I. PRINCIPLE.

1. An entire obedience to the will of 1. Princ. God, being agreed to be the condition of mans happinesse; no other way of Revela­tion is in it self necessary to that end, then such whereby Man may know what the will of God is.

This is granted. Consid.

II. PRINCIPLE.

2. Man being fram'd a rationall creatu­re, 2. Princ. capable of reflecting vpon himself, may antecedently to any externall Revelation, certainly know the Being of God, and his dependence vpon him, and those things which are naturally pleasing to him; else there could be no such thing as a law of Nature, or any Principles of Natural Re­ligion.

[Page 5]This may be granted.

III. PRINCIPLE. Consid.

3. All Supernaturall and externall Re­velation, 3. Princ. must suppose the truth of Natu­rall Religion; for vnlesse we be anteceden­tly certain that there is a God, and that we are capable of knowing him, it is im­possible to be certain that God hath revea­led his will to vs by any supernaturall means.

Let this be granted. Consid.

IV. PRINCIPLE.

4. Nothing ought to be admitted for Di­vine 4. Princ. Revelation, which ouerthrows the cer­tainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revela­tion: For that were to ouerthrow the means whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation.

Let this also be granted. Consid▪

V. PRINCIPLE.

5. There can be no other means imagi­ned, 5. Princ. whereby we are to judg of the truth of Divine Revelation, but a Faculty in vs of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief; which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of Divine Re­uelation, we must be imposed vpon by eue­ry thing which pretends to be soe.

Here, if the Doctor means, That Consid. every Christian hath a faculty in him, which, as to all Revelations what soeuer proposed to him, can discern the True and Divine, from others that are not so; and when a Revelation, certainly Divine, is capable of several senses, can discern the true sense from the false, all this exclusi­vely to, and independently on, the Instru­ction of Church-authority: This Proposi­tion is not true. For then none will need (as experience shews they do) to re­payre to any other Teacher to instruct him, when a dubious Revelation, or when the sense of any Divine Reve­lation, is controuersed, which is the true revelation or which the sense of it.

[Page 7]It is abundantly sufficient, that eyther Additio­nal. Wee our selues, or some others appointed by our Lord to guide vs, and more easily dis­couerable by vs, have a Faculty, ayded by the Divine assistance, to discern Truth and Falshood in those Revelations proposed, wherein wee our selues cannot; that so par­ticular Christians in their following these Guides, may not be imposed vpon by every thing which pretends to be Divine Revelation.

VI. PRINCIPLE.

6. The pretence of Infallibility in any 6. Princ▪ person of Society of men, must be judged in the same way, that the truth of a Di­vine Revelation is; for that infallibility being challenged by vertue of a supernatu­rall assistance, and for that end to assure men what the will of God is, the same means must be vsed for the tryall of that, as for any other supernaturall way of Gods making known his will to men.

Here, if the Doctor means, That by Consid. the same way or means as we come to know the truth of other Divine Re­velations, we may come to know the truth also of this, viz: the Infallibility in Necessaries of a Society, or Church; I [Page 8] consent to it. But not to this, That by all or only the same ways or means by which we may come to know one Di­vine Revelation, we may, or must come to know any other, or this, of Church-Infallibility. For some Divine Revela­tion may come first to our knowledg by Tradition; another first by Scripture; another by the Church. see below, Consid. on the 17. Principle.

VII. PRINCIPLE.

7. It being in the power of God to make 7. Princ. choyce of severall ways of revealing his Will to vs, we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others, but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen: and whatever he hath done, we are su­re cannot be repugnant to Infinit Iusti­ce, Wisdom, Goodness, and Truth.

This is granted. Consid.

VIII. PRINCIPLE.

8. Whatever way is capable of cer­tainly 8. Princ. [Page 9] conveying the Will of God to vs, may be made choyce of by him for the means of making known his will in order to the happiness of mankind; so that no Argument can be sufficient a priori to prove, that God cannot choose any particu­lar way to reveal his mind by, but such which evidently prooues the insufficiency of that means for conueying the Will of God to vs.

This likewise is granted. Consid.

IX. PRINCIPLE.

9. There are severall ways conceaveable 9. Princ. by vs, how God may make known his Will to vs; eyther by immediate voyce from Heaven, or inward Inspiration to every particular person, or inspiring some to speak personnally to others, or assisting them with an infallible spirit in writing such Books, which shall contain the Will of God for the benefit of distant persons and future Ages.

To these seuerall ways by which Consid. God reveals his Will, the Doctor might have added this one more, as [Page 10] a Truth, And in case such Writings in some things be not clear to all capacities, (as the Writings of Moses his law were not, nor any Writings though possibly yet hardly can be, when writ­ten at seuerall times, by seueral per­sons, on seuerall and those particular occasions, in different styles, &c.) By our Lords giuing a Commission to, and leauing a standing Authority in the Suc­cessors of these holy Pen-men to expound these their Writings to the people, and by affording them for euer such a Divine Assistance, as in nothing necessary to mis­interpret them.

X. PRINCIPLE.

10. If the Will of God cannot be suffi­ciently 10. Princ. declared to men by Writing, it must eyther be because no Writing can be intelligible enough for that end, or that it can neuer be known to be written by men infallibly assisted: the former is repugnant to common sense, for Words are equally capable of being understood, spoken or writ­ten, the later ouerthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God.

[Page 11]This is granted.

XI. PRINCIPLE.

11. It is agreed among all Christians, 11. Princ. that although God in the first Ages of the World did reveal his mind to men im­mediatly by a Voice of secret inspirations, yet afterwards, hee did communicate his mind to some immediatly inspired to write his Will in Books to be preserued for the benefit of future Ages, and particularly that these Books of the New Testament which we now receaue were so written by the Apostles and Disciples of Iesus-Christ.

The Doctor declaring how God after §. 6. Consid. the first Ages was pleas'd to communi­cate his mind by the Writings (of Moses &c.) might and ought to haue added as a Truth, That he also left a Iudge in case of any Controuersy arising about the sense of those Writings, to whose senten­ce the people were to stand, and do accor­ding to it vnder paine of death, as the same Writings inform vs.

XII. PRINCIPLE.

12. Such Writings hauing been recei­ued 12. Princ. by the Christian Church of the first Ages as Divine and Infallible, and being deliuered down as such to vs by an vni­uersall consent of all Ages since, they ought to be owned by vs as the certain Rule of Faith, whereby we are to judge what the Will of God is in order to our Saluation, vnlesse it appear with an euidence equall to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God, that they were neuer intended for that end, because of their obscurity or imperfection.

Here, these words ( whereby we are §. 7. Consid. to judge) being vnderstood not vniuer­sally, of all Christians, but of those to whom amongst Christians, this Offi­ce of judging in dubious cases, is de­legated by our Lord: Or vnderstood vniuersally, that is, so farr as the sense of these Scriptures is to all men clear and vndisputable, This Proposition is granted.

XIII. PRINCIPLE.

13. Although we cannot argue against 13. Princ. any particular way of Reuelation from the necessary Attributes of God, yet such a way as Writing being made choyce of by him we may justly say, that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe, and the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God to giue infallible assu­rance to persons in writing his Will, for the benefit of Mankind, if those Writings may not be vnderstood by all persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their saluation.

This Principle is vnsound. Because §. 8. Consid. if God (who according to the Doctors 7. Principle, may reueal his Will in, or without Writing, after what manner he pleaseth) may reveal it in these Wri­tings so, as that in many things it may be clear only to some persons more ver­sed in the Scriptures and in the Churches Traditional sense of them, and more assisted from aboue according to their employment, which Persons he hath appointed to instruct the rest, and [Page 14] these to learne it of them, in those pla­ces or Points wherein to these persons Gods Will is obscure: then, I say, though these Writings be not such as that euery one may attaine the under­standing of them by his owne endea­vours, yet if he may by others, namely, his Instructors, this also consists very well with the Diuine designe, with his Wisdome and Goodnesse, as also it would, had he left no Writings at all, but only Tea­chers to deliuer his Will perpetually to his Church.

