopes to enjoy the privileges of a son, unless so far as he is by these dispensed with, may, without sin and great danger to himself, on his own head disown and omit. For what is this, but, as if a son should come and say to his temporal Father, from whom he hath formerly run away, that he embraceth him with all inward affection, is sorry for any fault formerly committed, will love and honour, and do all the good he can for, him; but that he must excuse him, if that (for some reasons) he doth not submit to, or practise, his commands: except only, that this our disobedience to spiritual Superiors is so much the more inexcusable; for that all their commands are directed to the benefit of their children: so that by omitting them, out of this pretence of benefiting others, such a one foregoes very much profit to himself. None then can be a Son to the Church, unless he render himself subject to her laws, as well as affectionate to her practices. Now of her laws (the yoke of which, if he reverence and bend to in some things, he must not shake off in others) noncommunicating with Sectarists seems to be one, and very considerable. In which, if some dispensations for good ends may be given by her, (yet none can be given by her for so far, as the Scriptures have restrained us,) yet, till such grant obtained from her, he stands obliged to her commands. Which grant from her, if there were no other motive, this is enough to obstruct; that it is liable to be made use of (instead of zeal to convert souls) to many unworthy ends, of serving our temporal interests, and protecting a spiritual cowardice, an avoiding of the cross, and a not confessing of our Saviour before men; contrary to Matt. 10. 27, 32, 37, 38, 39 See before §. 8. n. 1. But, laying aside this command of separating himself from schismatics; if he will be counted a Son, he is to live conformably to all her other injunctions. Now some, and not a few of these are such, as involve an outward communion with the Church. And also many other of her injunctions (see below §. 14. which do not involve it,) if strictly observed by him, will quickly render him uncapable of any disguise to what party he belongs, and bring the same jealousies and temporal inconveniences upon him, which follow a public reconciliation; and, which to avoid, he yet stays out of the Church: only with this difference; that he shall incur likewise the odious aspersion of hypocrisy and dissimulation, with which an open professor cannot be reproached.  
And indeed, setting aside any Church-command of such separation; yeta dissimulation or compliance (though it proceed not to 
§. 12.  the practising any thing in the matter of God's worship against our conscience, yet) that ventures so far, as to use that sacred ceremony (which is taken to be the greatest tessera and symbol of communion, and by which all the world publish and distinguish their religions) with those, from whom he so much dissenteth and disalloweth; I say, a dissimulation that proceedeth so far, seems to be much against the simplicity and ready vindication of our Christian profession. In the times of persecution before the days of Constantine, it was not only held unlawful (though this required upon pain of death) for Christians to cast a little incense into the fire before an Idol or the Emperor's image, (a thing which a Christian might externally have done, with the greatest vilifying of the same idol in his heart) but also to procure with money a Libel or testimony from the officer (though most false) to be showed by them upon occasion that they had done any such thing; or to procure the officer to recite or return their names that they had done such a thing, or to subscribe that they would do it. See the Epistle of the Roman Clergy to S. Cyprian, (inter Cyprian. Ep. 31.)— Non est alienus a crimine, cujus consensu, licet non a se admissune orimen tamen publice legitur.— Et qui vult videri propositis adversus Evangelium vel edictis vel legibus satisfecisse, hoc ipso jam paruit, quod videri paruisse se voluit. See Cyprian de Lapsis. Professio denegantis [i. e. se esse Christianum] contestatio est Christiani quod fuerat abnuentis; fecisse se dixit, quicquid alius faciendo commisit. Tho see how plausible the same Father draws up such a ones excuse, Ep. 52. Ad magistratum mandavi Christianum me esse, sacrificare mihi non licere.— Dare me ob hoc praemium, ne quod non licet faciam. But note: that the magistrates freeing him for this reward, was by bringing in his name, as if he had sacrificed, which the Christian ought by no means either to have procured, or admitted. As for that which is urged concerning S. Paul: that he became as a Jew, to the Jews; as without law, to those without law, etc. practising some things whereby he seemed (at the first) to his converts of another opinion than indeed he was, that he might, out of this mistake, produce their greater good: yet note; that, for this good, he practised nothing absolutely unlawful or prohibited, either by Divine, or Ecclesiastical, injunction; but some things, which, though they were no longer necessary to any one's salvation, and some ways also inconvenient, and troublesome, yet were things indifferent, at least as yet to those infant-times of the Gospel, before Christ was perfectly understood to be the end of the Law; and to that nation, and in some respects very beneficial, to the propagation of the Gospel, that they should be used. The Apostle therefore, in some places and times, used them for very good ends: as namely thereby to enjoy still the freedom amongst the Jews of preaching the Gospel, and the benevolence of his auditors; so to gain them that were born under the law (as himself saith 1 Cor. 9 20.). Again; to preserve the new Jew-converts, converted by others observant of the law, from apostatising from the faith, upon such a scandal of his neglecting the commands of God by Moses: as likewise (as 'tis probably collected from Act. 21. 21.) to undeceive the new Christian Jews, in that sinister opinion they had of him; as if that he not only licenced the Gentile-converts from any use of these Legal ceremonies, (at which they took no offence,) but also persuaded the Jews converted by him, not only that such ceremonies were no more absolutely necessary to salvation; but that they might by no means use any of them, nor walk after the former customs. Therefore he practised these himself sometimes for this reason also, (saith S. Austin, Ep. 19) ne Judaeis &c viderentur, qui ex gentibus in Christum crediderant, sic detestari Circumcisionem, sicut idololatria detestanda est; cum illam Deus fieri praecepit, hanc Satanas persuaserit; or discindi a Prophetis Christi, tanquam Mosis doctrinam detestantes, atque damnantes. Again; used them only, when more evil than good was not probable to ensue thereof; by his giving more dangerous scandal to more, by his avoiding the giving thereof to some few, (for, in case of double scandal, that of less dangerous consequence, and of less extent in the offence, is to be chosen), therefore he used such compliance with the Jews only in such places (as in Jerusalem, (Act. 21.) or in other quarters where many Jews abode, Act. 16. 