Concerning these Vvritings pretended by §. 9. the Doctor to be intelligible by all Persons, &c. I find as it seems to me, a contrary Principle aduanced by Doctor Field, (a per­son of no small authority in the Church of England) in his Preface to the large Volume he thought it necessary to write on the Church.

Seeing (sayth he) the Controuersies of Re­ligion (that is, in things of great consequen­ce, as he says afterwards) in our times are grown in number so many, and in matter so intricate, that few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them; Vvhat remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies of the world is that blessed Compa­ny [Page 15] of Holy Ones, that Houshold of Faith▪ that Spouse of Christ and Church of the li­uing God, vvhich is ihe Pillar and ground of Truth, that so he may embrace her Com­munion, follow her Directions, and rest in her Iudgment? Thus doctor Field; who in his last words ( rest in her Iudgment) speaks home enough, and discouers the only effi­cacious way of curing Sects. And see also vvhether this doth not confront the Doctors 29. Principle, Church-Infallibility there being changed into Church-Auctority, and the Prin­ciple being applyed to priuate mens Practise.

And what need is there of Bishops, §. 10. Presbyters, or any Ecclesiastical Pastors among Protestants, as to the Office of teaching or expounding these Wri­tings, if these in all necessaries are clear to all Persons who sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them, I mean, ex­clusiuely to their repairing to these Pa­stors for the learning of it?

And doth not the Doctor here to euacuate the infallibility of the Chur­ches Gouernors introduce an infallibi­lity or Inerrabillity of euery particular Christian in all points necessary, if such Christians will, that is, if only he shall sincerely endeauour to know the meaning of them?

[Page 16]And moreouer of the sincerity of this his endeauour also I suppose the Doctor will allow any one may be certain (else how can the mind of a poore illitera­te Countrey-man be at rest, who can neyther trust to the Faith of his Gui­des, nor the sufficiency of his own in­dustry) For surely this sincere, is not all possible, endeauour; such as is lear­ning the Languages, perusing Commen­tators, &c. But as Mr Chillingworth Chilling. p. 19. (who anchored his whole Religion vpon it) states this Point, namely, such a measure thereof, as humane Prudence and ordinary Discretion, (their abilities and opportunities, and all other things con­sidered) shall aduise. And thus, such a clearness in necessaries must the Scrip­tures haue as suits with the very lowest capacities. Such a Clearnesse, I say, euen to all Articles of the Athanasian Creed, if these be esteemed Necessaries; and euen as to the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father. In which notwithstanding the whole Body of So­cinians dares to oppose all Antiquity, vpon pretence of cleare Scripture to the contrary.

But then the Doctor is desired to con­sider, §. 11. [Page 17] That if euery Christian may be­come thus Infallible in Necessaries from 1. a clear Rule, 2. a due Industry vsed, 3. and a certainty that it is so vsed; May not the Church-Gouernors still much rather be allowed infallible, and so retain still their infallible Guide-ship; and the People also, the more clear the Rule of Faith is proued to be, the more securely be referred to their di­rection? And haue we not all reason to presume that the chief Guides of the Church (euen a General Councill of them, or if it be but a major part of this Councill, tis sufficient) in their consults concerning a Point necessary to saluation deliuered in Scripture, vse at least so much endeauour (for more needs not) as a plain Rustick doth, to vnderstand the meaning of it; and also the like sincerity? For what they define for others, they define for themselues al­so, and their Saluation is as much con­cern'd, as any other mans is, in their mistakes.

And next: Why may not these Gouernors, vpon such certainty of a sincere endeauour and clearness of the Rule, take vpon them to define these [Page 18] Points, and enjoyn an assent to, and be­lief of them to their Subjects; especial­ly since it is affirmed, that all those, from whom they require such Obe­dience, if they please to vse a sincere endeauour, may be certain thereof, as well as they? And are we not here again arriued at Church-Infallibility, if not from extraordinary Diuine assistance, yet from the clearness of the Rule? Only we must suppose such sincere en­deauour in the Church, as the Doctor allows may be in euery priuat man. And thus does not his conditionall Infalli­bility of particular persons in necessa­ries, the condition being so easy, ne­cessarily inferr a Morall Impossibility of the Churches erring in them? Which ought the rather to be admitted by them: Since some of their Divines, to make this their Problem the more iu­stifiable, that the Scriptures in all ne­cessaries are clear to all persons▪, think it a safe way in the next place to contract these necessaries to the Apo­stles Creed.

But after all, supposing these Gouer­nors Tillots p. 113. in stating some Points fallible enough: I cannot hence gather any just [Page 19] relaxation of their Subjects submission of their judgment to them, vpon pre­tence of clearness, because such Falli­bility §. 12. of their Superiors in some Points can, reasonably, be supposed to arise from nothing else, but some obscurity in the Rule, which must be greater still to their Subjects: and then, what mo­re fitting and ordinary, then in matters of consequence to follow a prudent and experienced, though fallible, per­sons Direction, rather then our own?

Lastly, suppose this granted, That the Scrip­tures §. 13. may be vnderstood by all persons, in all things necessary (and so an infallible Guide vselesse;) yet I see not what aduanta­ge the Doctor can make of this Principle for the Protestant Religion. For since the sence of Scripture is now de facto debated between Catholiks and Protestants about so many necessary Points of Faith, the Doctor cannot with truth or charity affirm the sense of these Scriptures clear to be vnderstood on the Protestants side to all those who sin­cerely endeauour to know their meaning, where the Major part of Christendom vn­derstands their meaning contrary, as he must grant they doe in all those hee accounts the common Errours both of the Greek and Ro­man Church: (a large Catalogue of which may be found in many Protestant Authours) [Page 20] And will he charge all these as defectiue in a sincere endeauour? But rather such sin­cere endeauour being indifferently allowd to all parties, he ought to pronounce the sence of Scripture to be clear, if on any, on that side as the Major part doth appre­hend it: Which certainly is not the Prote­stant.

For Example: How can the Doctor ra­tionally maintain this Text Hoc est Corpus meum, so often repeated with out any varia­tion of the Terms, to bear a sense clear on the Protestants side; that is, That the Eu­charist is not in a litterall or Proper sence the Body of Christ; when as they are vnderstood in a litterall sence by much the Major part of the Christian world, not onely the Western but Eastern Churches also (as Monsieur Clau­de Claud. in his last. Reply. l. 111. c. 13. concedes to his worthy Aduersary Mon­sieur Arnaud) to which also may be added half the Body of the Protestants, namely, all the Lutherans. Now all these haue vsed their senses, and weighed the argu­ments drawn from them, as well as Prote­stants.

But if the Doctor put this Text so much controuerted among Obscure Scriptures (which therefore not containing any Point necessary to saluation, saluation is not en­dangered by it) if a Christian should err or be mistaken in their sense, then how comes this great Body of Christians meerly by the mistake of its sence in thinking that our Lord meaneth as the words sound, that the Eu­charist [Page 21] is his very proper Body, and so in ado­ring (as they ought, should it be so) how come they, I say, to committ such grosse Idolatry, as the Doctor in his Book char­geth them with, and so all without repen­tence, miscarry in their Saluation?

And if from a Major part of the present Church interpreting Scripture an Appeal be made to a Major part of the Ancient Church, pretended to interpret them on the Prote­stants side; neither will this relieue the Do­ctor, because since this also ( on what side Antiquity stands) is a thing in Controuersy, for deciding of it we are to presume here like­wise that a sincere endeauour being allowd to all Parties to vnderstand the sense of the former Church, this also stands on that side as the Major part apprehends it. Now the present Catholick Church (being a Major part) professes to follow the sence of the Ancient in interpreting Scripture.

XIV, PRINCIPLE.

14. To suppose the bookes so written to 14. Princ. be imperfect, that is, that any things ne­cessary to be heleeued or practised are not contained in them, is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud, and not deliuering his whole mind; or the writers with insincerity in not setting it downe; [Page 22] and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly, in belieuing the fullnesse and perfection of the scriptures in order to saluation.

The two inferences made here by Consid. §. 14. the Doctor are faulty. For 1. Neither can the first Author of scripture be charged with fraud, if he haue deliue­red part of his mind only by writing, and part some other way: as the Do­ctour (Prop. 7. 8. 9.) acknowledges he might: vnless it be manifest that he hath obliged himselfe by a Promise of delivering his whole mind by wri­ting, which is not shewed. 2. Neither can the Writers of scripture be char­ged with insincerity, if, so much as they were inspired with to set downe and re­gister there, they haue done it.