3.) where no offence could be taken by the Convert-gentiles. But he never, when both were present to observe his behaviour, so corresponded and sided with the weaker brethren, the Jew; as to desert, or shame, or weaken, the strong, the Gentile. But, we may see how tender he was of using such things, where any prejudice thereby might possibly come to the truth: in that though elsewhere, out of charity to the weak, he circumcised Timothy, being to assist him in his preaching to the Jews; yet he, when he was amongst false brethren, (though at Jerusalem) would not do the same to Titus a preacher, lest, from such condescension, their malice, who came only for Spies, might, by their false comments upon it, raise some prejudice to the liberty of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 4, 5.— See (Gal. 6. 12, 14,) his detesting such compliance, to avoid the cross.) And again; in that he so sharply and publicly reproved S. Peter, though in some sort his superior, (Gal. 2. 14.) for his dissimulation, in forbearing the company of the Gentiles, and complying with the former fashions of the Jews, in a place (namely in the Church of Antioch) which chiefly consisted of Gentiles, or Jews also much more moderate than those at Jerusalem; where much more scandal must come of such an action, (which, by his withdrawing from them, did bear the show of a repentance of the freedom he had formerly used toward them, in making those believe that they ought to conform to the Jewish laws) then good, in not offending some few that came from Jerusalem, and perhaps were such false brethren as those S. Paul (there) opposed. Whereby it appears, that dissimulation many times, even in things in their own nature indifferent, is not free from guilt: how much more, if it be in things, which we have showed, by several strict prohibitions of them, that they are not to be reckoned of such a nature. Something like this case of ours perhaps it would have been; if the Apostle had complied the least with those false brethren and leaders of faction in Jerusalem, that he might have gained some from amongst them, (but he saw there the defence of the truth against the opposers more necessary, than was the gaining of a disciple to that truth, with a public show of deserting it); or had he (or S. Peter) so become a Jew to the Jew, that he had concealed his Christianity; or not professed always every where, publicly, privately, that after the way which they called heresy, so he worshipped God, [Act. 24. 14.]— which he did before all the people of Jerusalem, [Act. 22. 4, 8. etc.]— before Felix, [Act. 24. 14.]— before Agrippa, [Act. 26. 22, 23.]— before Nero; for, the same witness to the name of Jesus he bore at Jerusalem, the same did he bear at Rome, (Act. 23. 11.— 2 Tim. 4. 17. [that all the Gentiles might hear,]) and that with great success even upon some of the Courtiers themselves; Phil. 1. 13. compared with 4. 22. For which boldness, in professing his religion at Rome, we find him desiring men's prayers, Eph. 6. 19, 20. and in which we find his example encouraging many others. Phil. 1. 14, 20. Therefore also that speech of his, Act. 23. 6. mentioning the resurrection, was no mincing or dissembling his Christian profession, which he had made so publicly and particularly before them all but the very day before; but the showing only, how in a main point thereof the most considerable persons amongst themselves concurred with him. Which thing appears, both by the answer of his Auditors and Judges, ver. 9 which answer referreth to the story of what (he told them) happened to him in the way to Damascus; of which they say, [If a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God]: and from our Saviour's testimony of his worthy behaviour; ver. 11. and from the like expressions made by him, Act. 24. 15. yet joined with the free confession of his dissent in other things, ver. 14. His legal observances therefore, upon some occasions, were only, joining some things besides with his Christian profession; not a covering it over with them, or hiding it under them: and, in this compliance, not any observance, of those Jews that were out of the true Church, (who, notwithstanding his conformity, were still his persecuters for Christianity, Act. 21. 27.); but only of those weaker brethren within it, Act. 21. 20. of whom we read not, that they any way molested him, the tumult proceeding from the unbelieving Jews of Asia, v. 27.— What I have said of the manner, of his becoming a Jew to the Jew, I may also of his becoming as a Gentile to the Gentile; which was only in the laying aside some of the Jewish ceremonies, not in the least conformity to any of their heathen Sacraments: concerning which see his judgement 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21.  
Thus much from §. 8. upon the supposition, that one orthodoxly persuaded continues still in the communion of a Schismatical 
§. 13. Or, whether they communicate with no Church at all; who seem of the two the less unjustifiable.  Church. But, in the next place, suppose he presently withdraws himself from that, but only (for the same good ends) forbears communion with the orthodox; yet neither so, can I find a way to excuse him. Indeed the living in no external communion at all seems the less faulty of the two, and this condition (as coming a step nearer to the Church of Christ) to be preferred before the former. This seems to appear in those, who, either by the oppression of the civil power hindered, or by the Church's authority (whether with, or without, just cause) expelled, cannot enjoy her external communion: who yet are not therefore licenced either to set up a new external communion of their own, or to repair to one that stands severed from the Catholic; though there they may enjoy the Sacraments no way differing from those celebrated by the orthodox: but are advised rather patiently to want them, till they are restored to the participation of them in the bosom of the Church. Such was the practice of the orthodox, where their Clergy was expelled, in the prevalent Arrian times. Certe ista indignitas in causa est (saith Athanasius) quod populi, sacerdotesque seorsim sine synaxibus vivant &c.— And, Praeoptant potius ita aegrotare, ac periclitari, quam ut Arrianorum manus capititibus suis imponi sustineant. See Athan. Ep. Synod. in Alexand. Conc. and Ep. ad ubique orthodoxos. Yet did the Arrians (according to S. Austin's testimony de vera relig. 5. c.) paria sacramenta celebrare with the Catholics. And S. Austin, of good men happening to suffer sometimes an unjust Excommunication, (de vera relig. 6. e.) saith thus: Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint; neque ullas novitates vel schismatis, vel haeresis, moliti fuerint &c— sine ulla Conventiculorum segregatione, usque ad mortem defendentes, & testimonio juvantes eam fidem, quam in Ecclesia Catholica praedicari sciunt; hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns. And (de Baptism. 1. l. 17, e.) Ibi magis probantur, quam si intus permaneant, cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur; sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur. From which I gather, that for whatever cause or reason a man happens to want the Catholic communion; 'tis better, than to enter into any other, to have none at all. In which sequestration he may justly more hope for God's blessing, upon that means of his salvation, which, in such a condition, he is yet capable to make use of; and upon that service, which alone he may still offer unto God, according to the customs and rites of the Church; than, upon that he shall offer, though it be, for the matter of it, faultless, in conjunction with a society divided from the members of Christ: and if the orthodox, in the time of the Arrians, thought their condition safer in the want of the Sacraments, than in the enjoying and partaking them with any Sectaries, so may he.  
For these reasons, I conceive to live out of all communion a less fault, than to join with a Schismatical one; but yet a fault 
§. 14. Yet are not wholly excusable.  also it will be, and that for many of the former, Scriptures, and other reasons. See §. 9 where the Scriptures enjoining separation from Sectaries, seem also to imply uniting with the orthodox. Neither indeed can we have any reason to desert one Church, but we must have the same to join with some other; since we must, from the article in the Creed, ever acknowledge one true, as well as others false; and that whatsoever outward dislike and abhorrence we are bound to express toward these assemblies of adulteresses to Christ, (as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose calls them), the same outward affection, and love, and duty in all things we are obliged to give to the true Spouse and Body of Christ. See §. 8. where those texts requiring the glorifying of God, and the confessing of Christ before men; confession of him with the mouth, as well as believing on him with the heart (Rom. 10. 9, 10.) of all,; with one mouth, as well as with one mind, (Rom. 15. 6.) seem in a special manner to imply that confession which is made in the public assemblies of the Church, which therefore were never intermitted in those greatest persecutions, when the Civil magistrate was a professed enemy to the Church. Again; see those many precepts of unity and charity enjoined amongst all the fellow-members of Christ; Eph. 4. 3, 11, 12. 1 Cor. 10. Phil. 1. 27, 28. Jo. 10. 4, 5. which seem to extend, and oblige, to all the external, as well as internal, acts thereof; especially for what concerns the public and solemn worship of God. Consider the Article of our Creed, (of which Creed we pretend a constant and public confession), that we believe one Church Catholic and Apostolical; i. e. one external, visible communion upon earth, that always is, and shall be, such: but how is this sufficiently attested, and professed by any, who forbears to join himself openly unto it? Such denying of the body of Christ before men seems to be next to the crime of denying before men the Head himself. But chiefly there, where this Church, the Spouse of Christ, happens to be under any disgrace or persecution, our taking up the cross with her may be much more acceptable to God, than the conversion of souls; and the doxology of confessing him and her, beyond our other best service. See particularly that command of the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. Now if it be said, that some of these texts forenamed are not to be understood as strict precepts always for avoiding sin; but counsels only for attaining perfection: yet thus also every generous Christian will think them prescribed for his practice. Again, consider, that as both many Divine and Ecclesiastical commands (from which I see no just authority any one hath to exempt himself at pleasure) cannot be observed in our adherences to another communion; so neither can they in our absence from the true Church. For how (then) do we observe the public intercessions commanded, 1 Tim. 2. 1. public teaching and exhortations &c, recommended by the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 14. 23, 24. Col. 3. 16.— frequenting of the Sacraments, 1 Cor. 11. 17, 24.— Confession and Absolution, as need requires: For the necessity of which Christ hath substituted some officers to be made use of from time to time, for heinous sins committed after Baptism, in his stead; Jo. 20. 21, 23. as likewise to guide and govern in all Spiritual matters those, who pretend to be his sheep; to withdraw ourselves from whom, is to withdraw ourselves from Christ; in a subordination to whom all must live: Eph. 4. 5, 11, 12. Heb. 13. 17. and God tolerates no Anarchical persons in religion. Add to this, the benefits of the public prayers and intercessions, and oblations of the Church, which such a one, acknowledging himself a member thereof, seems, to his great loss, to be deprived of. As for that internal communion with the Church, which some, excluded from the external, may nevertheless enjoy; or the security, in the actual want of participation of the Sacraments, that such may have; they seem no way appliable to such a person as this, who is not by force hindered of her communion, but, invited to it, voluntarily depriveth himself; though the reasons he hath in the doing thereof seem to himself never so plausible. To partake the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing, where de facto we may have them, and de facto refuse them: and where (in case of necessity) votum signifies something; yet 'tis probable, that to such a one necessitated the actual reception of them would have been more beneficial, could he have obtained it. There seems to be no small danger in a silly sheep's staying out of the fold, (when invited and offered to be taken in), and that without leave of the shepherd; though upon a to-himself seeming good design.  