Meanwhile as touching the Perfection of §. 15. Holy scriptures, Catholiks now, as the Ho­ly Fathers anciently, do grant, that they con­tain all Points of Faith which are simply ne­cessary to be of all Persons belieued for at­taining saluation. And of this Doctor Field may be a Witness, who saith, For matters of Field of the Church p. 377. Faith, we may conclude according to the jud­gment of the best and most learned of our Ad­versaries [Page 23] themselues, that there is nothing to be belieued, which is not either expresly contained in scripture, or at least by necessary consequen­ce from thence, and by other things euident in the Light of Nature, or in the matter of Fact, to be concluded.

XV. PRINCIPLE.

15. These Writings being owned as con­taining 15. Princ. in them the whole Will of God so plainly reuealed, that no sober enquirer can misse of what is necessary for saluation; there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible society of men either to attest and explain these Writings among Christians, any more then there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men a­mong the Iewes, to attest and explain to them the Writings of Moses or the Pro­phets.

The Consequence here is good, viz. Consid▪ §. 16▪ That supposing the Will of God is so clear­ly reuealed in these Writings, that no so­ber Enquirer can misse of knowing what is necessary to saluation, there can be then no necessity of any Infallible society. But the supposition of such a clearenesse, fayles, as the 13. Prosiosition, on which it is [Page 24] grounded, doth. It failes, I say, in the sense the Doctor deliuers it, who referrs his sober enquirer only to the Writings themselues for information in all Ne­cessaries, Without consulting his spi­rituall Pastours for the right explication of them. Nor doth the Doctors Lan­guage any where run thus, ‘That the will of God is so plainly revealed in these Writings (for then he should say so ob­scurely rather) that no sober man, not who repairs to the Writings, but who enquires of, and learns from his spiri­tuall Pastours the right sence of them, shall miss, &c.’

But if the supposition in the Doctors sence §. 17. be allowed for true, there seems to follow something more then the Doctor deduceth, and which perhaps he would not admit: viz. the non-necessity of any society at all, falli­ble or infallible, to explain these Writings, as to Necessaries (all Christians being herein clearly taught from God in these scriptures, or this their Rule) vnless perhaps these Tea­chers may be said to be left by our Lord for others to supersede their endeauours; or for instructing them in non-necessaries.

As touching that which the Do­ctor §. 18. [Page 25] in the clause of this Princ. speaks, of Moses and the Prophets: certain it is, that Moses his Writings and the Law were not penned with such Clarity, But that Doubts and Controuersies 2. Chron. XIX. X. might arise concerning the sence of it: so we find mention made of doubts, between Law and Commandement, statu­tes and Iudgments: And 2. such Doubts arising, their address was to be made to the supreme Iudges appointed for deciding them. 3. Whateuer their sen­tence Deuteron XVII. X. XI. XII. was, according to the sentence of the Law that these should teach them, and according to the judgment that they should tell, and inform them, they were to do: and that vpon pain of death.

To do, I say, according to such sentence; §. 19. not only when they were to vndergo some mulct, or punishment imposed by these Jud­ges for a fault; but when they were enjoy­ned the obseruance of some Law formerly misunderstood by them and so broken and disobeyed. This seems clear enough from the words of the Text: for who can reasonably interpret them thus, ‘ Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand or to the left, (vers. 11.) that is, Thou shalt not decline in not paying the mulct in which they shall fine thee, or not [Page 26] vndergoing the corporall punishment they shall inflict on thee: Thou shalt obserue to do according to all that they shall informe thee, and according to the sentence of the Law that they shall teach thee (vers. 10.)’ that is, thou shalt suffer what they impose, but not obey what they enjoyn. Again they were to do according to such sentence, vpon pain of death, not then only, when the Litigants do aknowledge their sentence to be (juxta Le­gem Dei) conformable to Gods Law (for then what sentence of the Iudge would stand good?) but so often as the Judge should de­clare it to be conformable to Gods Law: And when will a Judge declare his sentence to bee otherwise?

Lastly, not to debate here the Infallibility of these supreme Judges as to all necessaries in the Law of Moses, Let the like absolute Obedience be now yielded to the supreme Ecclesiasticall Courts; Let their sentence be so conformed to, so assented to among Chri­stians, for none is obliged to do a thing (as the Jewes were by those Judges) but is, by the same decree, obliged to assent and be­leeue the doing it lawfull, and more is not required.

XVI. PRINCIPLE.

16. There can be no more intollerable 16. Princ. Vsurpation vpon the Faith of Christians, then for any Person or society of men to pre­tend [Page 27] to an Assistance, as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apo­stles, without giuing an equall degree of euidence that they are so assisted, as Christ and his Apostles did, viz. by Miracles as great, publick and conuincing as theirs were: by which I mean, such, as are wrought by those very persons who chal­lenge this Infallibility, and with a de­sign for the conuiction of those who do not belieue it.

Notwithstanding the Doctors As­sertion Consid. §. 20. in this Proposition, That a so­ciety see. Ap. Laud. p. 139. 140 pretending to Infallibility is obliged to confirm such a pretention by Miracles as compared vvith p. 160. 195 258. 346 great as Christ and his Apostles did: yet himself and the Archbishop whom he see also Rationall defends, do hold that there is after the Apostles times a body or society Infal­lible Acc. p. 53 59. 537. in Fundamentalls, viz. such Oe­cumenicall Councills as are vniuersal­ly accepted by the Catholick Church; which Church, they say, from our Lord's Promise, can neuer err in Fundamentalls. Now it is certain this society is not equal­ly assisted with miracles, as our Lord or his Apostles were. Therefore the Do­ctor may do well to reuiew this Princi­ple.

[Page 28]1. But its failings being of no difficult §. 21. discouery, I shall not let it pass vnexa­mined. First, then I see no reason, that those equally assisted by God in deliue­ring a Truth, must also be enabled by him to giue an equall euidence of such Assi­stāce, where there is not the same neces­sity of it; as there is not, when the later deliuer no new thing from the former.

2. Again, Though none can pretend §. 22. to be Infallible, or actually not erring in what he proposeth, but that he must be as infallible, as to the truth of that wherein he erreth not, as our Lord, or his Apostles; for one, or one persons truth, is no more true then any others: yet in many other respects the Chur­ches Infallibility is much inferiour to that of the Apostles; in that it is. 1. Nei­ther for its matter so farr extended, the Apostles being affirmed infallible in all they deliuered, as well in their Argu­ments as Conclusions, both in their re­lating things heard from our Lord, and things anew inspired by the Holy Ghost: whereas the Church-Gouernours are acknowledged infallible only in their Definitions in matters of necessary Faith; and, not in their receiuing any [Page 29] new matters inspired by God, but in faithfully deliuering the Inspirations of the former. 2. Neither for the manner are the Church-Gouernours so highly assisted, by reason of the other know­ledge and euidence they haue of that Doctrine, first deliuered by the Apo­stles, and so from them receiued, which vnchanged they conuey vnto Posteri­ty. Of which degrees of infallibility see Archbishop Lawd pag. 254. and 140.

3. And in the third place, hence it §. 23. follows, that Miracles hauing been wrought by the first in confirmation of that Doctrine which both deliuer, are not now alike necessary to, or reaso­nably demanded of the second.

4. Yet, since our Lord and his Apo­stles Aug. de Ciuit. Dei 22. book. 8. Chapt. time, Miracles haue been, and are continued in the Church: of which see irrefragable testimonies giuen by S. Augustin: In that Church, I say, that pretends Infallibility; and only in that Church, not any other, departed from it, pretending thereto: And vni­uersally to deny the truth of them is to ouerthrow the faith of the most cre­dible Histories. But these are done in these later, as in former, times, only [Page 30] when, and for what ends God, and not man his Instrument, pleaseth, and many times without such persons pre­cedent knowledge, in making his Re­quests, what the Diuine Majesty will effect. Neither are the Apostles them­selues to be imagined to haue had the Operation of Miracles so in their power, as as to do these in any kind, when, and upon what Persons they pleased, or others demanded. For such a thing would be of such a force vpon mens wills to compell them into Christianity, or to reduce unto the Catholick Church Christians strayed from it, as the Diui­ne Prouidence, perhaps for the grea­ter tryall of mens hearts, and merit of their Faith, hath not ordinarily vsed.