But yet, supposing such leave indulged to any; I see not at last 
§. 15.  what advantage can be made thereof: but that all the scandals, all the jealousies, all the secular inconveniences, or also disappointments of Spiritual designs, that can happen to one actually reconciled to the orthodox communion, will happen to one after absenting himself wholly from a false. From which sequestering himself the ordinary jealousy, that useth to be in religion, will conclude, that he who is not with them (especially where many secular advantages accompany it) is against them. And whereas our conjunction with the true Church may be done with much privacy, this desertion of theirs is the thing most liable to discovery. Lastly since he, that now is of no external communion at all, was before a member of an unlawful one; and perhaps there not only seduced, but also a seducer of others, or at least culpable of many misbehaviours toward the Church: so much the more cause he hath, with what speed he can, to fly into the bosom thereof; both, because so he may, procure his own safety and pardon; and, by an open subscription to truth and unity, make an amends for his former error, and division, (if he have been any way consenting thereto;) and also, because the truth &c will receive a greater testimony and honour from one that publicly converts to it, after educated first in error; than from many, that, from the benefit of their first institution and breeding, continue in it: to some of whom a right opinion may be rather their good fortune, than their choice. The sum of all is; The case of one's stay, after such full conviction, in the external communion where he is, or of his staying out of the other, who stretcheth forth her arms to receive him, though upon never so pious pretences, is doubtful; his reconciliation safe; therefore this rather to be chosen: and, as for the good he hoped to produce, God is able, and either will otherwise by lawful means effect it; or is not willing it should be effected; and meanwhile will rather accept of our obedience, than of much sacrifice.  
Note, that in this discourse I speak of a Church certainly Schismatical, and of men (after all convenient means of information 
§. 16.  diligently used) fully convinced thereof, and, amongst these, chiefly of such as, in purposing some good ends to themselves, intent to continue always, or for any long space of time, either in their former communion, or out of the orthodox; not of such as, convicted, are removing all impediments as fast as they can, to unite themselves to the Church. But 1. first, concerning Churches schismatical; I apprehend not Schism to be of such a latitude, as that there cannot be any difference (especially between Churches wherein are divers Apostolical Successions (suppose the Eastern and Western, the Grecian and Asian, and the Roman, Church) before a General Council hath decided it) without such a crime of Schism and violated unity of the Church on one side, that all good men therein are presently obliged to render themselves of the opposite communion. And 2ly, concerning conviction; I think men ought to take heed of being any way hasty (which may proceed from a natural fickleness of mind, and overvaluation of things not tried) to desert that Church wherein God's providence hath given them their education, and which hath taught them the word of God, and first made them Christian, and which (as 'tis said in the Law concerning possession) Quia prior est tempore, potior est jure, (i. e. caeteris paribus): to desert the Church, I say, without much conference with the learned, much weighing of reasons, much study of Theological controversy (even though their condition be not that of a Scholar) delayed and mature considerations, long prayer, &c. lest if, in such change, they should happen to light on what is worse, and to forsake truth and embrace error; they should, besides the hurt which may come to their soul otherwise, be in a far worse condition than any others of the same erroneous communion are; by reason, of the disobedience they have showed to their mother, from whom they sucked the true milk of the Gospel; and of the ungratitude to God, by whose providence they were placed in such a light. Especially men ought to have a greater jealousy of their mistaking, if they perhaps find themselves invited to the change of their Religion from any worldly advantages, or contentments of the flesh, profits, honour, pleasure; for our affections ordinarily (yet very insensibly) corrupt our judgements. But for what is said here by me, that it ought to be done after full conviction of a communion Schismatical; I think all men (as taking every one their own to be the orthodox, and others to be sectaries) are but too ready to maintain this point, That all factious communions, once discovered, are to be forsaken; and the true, [understanding by it their own,] once found out, to be adhered to, not only by internal affection, but external profession. And this counsel constantly shall a tottering Romanist receive from a Protestant; and so è contra.  
5. The 5th sort are those, who, being educated in a Church Schismatical, and prejudiced with many formerly received opinions, 
§. 17. 5. Those who 1. much doubting the Church, they live in, to be schismatical, yet are not fully convinced thereof: or, 2. who, convinced, yet deser their intended reconcilement till an expected opportunity.  are not yet fully convinced that it is so; but yet are already in a great jealousy thereof, and in a serious quest of a further discovery of truth &c: Or again; who, being fully convinced of, and being in perfect charity with, the Church; and having also already in voto the external communion thereof; yet whilst wanting, and rationally expecting, a better opportunity for their reconciliation to the Church Catholic, defer it for some time till this may happen. [Asdruball, many cases for such delation may be supposed.— As, if one have reasonable hopes shortly of a Toleration; and, upon a present reconcilement, is likely to be plundered &c.— Or, if one have some treatment with kindred or friends about the same matter, and is in hopes by a further discourse to carry them with him; which intercourse, by his sudden separation, he probably foresees will be stopped, and his admonitions rendered fruitless.— Or, if one happen to be in a Service, and cannot, till such a time, leave his Master; or in an employment, which such a declaring of himself requires that he should, and yet which he cannot, but with much temporal inconvenience, immediately quit, (as that of S. Austen's was, Conf. 9 l. 2. c.) Or, if one be in a place where, declaring presently, his restraint or life is endangered; and therefore he stays till he may remove himself to a place of more: security, (as doubtless 'tis lawful to seek our safety by flight.).— Or, if he have a design of publishing something tending to the advancement of Truth, which opportunity (in appearance) will be for ever lost in such a place, if he suddenly discovers his intentions. Many such cases may be put, and if none of these be reasonable to produce any delay, yet it follows not, but that there may be some others that are so.] Now, for such men as these, 