5. Lastly, Miracles remaining still in this Church, though they be not pro­fessedly done for conuincing a Dissen­ter in this or that particular Truth, yet do sufficiently testifie in generall a se­curity of saluation in the Communion and Faith of this Church, if God only honours with them the Members of this Communion, and no others that liue out of it: as we see no other Chri­stian society diuided from it that layes [Page 31] claim to them, or shews any Records of them, or euer did: at least such as may be any way equalled, either for frequency, variety, or eminency with those of this Church; I mean, although so many of these be rejected and layd aside, where appears any rationall ground of suspicion.

That the Doctor and the Archbishop do §. 24. hold such Generall Councills as haue an vni­uersall Acceptation from the Church Catho­lik diffusiue, to be Infallible, seems to me clear from the places forecited in them. For in those both the Doctor and Archbishop ad­mitt, That the Church diffufiue is for euer preserued Infallible in all Fundamentalls, or Points absolutely necessary to saluation; and this by vertue of the Diuine Promise, that the Gates of Hell shall not preuail against her, and other Texts: And therefore such Coun­cills whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusiue, must be so too. I say, as to Fundamentalls, though as to other Points not fundamentall they affirme these Councills also lyable to errour and fallible, because the Church Catholick diffusiue (say they) is so also.

Among the Conditions also that render any Generall Councill obligatory they require See. Rat. Account. p. 536. this for one, that they be vniuersally accep­ted, or haue the generall consent of the Chri­stian [Page 32] World. such Councills then there may be. And then, such Lawfull Generall Coun­cils, and so approued, and consequently obli­ging the Christian World, they confess the first four Generall Councils to haue been; To which Councills therefore they profess all Obedience.

Now wee see what kind of Obedience it was these Councils exacted, in the Athana­sian Creed, accepted by the Church of En­gland, which contains the summ of their Decrees, viz. no less then assent and belief and submission of judgement, and all this vpon penalty of eternall damnation. And this, if ju­stly required by them, inferrs, vpon the Do­ctors See Rat. Account. p. 50. 6. arguing, their Infallibility. For (saith he, where Councills challenge an internall As­sent by vertue of their Decrees (or, because their Decrees are in themselues infallible) there must be first proued an Impossibility of error in them, before they can look on themsel­ues as obliged to giue it. And therefore He and the Archbishop, so farr as any such Ib. p. 539. Councills, are fallible, allow only an Exter­nall Obedience, or silence, to them.

Now for Obedience to these first four Ge­nerall §. 25. Councills in a submission of judgment to them, vpon such an Vniuersall Accepta­tion of them, the Doctor in another place thus writes, The Church of England looks vpon the keeping the Decrees of the fower first Generall Councills as her Duty: and professeth to be guided by the sence of scripture as inter­preted [Page 33] by the vnanimous consent of the Fathers, and the fowr fist Generall Councills: that is, shee professeth to take that which such Coun­ciils deliuer, for the sence of scripture: Not then, to admit their Definitions, if first they accord with the scripture taken in our own sence. So also else where he saith, The Church Ib. p. 59. of England doth not admit any thing to be de­liuered as the sense of scripture which is con­trary to the consent of the Catholick sense of the fowr first Ages (that is) in their Oecumenicall Councills, as he expresseth it in the prece­ding page. And here also he giues the Ground of such submission, viz. a strong presumption, that nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith should be held by the Catholick Church, whose very being depends vpon the belief of those things that are necessary to saluation. And when (saith he) those correspondencies were maintained between the seuerall parts of it, that what was refused by one, was so by all. In another place also speaking in generall of Councills vniuersally accepted, he saith, That both the Truth of Gods Promises, the Goodness of God to his People, and his peculiar care of Ib. p. 537. his Church seem highly concerned, that such a Councill should not be guilty of any notorious errour.

Here you see he saith, that the Truth of Gods Promises is concerned that these Councills should not fall into any notorious Errour; The­refore (such Promises are made absolute to some Church-Gouernors after the Apostles.) Ap. Lavvd, p. 227. And then, where the Errour is not intollera­ble, [Page 34] (saith the Archbishop) at least Obedien­ce of Non-contradiction will be due to all such Councills. Now a notorious Errour it must needs be, if an Errour in Fundamentalls. And such notorious Errour in particular would this be, If they should hold themselues (when they are not) infallible in their Decrees, and so should require a Generall Assent (such as that in the Athanasian Creed) from Chri­stians to them, as to Diuine Reuelations, and make them DE FIDE, thereby, in case any Decree be not true, obliging all the Mem­bers of the Church to an Vnity in errour. Thus farr then, as to Fundamentall Errours, it seems Gods Prouidence secures both such Councills, and their subjects: And then also for their erring in Non-fundamentalls, both He and the Archbishop put this among the Rat. Account. p. 535. §. 26. RARO CONTINGENTIA.

The Archbishop also is much in justifying the Catholick Church infallible not only in Ap. Lavvd. §. 37. p. 318. its Being, but Teaching, and that must be by its Councills. Doctor White, saith he, had reason to say, That the Visible Church had in all Ages taught that vnchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Fundamentall. And again It is Ib. §. 21. p. 140. not possible the Catholick Church (that is, of any one Age) should teach against the word of God in things absolutely necessary to salua­tion. Where the word ( teach) shews, that he intends the Gouernors of the Church in eue­ry Age. Likewise in another place, If we speak (saith he) of plain and easy scripture, Ib. 25. n. 4 the whole Church cannot at any time be without [Page 35] the knowledge of it. And, If A. C. meane no Ib. more, then that the whole Vniuersall Church of Christ cannot vniuersally erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to mens salua­tion, be fights against no Aduersary that I know, but his own fiction. Where it follows, Ib. But if he mean that the whole Church cannot erre in any one point of Diuine Truth in ge­nerall, if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her Guide, the scripture, then perhaps it may be said, that the whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point. Here then the first, of the whole Church not erring in Fundamentalls, as well as the second, are spoken of the Church determining. Ib. p. 258. And so is that saying of his, viz. That though the Mother-Church Prouinciall or National, may erre, Yet if the Grand mother, the whole Vniuersall Church (that is, in her Generall Councills vniuersally accepted controlling the other Prouincial or National) cannot erre in these necessary things, all remains safe; and all occasions of disobedience (that is, to the Grand-mothers commands) taken from the possibility of the Churches erring. (namely, as to all necessaries) are quite taken away. Thus he. But safe, &c. it could not be, if the Ca­tholick Church, the Grand mother, as she held, so could not also witness, all the ne­cessary Truths against such inferiour Coun­cills.

But how these things will te reconciled Rational Account p. 154. with what the Doctor saith else where I know not: Let him take care of it: as name [Page 36] ly where he writes thus: You much mista­ke, when you think we resolue our faith of fundamentalls into the Church as the infalli­ble witness of them. For though the Church may be infallible in the belief of all things fun­damentall (for otherwise it were not a Church if it did not belieue them) it doth not follow thence necessarily, that the Church must infal­libly witness what is fundamentall and what p. 252. The in­fallibility in Que­stion. not. And again That all infallible assistance makes not an infallible Testimony, or makes not the Testimony of those that haue it infal­lible see Ration. Account p. 58. 59. surely Teaching, declaring its consent, condemning Doctrins contrary to Fundamen­talls, is Witnessing, or giuing Testimony.

XVII. PRINCIPLE.

17. Nothing can be more absurd then to 17. Princ. pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and Assistance to assure us of the Truth of these Writings, and to inter­pret them, and at the same time to proue that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced, such an assistance not being supposed; or to pretend, that infalli­bility in a Body of men is not lyable to doubts and disputes, as in those Bookes from whence only they deriue their Infal­libility.

[Page 37]I. For the former part of this Prin­ciple Consid. §. 27. (viz. Nothing can be more absurd then to pretend the necessity of, &c.) If the Doctor in the words ( at the same time to proue that Commission from these Writings) means here, to proue such Commission or Assistance only, or in the first place from these Writings, the truth of Which Writings are first or onely proued from such Commission, &c. the Absurdity vrged by him I grant.

1. As all Articles of Faith are not by all §. 28. Persons learnt at once, so neither by all, exactly in the same order, as is frequently obserued by Catholick Writers. A Christians Faith therefore may begin either at the In­fallible Authoriry of scriptures, or of the Church; and this Infallible Authority of ei­ther of these be learnt from Tradition; and that of the other from it, viz. 1. either the Infallible Authority of the scriptures from that of the Church, the Church testifying so much of the scriptures: Or 2. that of the Church from the scriptures: Or 3. Also, the Infallibility of either of these may be rightly proued from its own testimony. For who­euer is proued, or granted, once infallible in what he saith, the consequence is clear (without any Circle, or Petitio Principii, or identicall arguing) that whateuer he doth [Page 38] witness of himselfe is true. I say all these Consequences are naturall and necessary. 1. The Testimony being granted euident that the one bears to the other, or either to its selfe: and 2. the infallibility of one of these, either of the scripture, or of the Church, being, first, learnt not from its own, or the others testimony, but from Tradition.

2. When a Catholick then first receiues an § 29. assurance of the Truth, or Canon of scriptu­re from the Infallibility of the Church, or its Gouernors, he may learne first this super­naturall Diuine assistance and Infallibility of these Gouernors (which is made known by Diuine Reuelation to those first persons who communicate it to posterity) from Tra­dition descending from age to age, in such manner, as the Protestant saith, he learneth his Canon of scripture from Tradition. To which tradition also may be committed by our Lord, or his Apostles, whateuer is to scripture.

3. Neither may we think, that this Diui­ne Assistance or infallibility of these Guides §. 30. of the Church in necessaries, should either not haue been, or not haue been a thing well known to, or belieued in the Church by this (to use the Doctors terms) Deriuatiue and perpetuated sensation of Tradition, if there had been no Diuine Writings: for soe the Christian see Ration. Account p. 2 [...]5. it. p 204. 208. 209 And the places [...] ci­ted out of the Arch­bishop. Ib. p. 108. religion Without such writings would haue been no rationall and well grounded, no sta­ble and certain Religion, which surely the Doctor will not affirme. And this that is said here of the Churches Infallible Authority, [Page 39] may be also of other necessary Articles of the Christian faith. For, as the Doctor saith, It is euident from the Nature of the thing, that the Writing of a Diuine Reuolation is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith, as to that Reuelation. Because men may be­lieue a Diuine Reuelation without it, as is euident in the Patriarchs and Christian Be­leiuers before the Doctrine written.

4. Such Infallibility in necessaries then §. 31. being so settled in the Gouernors and Pastors of the Church, (the Apostles and those others ordained by them, by whom the World was conuerted) as that had there been no scrip­tures, it should not haue failed: for so the Church would haue failed too. The succes­sors cannot be imagined to become disena­bled, or depriued of it, because the Apo­stles afterwards wrote what they taught; but rather by such Writings more secured in it: Because the Belief of this Infallibility of these successors receiues a second euidence from the Testimony thereof also found in the­se Writings. Thus both written, and vnwrit­ten, Tradition-Apostolicall attesting it.

5. Now that these Gouernors of the Church §. 32. (who hauing an apparent succession, their Testimony must haue been vnquestionably belieued by Christians in what they taught, in case there had been no scripture) alwayes reputed and held themselues Diuinely assi­sted, and infallible for all necessaries, and that this was the Traditiue Faith of the Church (grounded on our Lords Promise) [Page 40] in all ages, sufficiently appears by their in­serting from time to time (as they thought fitt) their Decisions in the Creeds and by their Anathematizing Dissenters, & the Churches stiling them Hereticks. For no Authority (if we belieue the Doctor) but Ib. p. 506. that wich proues it selfe Infallible, and the­refore which is Infallible, can justly require our internall Assent, or submission of Iudgment. And Protestants allowing only an externall obedience, or silence, due to Councills Fal­lible, inferrs that Councills Fallible can ju­stly require no more: and consequently that such Councills are Infallible as do justly re­quire more; as did the fowr first Councills, with the voluntary acknowledgment also and submission of their subjects to such an Au­thority assumed by them. We find indeed subordinate Councills also stating sometimes matters of Faith, censuring Heretiks, and requiring assent to their Decrees; but still with Relation to the same Infallibility resi­ding in the Generall Body of Church▪Gouer­nors, and their concurrence therein: They not passing such Acts without consulting the Tradition and Iudgment of other Churches, and especially of the Apostolick see: and a generall acceptation rendring their Decisions authentick and valid.

2. For the latter part of this Princi­ple [ Nothing is more absurd, then to pre­tend that Infallibility in a Body of men, [Page 41] is not as lyable to doubts and disputes, as in those Bookes from whence only they de­riue their Infallibility.] If the Doctor means here (as in his Rationall Account, that the sentence of a Body of men In­fallible is, he saith not, in some things lyable to some Doubts; but as lyable to Doubts and Disputes, as the Infallible scriptures (for there he maintains, That the Decrees of Councills are as lyable to many Interpretations, as any other Wri­tings. And again, If the scriptures can­not put an End to Controuersies on that ac­count, how can Generall Councills do it, when their Decrees are as lyable to a pri­uate sense and wrong Interpretation, as the scriptures are, Nay more, &c.) I say, if this be his sense, then, not to compare Absurdities here, Is not this all one as if he said, ‘That a Preacher or Com­mentator can, or doth speak or write nothing plainer, then the Text? Nor the Judge giue a sentence any more intelligible, then the Law? That Coun­cills can, or haue decided nothing clea­rer, then the thing that is in Contro­uersy? And so, no Party is cast by them, since it appears not, for whom they declare? And that the Decree of the [Page 42] Councill of Trent, as to Transubstan­tiation remains still as disputable, as the Text, Hoc est Corpus meum?’ But then, how comes it to pass, that Protestants, when the Definitions of later Coun­cills are urged against them, do not contest them as dubious, but reject them, as erroneous?

From the same misarguing the Doctor el­sewhere §. 34. Ib. p. 101 concludes, That the argument of the Vnity (in Opinion) of the Roman Party, be­cause they are ready to submit their Iudgment to the Determination of the Church, will hold as well (or better) for the Vnity of Protestants, as theirs; because all men are willing to submit their Iudgments to scriptures, which is on all sides agreed to be Infallible. Thus He. Now to consider it. Moses his Law prescribed by God for an Infallible Rule, yet had Iudges Deuter. 17. appointed, when Doubts and Contentions hapned about the meaning of it, to explain the sense: Our sauiour, accordingly in the Ghospell, when any one had a Controuersy Math. against another, (which Controuersy perhaps might be Heresy, or his Brothers teaching something contrary to the Rule of Faith) ordered, vpon such Person his not being otherwise reclaimed, that in the last place the matter should be brought to the Hearing of the Church, and such Person, if not hea­ring the Church, to be excommunicated▪ Now I ask, to what end either of these, if [Page 43] such persons be no nearer to Vnity of Opi­nion, or conuiction and ending their Disputes by submitting their judgments to the sentence of these Iudges, or this Church, then be­fore they were in the same submission of theirs to the Rule. Infallibility alone ends not Con­trouersies, but clearness; Clearness in the Point controuerted: Which if the scripture hath, how comes Controuersy about it? and Controuersies between so great Parties, Chur­ches, Nations? In this sense of scripture Ca­tholiks dissenting, repair to the Decision of the Church (w ^ch if any way obscure is ca­pable of being made by it afterward more intelligible) submit to its Iudgment, and so become vnited in Opinion in all those Points the Church decides: wherein Protestants re­joyce in their Liberty still to disagree. Vni­ted in Opinion, I say; true or false, here mat­ters not: We speak here of Vnion, not of Truth. But now, when the sense of scripture is the like matter of Controuersy between two sects of Protestants, as frequently it is, What Course do they take for Vnity of Opi­nion? Repair they again to the scriptures they controvert? But these can neuer decide which of the seuerall senses they take them in, is the true. Repair they to synods? So the Ar­minians and Antiarminians did? Then sure­ly this they do, because that Vnity (proui­ded there be a submission of Iudgment to both) is attainable by the sentence of the sy­nod or Church, which is not by that of the scripture. Which is the thing here denyed by the Doctor.