That, several circumstances considered, both these may, or may not, be culpable.  1. First, those seem not to sin, in suspending their reconcilement, and in continuing their former communion, who are not as yet fully convinced. [But yet concerning full conviction, note, that after such diligence, delay, inquisition used, as is mentioned before §. 16. it seems not necessary to it, that every objection and difficulty, that can be made against any practice or tenet of the Church we conform to, be first fully satisfied (which perhaps will never be, and so neither will be any one's deserting his native Sect, however erroneous); but only that, for the most part of things in contest, full satisfaction is received. For, if in all other things we are swayed by the overbalancing of reason any way, notwithstanding that some weight also remain still on the other side; why should we neglect it in this? Since 'tis as much (nay more) ordinary to be born in a wrong, than in a right, religion, we may justly, I conceive, relinquish our former profession for that; which, if we were of no profession, we should sooner make choice of: especially since we may be more confident of our reason rightly used in such a matter, if our new persuasions procure to us no secular honour or advantage, but rather (the contrary) loss and disgrace; as also if the principles thereof produce in us any singular reformation of life. See Trial of Doct. §. 45.] 2ly, For the fully convinced, though it seems prohibited by God's word, that such any longer abide in their former communion, (see 9 §. 1. n.) yet 1. first, they seem not to sin or do ill, in not reconciling themselves outwardly to the Church upon the very first possibility they have to do it, if that they have a reasonable cause of delay; and especially if some Spiritual advantage be considered in it, and if that they have probability of health, and likelihood to attain to the time and opportunity they wait for. I do not say; that they may not do better sometimes in a suddenner return, but that they sin not always in the delay. Which if they did, the same will hold for Baptism, and for many other Christian duties, which often are deferred (and we think not unlawfully) for some time after possibility of doing them, for the want of some conveniency. Yet I cannot conceive, that there can be a reasonable cause, to the fully convinced, of any long delay, (see before §. 8. etc.) no more than there can be such of long delaying Baptism; because initiation, or reconciliation to the Church, are things of the highest concernment. But 2ly—, Suppose they sin in such dilation, and procrastination; yet I see no ground why any one should affirm (though we grant none dying a Schismatic in the sense §. 5. can be saved) that such, dying without, or before, actual reconciliation, are certainly damned; which since it cannot be justly said of such others, though remaining perpetually within a Schismatical Church, as are named §. 7. much less can it of these, that are in their way and progress homewards. Again; by the same reason must all those be damned named in the 2d. §. (if they had any possibility of sooner performing that, of which they are by death prevented): because also these, as well as those, have a votum of what they want, and heartily repent of their delay, if it were any way offensive to God.  
As for the motives of delay mentioned above; 1. First, if this once be granted, That, upon a full conviction, we are presently to abandon 
§. 18.  such schismatical communion, many of them seem to be voided: because such a retreat from our former communion cannot be concealed; or if it can, then may also our conjunction to a new society; nay, this much more easy to be hid than the other. So that I suppose few cases will happen, for which, after the one done, the other should be deferred. 2ly. If such cases should be put for a heathens deferring Christianity, I think many of them cannot justly be allowed. (See 1 Cor. 7. 20, 21. many converts professing Christianity when servants, and probably some of them having infidel masters.) And I think every one is obliged to a more speedy return, as the defection, wherein he lives, is more impious and perilous, and opposite to true religion, though he must pass thro' many temporal misfortunes, to make this escape. They (saith the Apostle, of the teachers complying out of fear of suffering from the Jews, Gal. 6. 12, 14.) constrain you to be circumcised, only lest they (i. e. if they did not observe the Jewish customs) should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. But God forbid, that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom I am crucified unto the world. And happy he, who embraceth and rejoiceth in all occasions given him, of bearing this cross, and suffering cheerfully the loss of means, friends, good name, employments, and whatsoever is here gain unto us, for Christ's sake, and the profession of a good conscience: My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, Jam. 1. 2. because if we here suffer with him, we shall also hereafter reign with him. And, that here we might suffer with him, he came not to send peace, but a sword; and that a man's enemies should be those of his own household, even father and mother; and he that loveth any of these more than him, is not worthy of him; and he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth after him, is not worthy of him; and he that confesseth him not before men, him will he deny before his Father, and his holy Angels in heaven.  
In this discourse it hath been (all along) supposed; That the Church is ready to entertain, and invites, this person convicted 
§. 19 A Query: What is to be done, if the Ch. catholic require some conformity to doctrines, or practices, against his conscience or particular judgement, who seeks her communion.  of Schism, to return into her bosom: So that all the averseness hath been on his side. But now, what if such Church admits entrance to none, but upon their subscription to all her doctrines, and engaging conformity to all her discipline, and public practices? And then, for some points of her public doctrines or practice, what if it be against the conscience of such a one to subscribe or conform to them? Ought he not then to continue still in his former communion, though thought by him Schismatical? or at least to be content to live out of her communion, whom he thinks to be the Church Catholic?  