[Page 44]And hence it proceeds, that Catholicks must §. 35. be much more vnited in Opinion or Iudg­ment, then Protestants; in as much as they all owne submission of Iudgment to so many Councills, which the other reject; These not accepting the Decrees of aboue fowr or siue of those Councills, whilst the Catholiks ad­mit of fowr (or suppose, three) times so ma­ny, and namely of one, the Councill of Trent; of which Soaue affirms, That in all the Coun­cills Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. p. 228. held in the Church from the Apostles times vntill then, there were neuer so many Ar­ticles decided as in only one session of it. And Protestants aggrauate the Tyranny of the Church of Rome in tying all her subjects vna­nimously to belieue, and that as necessary to saluation so many Points of Faith, wherein the Protestants leaue to all men liberty of Opi­nion. And moreouer, as for those Differences that remain still, or shall arise hereafter, they are also conclusiue among them by the same way of Councills, vpon the acknowled­ged obligation of a common submission of their judgments. I say not, all their differen­ces whatsoeuer are conclusiue (which causeth some wonder in the Doctor, that this thing Roman Idolatry. p. 7 449. 453. is not done in an Infallible Church) but so many of them wherein the Church finds on any side sufficient euidence of Tradition; or, for the grauity of the matter; a Necessity of Decision: The same Diuine Prouidence that preserues his Church perpetually Infallible in all things necessary to be determined, dis­posing also, that for all such necessaries, there [Page 45] shall be a sufficient euidence of Tradition, either of the Conclusion it selfe, or its Prin­ciples.

But as for seuerall other matters of Diui­ne § 36. Reuclation, where what is to be held as de fide is not sufficiently yet cleared, either by reason of the sense of scripture, or of the sense of some Conciliary Decree still dispu­ted among Catholicks, in matters that are called indeed, by the one or other Party, de fide, as they variously apprehend this sense of scripture, or Councill; No such agreement, I say, in matters of Faith thus taken, is at all pretended: And their accord in the rest suffi­ciently transcends that of Protestants. But euen these also are capable of the same set­tlement, when the Church shall pass a new sentence concerning them.

Here then may be resumed that Expression Tillots. in Rule of Faith. p. 92. 93. selected by Doctor Tillotson to make sport with, viz. That in this their Faith (name­ly, as to Points thereof determined by the Church) it is impossible that Catholiks should differ one from another, and that there should be any Schism among them. The Reason is plain, because in all such Points they vnani­mously Submit their judgment to their Mo­ther the Church: or if any doth not, he cea­seth to be a Catholick. Whereas Protestants not acknowledging any necessary Obligation of such Submission to any Superiours among them, it is impossible that debates and Schisms should be auoyded by them.

XVIII. PRINCIPLE.

18. There can be no hazard to any per­son 18. Princ. in mistaking the meaning of any par­ticular place in those Bookes, supposing he use the best means for understanding them, comparable to that which euery one runs who belieues any person or society of men to be infallible who are not: For in this later he runs vnauoydably into one great errour, and by that may be led into a thou­sand: but in the former God hath promised either he shall not erre, or he shall not be damned for it.

God hath made no such Promise concer­ning Consid. §. 37. any one, who vseth his best endea­nours for vnderstanding scripture, that ei­ther he shall not erre, or not be damned for it, if such endeauour be vnderstood ex­clusiuely to his consulting and embra­cing the expositions of the Church: which if the Doctor includes, then Ca­tholicks also affirme, that in necessaries such persons cannot mistake. Neither can such Promise be pretended neces­sary, since God hath referred all, in the dubious sense of his scriptures, to the [Page 47] Directions and Doctrine of his Mini­sters, their spirituall Guides, whom he Ephes. 4. 11. 13. 14 hath set ouer them, to bring them in the Vnity of the Faith to a perfect man, and that they may not be tossed to and fro and carryed about with euery wind of Doctrine by the sleight of those that lye in wait to deceiue. And, without which Guide, S. Peter obser­ues that in his time some persons (for any thing we know, diligent enough, yet) through want of learning, and the in­stability of adhering to their Guides, being unlearned, saith he, and vnstable, 2. Peter. 3. 16. wrested some places of scripture, hard to be vnderstood, to their own destruction: The­refore these scriptures are also, in some great and important Points, hard to be vnderstood.

Now therefore let the Doctor giue §. 38. me leaue to put these two other Pro­positions in the other scale to counter­poise his. The first, That a Person in be­lieuing any society of men to be Infallible that are so, hath a security incomparably beyond that of another Person who is sup­posed to use the best other means, his con­dition is capable of, to understand the scriptures, and so follows his own judg­ment: the capacity of most Christians [Page 48] being very little, abstracting from the Directions of a Guide their mean con­dition voyd of learning, or leasure, and it being a thing vncertain also, when they haue vsed a due endeauour; And this a prejudice of it not rightly used, that they do not discerne in these scrip­tures this Infallible Guide, which (saith S. Augustin) the scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate; and which Contra Crescon lib. 1. c. 33. repaired to, may demonstrate to them what else is necessary.

The second Proposition is, That there §. 39. can be no such hazard to any person in be­lieuing a society of men to be infallible, that are not. if this society be at least more learned and studied in Diuine mat­ters then himselfe, and also ordained by our Lord to be his Instructors in them (which Protestants, I hope, allow true of their own Clergy:) No such ha­zard, I say, as is comparable to that euery one incurrs in mistaking the meaning of scriptures, though we suppose he vseth his best other means of vnderstanding them, exclusiue to his obeying the Instructions of such a society. [Witness the vnhap­py Socinians, and all other grosser sects of late sprung out of Disobedience.] [Page 49] For whereas, in following these Guides, such persons may fall into some errours, and perhaps some of them great ones; in this later way of following their owne fan­cyes the vnlearned may fall into a thousand, and some of these much greater and grosser, then any such Christian society or Body of Clergy will euer maintain. For God hath made no Promise to preserue in Truth those who desert their Gui­des; nor to reward their diligence, who liue in disobedience.

XIX. PRINCIPLE.

19. The assistance which God hath pro­mised 19. Princ. to those who sincerely desire to know his will, may giue them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture, then it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other per­sons to do, supposing they haue not such as­surance of their Infallibility.

1. First obserue, that whateuer Diuine Consrd. §. 40. assistance is aduanced here against the assurance that can be receiued from Church-Infallibility, the same is more against any assurāce that may be had from [Page 50] Church-Authority. Thus it happens more then once in these Principles, that in too forward a Zeale in demolishing the one, the other also is dangerously vndermined.

2. The Doctor hath all reason here §. 41. to suppose, him that repairs to, and is instructed by an Infallible Guide, though not knowing him to be such, as well as him, who seeks for an assurance of his Faith, without one, sincerely to desire to know Gods will, and vpon this to enjoy his promised Assistance, so far as God engageth it. And then if the Question be, which of these two takes the more prudent course, he that consults, or he that lays aside this Guide, for his assu­rance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture; I should think, the former. Whilst the one relyes on the judgment of such Guide thought wise and learned, though not infalli­ble; the other on his own: On the judgment of which Guide the one hath much more reason to be confident, then the other on his own, who neglects the advice of the Wise man [ Ne inni­taris Prov. 3. 5. prudentiae tuae] Lean not on thy own Prudence. At least the Doctor must grant [Page 51] the former (of the two) to be de facto in a much safer condition. For it must be acknowledged a great benefit to haue an Infallible Guide to shew us our way, though we doe not know him to be Infallible: for so we keep still in the right way, though belieuing only, and not infallible certain, that it is so; so we walke in Humility and obedien­ce. And if God hath directed us, for learning our right way, to a Guide, sure­ly he will take no prudent course, who committing himselfe to Gods im­mediate Assistance, shall neglect it; and break his commandement in hope of his fauour.

XX. PRINCIPLE.

20. No mans Faith can therefore be 20. Princ. infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible: because the na­ture of Assent doth not depend vpon the objectiue Infallibility of any thing without us, but is agreable to the euidence we haue of it in our minds: for Assent is not built on the nature of things, but their evidence to us.

[Page 52]This Proposition is granted, viz. That Consid. §. 42. no person is infallibly certain of, or in his Faith, because the Proponent there­of is infallible, vnless he also certainly know, or haue an infallible evidence that he is infallible.

Only let it be here remembred, That, for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed, it is sufficient if we haue an infalliblé euidence either of the thing proposed, or of the Proponent only: Because if we are infallibly certain that he cannot ly in such matter who relates it to us, we are also hence infalli­bly certain, that what he says is truth.

XXI. PRINCIPLE.

21. It is necessary therefore in order to 21. Princ. an infallible assent, that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued: so that the ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is as­serted, must rather make euery particular person infallible, if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent; and so renders any other Infallibility vseless.

[Page 53]This Proposition, That therefore it is Consid. §. 43. necessary, in order to an infallible assent, that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued, is not well dedu­ced from the precedent Proposition rightly vnderstood: Neither is it true: and so the Consequence also faileth, viz. [ so that the Ground on which a ne­cessity of some externall Infallible Propo­nent is asserted, must rather make euery particular person infallible, if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent; and so renders any other Infallibility useless.] Because (as was now said) for the yeil­ding an Infallible assent to the things proposed, it is not necessary that the person haue an infallible euidence of the truth of the things proposed, that is, from the Internall Principles that proue, or demonstrate them: But it is enough (though the things proposed remain still in themselues obscure to him) that he haue an infallible, or suf­ficiently certain Euidence only of the Infallibility of the Externall Proponent. The Ground therefore vpon which the ne­cessity of some externall infallible Propo­nent is asserted for begeting such infal­lible [Page 54] assent is, because the Person hath by no other way any infallible euidence of the things proposed: Which if he had, then indeed the Proponents In­fallibility, for such Points, is rendred vseless.

And by this, I hope, sufficiently appeareth §. 44. that misarguing that seems to cause a great confusion in the Doctor's Principles: whilst, vpon an infallible assent requiring an infalli­ble Euidence (layd down in the Twentieth Proposition, and Conceded) he concludes as necessary to our yielding an infallible assent to all that the Church proposeth, an infal­lible Euidence of the things proposed; and then, hence inferres the vselessness of such infallible Proponent.

And here note, that though the Churches Infallibility to such a person as is not infal­libly assured of it, signifies nothing as to his in­fallible assurance of that which it proposeth; Yet it signifies much for his hauing a right and sauing Faith in all those matters propo­sed See suarez de Fide Dispu-. 4. §. 5. n. 7. 8 9 Lugo de virtute Fidei Disp p. 1. §. 12. Vasquez. 1. 2. Dis­put. 120. n. 15. Esti. in 3. sent. d. 25. §. 13. south wall Ana­lys. Fidei Disp. 3. c. 8. by this Church, which cannot misguide him, (see the Consideration on the nineteenth Principle) which right and sauing Faith chil­dren and other illiterate country people in the Catholick Church haue, without any such infallible assurance concerning the Pro­ponent (as is abundantly declared by Catho­lick writers) In like manner the Protestants also affirme, That the Holy scriptures may [Page 55] signify much to the begetting a true and sa­uing Faith euen in those who cannot from Vniuersall Tradition certainly proue them to be the word of God.

XXII. PRINCIPLE.

22. If no particular person be infallible 22 Prine. in the assent he giues to matters proposed by others to him, then no man can be in­fallibly sure that the Church is infallible: and so the Churches Infallibility can signi­fy nothing to our infallible assurance without an equall infallibility in our selues in the belief of it.

[ If no particular person be infallible in Consid. §. 46. the Assent he giues to matters propos'd, &c.] Here [ Matters] is left indefinite. If the Doctor means, to any matters at all proposed, the Proposition and Con­sequence thereto annexed, are true and granted. But on the contrary, a parti­cular person may be infallible in the assent he giues to some matter proposed, viz. to this, That the Church is infallible. If he means, to all matters proposed, then it is faulty and denyed: For though no particular person be infallible in the [Page 56] assent he giues to all matters proposed by others to him, yet may he be so in this, the Churches Infallibility. And so the Consequence also is voyd; and the Churches Infallibility will signify as much as is expected to mens infallible assuran­ce in those matters it proposeth.

Here then Catholicks affirm, That though euery person is not so, any person may be, and that antecedently to the testimony of scripture, at least with a morally-infallible certainty (or what euer Certainty that may be called which Vniuersall Tradition can af­ford) assured of this Diuine Reuelation, the Churches Infallibility, from such Tradition and other Motiues of Credibility as Prote­stants allow for a sufficiently, or morally­infallible and certain means of belieuing the scriptures to be the word of God. On which word of God, or Diuine Reuelation the se­uerall Articles deliuered by it, in the sense their own priuate judgment apprehends the Protestant grounds his Faith: Again on which word of God, or Diuine Reuelation, in the sense this Infallible Church interprets the same Articles the Catholick grounds his Faith.

But as the Protestants except here from being primarily grounded on, or proued by the same scriptures, this [Page 57] Fundamentall Point of Faith, That the scriptures are the true Word of God; so they must giue Catholiks also leaue to except here this their Point of Faith, the infallibility of the Church, from being primarily, or, as to the first means of Knowing it, grounded on, or learnt from the testimony of this Infallible Church. For this Point may first come to the Belieuers Knowledge either from Tra­dition, or from the Holy scriptures (as is explained before in the Considera­tions on 17. Principle. §. 28.) From the scriptures, I say, as the sense of them is now learnt, not from this Infallible Church, but either from their owne sufficient Clearness in this Point, or from Tradition.

Nor are Catholicks necessited in ar­guing against Protestants (who grant the scriptures to be Gods Word) to vse any other Testimony then that of these scriptures for a sufficiently clear Proof of Church-Infallibility. For I think I may call that a clear Proof, euen according to the Doctors common reason of Mankind, which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so, notwithstanding that a Party, en­gaged [Page 58] by their Reformation in an ap­parent contrary interest, do contradict it. Yet whilst they deny a sufficient Euidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in scripture, if they would allow a sufficient Euidence of Church-Au­thority established to decide Ecclesiasti­call Controuersies with Obligation to Externall Obedience, by this Authori­ty they would be cast and silenced for the former, if a much Major Part may be admitted (as it ought) to giue Law to the Whole.

In the Belief and Profession of Which Church-Infallibility, and submission of priuate mens judgments, to her sen­tence passed in her synods the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman. Jeremias the Constanti­nopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants, is much in this, as a sure Retreat for ending Con­trouersies, and establishing Peace. For he tells them, That those Points which Resp. 1. cap. de Abusibus. haue been determined or commanded syno­dically after a Legitimate way of Coun­cills, they are receiued by all Faithfull Christians as consonant to the Diuinely-Inspired scriptures. And in the Conclu­sion [Page 59] of that Answer, he saith, It is not lawfull for vs confiding in our own priuate Explication, to vnderstand, to obserue or interpret any saying of Diuine scripture any otherwayes then as hath seemed good to those Theologues who haue been approued and receiued by Holy synods directed by Gods spirit; least that declining from the right Euangelicall Doctrin, the Conceptions of our minds should be carried about hither and thither like a Proteus. But some wilt aske, How shall those things be reformed? How? Euen thus by Gods Assistance, if we take not into our hands, nor giue cre­dit to any things besides those which haue been instituted and ordained by the Holy Apostles and Holy synods. He who obserues this limit, is our Companion in cele­brating Diuine Mysteries, he is of the same Communion and Faith with us. Again in his Preface to the same answer he saith, We will giue our Answer, not alledging Act. [...]. l. w [...]rt. p. 56 any thing of our own, but from the seauen Oecumenicall synods (the last of these is that so much persecuted and befoold by Doctor Stillingfleet in his last Book) And from the sentence of Holy Doctors Rom Idol. p. 78. &c. interpreters of Diuinely inspired scriptures, whom the Catholick Church hath by an [Page 60] Vnanimous consent receiued: since the Ho­ly Ghost hath breathed forth by them and spoken in them such things as shall foreuer remain unmooued, as being founded on the Word of God. For the Church of Christ is the Pillar and ground of Truth, against which the Gates of Hell shall neuer pre­uail, as God has promised. Here we see in the East the same Zeale for Coun­cills and for Fathers (taken collectiue­ly) as an Infallible Guide, as is in the West, and the like endeauour to re­duce Protestants to the same acknow­ledgment and humble submission of Judgment.