To this, having many Queries involved in it, I have many things to say. 1. No man may do any thing at any time against 
§. 20. Several propositions tending to the solution of this Que●●.  his conscience, or which he is persuaded (without doubting) he ought not to do: therefore if it be absolutely against his conscience to subscribe any thing; whether truth it be, or whether it be error; he ought not to do it. But let none please himself too much in this liberty: for though he shall thus (in refusing to subscribe) escape the sin of lying and hypocrisy; yet, if his conscience happen not to be rightly informed, he may remain nevertheless guilty of schism and heresy. See Dr. Ham. of Schism 2. c. 8. §. where he saith, That if the doctrines proposed, as a condition of her communion, by the Church, be indeed agreeable to truth, but yet be really apprehended by him, to whom they are proposed, to be false and disagreeable, though it be in this case hard to affirm, that a man may lawfully thus subscribe contrary to his present persuasion; yet it being certain, that he, who thus errs is obliged to use all probable means to reform and deposit [such] his error; as long as he remains in it, he is so far guilty of sin, as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance; and, being obliged to charity and peace, as far as it is possible and in him lies, he cannot be freed from offending against that obligation [too preserving peace and charity], if he do not communicate with those, the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful: and therefore such a man [tho acting according to his present persuasion] is or may be, in several respects, criminous. And afterward he saith.— Which way soever such man turns, he is sure to sin, (the worst and most unhappy kind of straight); he remains in error and schism on the one side, [i. e. in not subscribing]; and by flying from that, he advanceth to lying and hypocrisy on the other. So than one following his present persuasion may be notwithstanding guilty of Schism, in refusing the Church's communion. 2. Subscription to the contradictory of what I am infallibly certain is truth; or conformity to any thing, which I am infallibly certain is unlawful, may not be made: for this must needs be contrary to ones conscience. 3ly. Upon exclusion out of the Church, in these or any other cases, one may not therefore anew join himself to, or longer continue in, any communion he grants schismatical; but is rather to forego the external administration of the Word and Sacraments, and enjoy no external communion at all. See 13. §. 4ly. No Church there is, though pretending never so much indulgence, but that requires subscription, from some persons at least, to her public Constitutions and Articles; even though such Church confesseth herself in these liable to error. And the Church of England in particular, in her 5th Canon, excommunicates any, who shall say that any of her Constitutions are contrary to the word of God; and that is, who shall say, that any of them, concerning divine matters, is false or erroneous, or not true: See more of this in Submission of Judgement 5. §.) higher than which no Church can easily go. And therefore, if such subscription should be strictly required; one revolted from the Roman Church, and coming to render himself of her communion, shall find as difficult an entrance thereinto, as, we complain, is into theirs. 5ly. It is considerable; That such Subscriptions in the Church Catholic, are only required to the Decrees of her General Councils, not to the tenets of private Doctors. 6ly. The Church Catholic (as we imagine this Convert supposeth that Church, in whose communion he desires to be) in these her decrees, for all points necessary to salvation, is granted (see in Ancient Church-gov. 2. part. §. and Infallibility §. 3.) to be infallible; and so in these can require Subscription to no error. 7ly. For as much as respects other points merely speculative, and not of like necessity to be believed or known, if Subscription be required of us, only for acquiescing to and not gainsaying, them, (as certainly to many of her proposals and that under pain of anathema, she requires no more, the disturbers of her peace, in smaller matters, deserving her anathemas, as well as the dissenters from her faith, in greater; whilst she determins some matters for settling peace, as well as others for necessary faith:) (See Notes of Infallibil. §. 29.) I think none will deny this lawful enough; and what communion is there, which doth not require it? 8ly. But if she requires, to them also, a Subscription not only of noncontradiction, but of assent, and of submission of our private reason or judgement to hers; yet I see not, considering that she, in such a collective body, is much wiser, and more seen both in the holy Scriptures, and writings of the Ancients, than we; and the duty we owe to her, as being our appointed Guide in such things; our Guide, I dare say, as much as those under the Law were: Deut. 17. 8. etc. to the 14th: I see not, I say, but that in things where we are not infallibly certain, but only have some private reasons or opinion that is short of assurance, that such things are untrue or unlawful, we may thus subscribe her decrees, or practise her commands. See what Dr. Hammond saith, Schism 2. c. 10. §. A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, i. e. of enjoying the Church's communion; and when the fundamentals of the faith, and superstructures of Christian practice [I suppose he means such as are immediately built upon the fundamentals.] are not concerned in the concessions, [one would think, in these points especially, that a person to be safe should rather trust to the Church's judgement, than his own,] he will cheerfully express his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgement in reference and deference to his Superiors in the Church, where his lot is fallen. [Methinks he might better have said, where his obedience is due; for the Church, where his lot is fallen, may by heresy or schism stand divided from the Church Catholic.] (See this point discoursed at large in Obligation of our judgement or conscience §. 2. and in Infallibility §. 35..) Now a subscribing, professing, or acting, in this manner, I conceive will never be construed a going against our conscience or judgement considered in general, (though it should be against some private reasons of ours): because this preferring of hers, before our own, judgement, is also an act of our judgement. For there being such a weighty authority on the one side, and such reasons of my own, but short of certainty, on the other; my judgement here sits upon, and examines both; and at length gives sentence, that here it is more safe for me to submit to the first, than to rely on the second. Here therefore I shall only go against my conscience, if I go against this my judgement, in adhering to the 2d, and forsaking the first. But indeed, if the Church should require me to subscribe, not, that I believe her authority more than my private reasons; but, that I have no private reasons nor scruples in my mind for the contrary of her tenet when indeed I have so; the subscribing thus would be going against my conscience, and must at no hand be done. [But I am confident, no Church will exact such a confession; nor would ever reject, I say not from bearing any office in her, (wherein perhaps she may be more strict), but from her communion, such a submission as this. Wherein one first acknowledgeth her infallibility, or actual unfailance, in all doctrines necessary to salvation: and 2ly, promiseth in no other point publicly to gainsay her Conciliary doctrines: and 3ly, in these points to endeavour, as far as is in his power, to submit his private reason and judgement to hers; though perhaps the repugnances of some verisimilities of the contrary may hinder his yielding so plenary an act of belief to the truth of some of them, as some others do.] Or again; if any one is persuaded in his judgement or conscience, that, when the judgement of the Church is contrary to this his private reason or judgement, so often he ought to adhere to his own, not to hers; such an outward submitting or subscribing to her judgement, when this is against his own private reason in that matter, would be going against his conscience, and he ought at no hand to do it. But yet, in the not doing it, he may be guilty of great crimes, heresy, schism, etc. But 9ly, such subscription of a firm belief of all her doctrines, or of exact conformity to all her public rites, I think is by no Church required from all that either are born in, or are afterward converted to, her communion; but only from those, whom she prefers to be the Spiritual guides of others, and admits into Ecclesiastical revenues. For those of the Roman communion (of the strictness of whose profession of faith I find our men much complain) the Council of Trent requires a profession of their faith to be made, or her decrees (of which Pius 4tus hath compacted a form, particularly expressing the chief of them) to be subscribed, or sworn to, only by Bishops, and by others who undertake curam animarum. (See 24. Sess. 1. c. and 12. c. de Reformat.) Neither doth Pius the 4ths' Bull, so much accused, require it of more, unless it be of Regulars: [In which Bull observe, that the Oath or Subscription of such persons, having curam animarum &c, is required, not only to some Articles or Canons of the Council, namely to those expressed in the Bull, (for the naming of which, being about some twelve Heads, the Council of Trent is said to have added twelve new Articles to the Apostles Creed, to be believed under peril of losing salvation) but to all the rest of the decrees of that Council whatever, as well as those; and likewise to all things tradita, definita, declarata, by any other Council, which by the Roman Church is reckoned Ecumenical, as well as those delivered by that of Trent. See the words, Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus [that is yet something more too] & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuera sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita, ac declarata indubitanter recipio, atque profiteor etc. After which it follows: Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest,— sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo. From which words (if we will say, the Roman Church hath added new Articles of Faith to the Apostles Creed, to be explicitly professed and believed under pain of damnation) we must argue, not only those 12. points to be added by her, but also all the rest; not only whatever the Tridentine, but any other of those she calls General Councils, hath delivered or declared. But indeed, from this large reception of, and subscription to, not only some, but all, points determined by such Councils, we may gather 1. That it is only a subscription and profession in such a manner to, and of, them, as the Councils have proposed to be received and professed; and that it is not such, that the same degree of belief or assent must necessarily be given to all. For no Romanist will say, that nothing is stated or defined in General Councils, or in that of Trent, but only points de fide extra quam (see Notes of Infallibility, §. 9) nor yet will say this of those 12. heads mentioned in the Bull, of which this is a part, Baptismum sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse: but if this be an articulus fidei, extra quam nemo salvus; then is Cyprian, whom they acknowledge a Saint, damned. And some anathemas may be showed in latter Councils against such other points, as were affirmed by some of the Fathers. See Conc. Trid. 24. Sess. 7. c. the contrary whereof was held by S. Ambrose: and 21. Sess. 4. c. compared with S. Austin's known opinion. But if it be said, that, after the determination of a Council, 'tis fides extra quam &c, not before; then is the matter sufficiently explained, that the damnation lies not in the great moment of our erring in such a point, or in the matter of the tenet; but in our opposition of, and division from, the Church's judgement, to whom we are commanded obedience and submission, after we know that she hath determined it. See Dr. Hammond, (Of Fundamentals, 9, and 10. c.) of our obligation to the additionals to the Apostles Creed, made in the Nicene and Athanasian Creed, very appliable, as I conceive, to the additions of other General Councils. And again, 2ly, from hence it will follow, that the clause [Catholica fides, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest] must not be distributively applied to all that is mentioned before it; for no Romanist will affirm this of all the decrees of Councils whatever, nor yet of these twelve, and the several branches of them, which are before expressed; nor perhaps of all the Articles whatever of the Apostles Creed. But * must 1. either be understood collectively: not, that every thing, that is contained in such decrees, is absolutely sides Catholica, extra quam nemo salvus; but that all the fides, extra quam &c, is involved and contained in, or amongst, those decrees; whilst meanwhile this phrase [extra quam] chiefly referreth to the ancient Creed, placed in the beginning of this Bull. To which see a like phrase applied in the 3d. Session of the Council Tridentine: Principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum & unicum, contra quod portae inferi etc. Where observe, that this word [unicum] seems contrary to the [extra quam] here, if taken distributively. So, if it were said of the Scriptures, or of the will of God declared in them; These are the Holy Scriptures, or, This is the will of God; without the knowledge of which Scriptures, or Will, there is no salvation: Yet would it not follow, that without the knowledge of every part and particle of such Will or Scripture, no salvation could be attained; but that, without the knowledge of some part at least thereof. For, if only some part thereof be necessary to salvation, it verifies sufficiently the expression, extra quam there is no salvation. Or else; * by extra quam, must be meant only this; That, in opposing of such faith, and sacred decrees of General Councils, or of the Church, when made known to them to be such, none can be saved; because such men must needs be guilty of Schism and Heresy, and do remain out of the Church's communion. But whatever the meaning thereof be; this it cannot be, even in the sense of the Roman Doctors; That all the decrees of General Councils, or of that of Trent, or that perhaps any at all of that, beyond the Apostles Creed, (much less all the branches of those twelve points named in the Bull, to all which the Bishop subscribes), or perhaps, that all the Apostles Creed is necessary explicitly to be known or professed; or else that such person cannot attain salvation. See more of this Church-gov. 4. part. §. ●.) Thus much concerning what Subscription is required in the Roman Church of those who have curam animarum, (by which perhaps it will appear, not to bear such a rigid sense, as many construe it in.)] And as for all others, the Council hath only these words. (25. Sess.) Suppressed nunc, ut Principes omnes in Domino moncat ad operam suam ita praestandam, ut quae ab ea [i. e. Ecclesia] decreta sunt, ab haereticis depravari aut violari non permittant, sed ab his & omnibus devote recipiantur, & fideliter observentur. To these I will set you down what F. a S. Clara saith in his system. Fidei 24. c. 6. §. Addo, quoth in modo reducendi errores, expedit aliquando nonexigere ejurationem haereseos, ad hoc ut in Ecclesiasticam communionem admittantur Sectarii, ut olim Johannes Antiochenus fecit cum Nestorii fautoribus; eo scil. animo, ut melius Ecclesiarum paci consuleret, ut notarunt aliqui posteriores scriptores. Et certe non solemus ad erroris ejurationem noviter conversos cogere; sed displicentiam ejus & reliquorum peccatorum concomitantium, cum proposito de futuro persistendi in fide & communione Ecclesiae, ut juris sacramentalis est, exigimus. Alia, quae potius forum fori, quam poli, spectant, de industria utplurimum omittemus: ne, ut facile fit, absterreantur. And perhaps an orthodox Church may use such gentleness towards novices with very good effect, for those considerations of S. Austin's, mentioned before this discourse; because, Cum docilis factus fuerit, tum demum disces quant a ratione etc.— and, nos falsis rumoribus etc. therefore it seems they entered, before they knew certainly all such rumours to be false.  
But here perhaps this scruple may be urged: That though a new convert be admitted into such a Church and communion, without 
§. 21.  any universal subscription to all the doctrines thereof; yet is he, by such communicating with her, reasonably supposed to acknowledge these, and so the untruths (if any be) thereof; especially those, the belief of which is strictly enjoined under Anathema, and so gives the same scandal as if he had subscribed them: which scandal ought to be avoided by the simplicity and sincerity of a Christian. To which I answer: That from this common eating with a Church, wherein are some errors, one cannot therefore rationally be supposed to hold all the errors thereof; though the holding of them be enjoined under anathemas. Neither is any just scandal given by him, as that he should rationally seem to do so: for communion neither makes me accessary to the sins, nor errors, nor unjust censures of all those I communicate with; especially where I have no power to redress them. Neither can I, from my submittance in things (wherein I think I ought) to those whom I account by Christ appointed my Spiritual Fathers, be justly supposed by any therefore to justify all their Acts, Laws, Injunctions, or Censures whatsoever; no more, than from my peaceable obedience to my temporal Prince, will any such thing be collected. Suppose the Church pronounceth an Anathema on all those who do not believe her decrees; yet can none hence justly conclude, That every one, that is in her communion, believes them: unless we are certain, that every one doth what another requires, who doth not quit all relation to him who requires it. Neither have her anathemas, being universally pronounced, more force upon, nor are they more to be feared by, one, when he is now within, than when he was before without, her communion; or than they are to be feared by all those, who continue still without; the further any one runs from the Church, he the more justly incurring her censures. Neither reasonably may those thro' the Kingdom of France, after the conclusion of the Tridentine Council, who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church; or Father Paul the Venetian, who writ the history of that Council, dying also in the same communion; be therefore presumed to have assented, or subscribed to all the decrees thereof. Doth the 5th. Canon of the Church of England bind all, though Non-Subscribers, to forsake, or not to enter her communion, who think some one thing she saith not agreeable with the Scriptures, for fear of their giving scandal, by being thought to believe such points? Did the many false doctrines of those, who sat in Moses' chair, and ruled in the true Church of God, therefore warrant the Samaritan discession from the Church? (Consider well Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 10. 5.) We may not, being in her communion, openly gainsay the errors of a Church, such as are not fundamental; as all, I think, grant: how much less may we quit her communion for them? And if one may not leave that which he imagines the true Church for such faults or defects; neither may he forbear to return to it. And if a member of a Church may not disturb her peace in an open speaking against some things he supposeth to be errors in her, but not fundamental, (now for erring in fundamentals, the true Church of Christ is secure; and, in the Protestants opinion, the Roman Church doth not err in any such,) upon this pretence, because else some may be scandalised, as if himself also held such errors: why may not one likewise enter into the Church's communion, without an obligation of declaring against her supposed errors, for fear of giving such scandal? And indeed upon such terms, i. e. of fear of giving scandal, no man may be of any communion, wherein he thinks any one untruth is held: and then, by being of none, shall he not give more scandal? as if he denied there to be on earth a Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which he may securely join himself? He that may not pass over to another Church, because she hath some (in his opinion) errors, may not stay in his own, if he imagines the same of her. But meanwhile he that takes such offence, may perhaps too magisterially accuse a Church of errors; who 1. first, ought not hastily to conclude, especially the decrees of Councils to be untruths, unless he be infallibly certain thereof. And if he be so, yet 2ly. ought he not to be offended at another's submission to the Church that holds them; unless he knows also that the other is infallibly certain of their being errors. But yet 3ly, from the others submitting he cannot indeed gather so much, as that such a ones private opinion in all things is the same as the Church's doctrine is: but only this; that such a man's judgement is; that he ought to submit (as much as is in his power) his contrary reasons or opinion to her wiser and more universal judgement.  
To conclude. No man may neglect a duty, for fear of giving some scandal, or of having his actions by some weak men misconstrued. (For 'tis only in the doing and forbearing of things indifferent that we are to have an eye to scandal). Now our communion with that which we suppose to be the Church Catholic must needs be a duty, and that a high one. Of which S. Austin saith so often, (see 5. §.) That there can be no just cause of departing from her. Therefore either she errs not at all in her decrees; or else we may not desert her communion, because therein are maintained some errors; though some, upon these, be scandalised, that we still abide in it. I add, as no just cause of departing from her, notwithstanding such errors; so no just cause of not returning to her when she is willing and ready to receive him. By Him, I mean here, as likewise in the rest of this discourse, such a one, as, though he scruples at some of her (in his conceit) errors, yet is persuaded, that that Church, to which he desires to join himself, is the truly Catholic.  
Luk. 9 59, etc.— And he said unto another; Follow me. But he said; Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my Father. Jesus said unto him; Let the dead bury their dead, etc. Another also said; Lord, I will follow Thee, but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him; No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.  
FINIS.