XXIII. PRINCIPLE.

23. The Infallibility of euery particular 23. Princ. person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church, and the one rendring the other vseless (for if euery person be infallible, what needs any Re­presentatiue Church be so too) and the in­fallibility of a Church being of no effect if euery Person be not infallible in the belief of it, we are further to enquire what cer­tainty men may haue in matters of Faith, supposing no Externall Proponent to be infal­lible.

[Page 61]The Obseruations made vpon the three Consid. §. 47. immediatly foregoing Propositions (the matter of which is repeated in this) do shew that they no way serue him for the vse he would here make of them.

The sense of which Propositions, as far as they haue any truth in them, may be returned vpon him, thus: since the Infallibility af any particular person, as to the assent he either doth, or may giue to this Point of the Churches Infalli­bility is asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church: And since such infallibility of a particular person as to this point, doth not therefore render at all the Infallibility of a Church vseless to him, viz. as to his learning still from her all those other Points of Faith of which he hath no infallible knowledge or certainty otherwayes, ( in which there­fore he not being infallible, that he may not erre in them, it is necessary that the representatiue Church be so:) And so since the Infallibility of the Church is still of most important effect, both to those who haue and to those who as yet haue not any infallible cer­tainty of this her Infallibility, toguide both these in a true, right and sauing [Page 62] Faith, as to those Points where of they haue no certainty: Therefore there needs no Enquiry after a further Cer­tainty for that our Faith, in which we haue one already from this Infallible Proponent, the Church.

XXIV. PRINCIPLE.

24. There are different degrees of Certain­ty 24. Princ. to be attained according to the different degrees of Euidence and measure of Diuine Assistance; but euery Christian by the use of his reason, and common helpes of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certain­ty, from the conuincing arguments, of the Christian Religion and authority of the scriptures, that on the same grounds on which men doubt of the truth of them they may as well doubt of the truth of those things which they judge to be most eui­dent to sense or reason.

Here, if the Doctor means, That Consid. §. 48. euery Christian by the use of his Reason and common helps of Grace (that is, as he hath expressed it already Principle 13. and 18. by his perusing the scriptures, and sincerely endeauouring to know [Page 63] their meaning, exclusuely to his ne­cessary repair to any externall infallible Guide or Proponent, as he pretends in Principle 13. 15. 23.) may attain to so great a degree of certainty, as to all ne­cessary Points of Faith, ONELY from the conuincing arguments, of the Verity of the Christian Religion and Authority of scriptures, as that such a person may as litle doubt of them, as of the things most euident to sense or Reason; This Principle is denyed.

And for the reason of this denyall I re­ferr §. 49. Rat. Acct p. 58. to what is said before to Principle 13. and 18. And I appeal also to what Doctor Stillingfleet himselfe elsewhere tells us in his Rationall Account, It seems reasonable, (saith he,) that because Art and subtilty may be vsed by such, who seek to peruert the Ca­tholick Doctrin, and to wrest the plain places of scripture which deliuer it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselues of such Mists as are cast before their eyes, the sense of the Catholick Church in succeeding times may be a very usefull way for vs to em­brace the true sense of scripture, especially in the great Articles of the Christian Faith: as for instance, in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, &c.

Now should not the Doctor, instead of [Page 64] saying, the sence of the Catholich Church in succceding Ages may be a very vsefull way for vs, haue said, is very necessary for vs, if his cause would permit him? And will not the Socinian thank him for this his mitiga­tion?

But if, according to this Principle, euery Christian without this externall Guide can (not in some perhaps, but) in all these Points of Faith attain such certainty as he hath in things most euident to sense or Reason, how doth he stand in need of consulting, or con­forming to the sense of the Primitiue Ca­tholick Church?

XXV. PRINCIPLE.

25. No man who firmly assents to any 25. Princ. thing as true can at the same time enter­tain any suspition of the falshood of it, for that were to make him certain and vn­certain of the same thing: It is therefore absurd to say, that those who are certain of what they belieue, may at the same time not know but that it may be false: which is an apparent contradiction and ouerthrowes any faculty in vs of judging of truth or falshood.

1. This Principle is euident; and Consid. §. 50. granted. But such certainty is not appli­cable [Page 65] to the belief of euery Christian as to all Points of Faith, if he be sup­posed not assisted by any Externall In­fallible Guide.

2. It is true also, that a full and firme Assent, free from doubting (as where no Reasons offer themselues to perswade vs to the contrary) may be yielded to a thing as true, which is really false, and at the same time no sus­picion be entertained of the falshood of it.

XXVI. PRINCIPLE.

26. Whateuer necessarily proues a thing 26. Princ. to be true, doth at the same time proue it impossible to be false; because it is impos­sible the same thing should be true and false at the same time. Therefore they who assent firmly to the Doctrine of the Ghospell as true, do therby declare their Belief of the Impossibility of the falshood of it.

This Proposition is granted. But one Consid. §. 51. who assents firmly in generall to the whole Doctrine of the Ghospell, what euer it be, as true, and so to the im­possibility of the falshood of it, or any part of it, doth not therefore, being [Page 66] vnasisted by any Externall Guide, know what this Doctrine is in euery such Point of Faith, where the sense of the Letter of this Ghospell is controuerted and (to vse the Apostles Phrase) hard to be vnderstood, and that in matters too hazarding damnation, if mistaken.

Therefore me thinks the Doctor should here allow thus much at least; That all those, who after their perusing the scriptures think themselues not certain of its sense, are obliged (notwithstan­ding the silence of these Protestant Principles herein) to repair to the Di­rection of these Externall Guides, and these too not taken at aduenture, and to follow their Faith. Now such non­pretenders to Certainty, according to the Doctors tryall of it sett down be­low in Consid. on Princ. 29. I suppo­se are the greatest part of Protestants.

XXVII. PRINCIPLE.

27. The nature of Certainty doth receiue 27. Princ. seuerall names, either according to the nature of the Proof, or the degrees of the Assent. Thus MORALL cer­tainty may be so called, either as it is [Page 67] opposed to MATHEMATICALL Eui­dence, but implying a firme assent vpon the highest Euidence that Morall things can receiue: Or as it is opposed to a higher de­gree of certainty in the same kind. so MORALL Certainty implies only grea­ter Probabilities of one side, then the other. In the former sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be MORALL: not in the later.

This Principle is granted, if impor­ting Consid. §. 52. only, that Christians haue, or may haue a sufficiently certain and infalli­ble Euidence of the Truth of their Christianity.

But notwithstanding this, Christians may be deficient in a right belief of seuerall ne­cessary Articles of this Christian Faith, if de­stitute of that externall Infallible Guide there­in. And the perpetuall Diuine Assistance, and so, Infallibility in Necessaries of this Guide being declared in the scriptures, a Catholick hauing once learnt this Point of Faith, from it▪ Definitions and Expositions becomes secure and setled in the belief of all those controuerted Articles of his Faith; Wherein Others, another; whilst the scriptu­res in such Points (at least to persons vn­learned, or of weaker judgments, which are [Page 68] which are the greatest part of Christians) are ambiguous in their sence, and drawn with much art to seuerall interests.

XXVIII. PRINCIPLE.

28. A Christian being thus certain to 28 Princ. the highest degree of a firm assent that the scriptures are the Word of God, his Faith is thereby resolued into the scriptures as into the rule and measure of what hee is to belieue, as it is into the Veracity of God, as the ground of belieuing what is therein contained.

Both Catholicks and Protestants Consid. §. 53. profess to resolue their Faith into the Word of God and Diuine Reuelation (or into the scriptures, so, as is said on Principle 14. and 29.) and make Gods Veracity the Ground of their belief of the things therein contained.

But the former resolue their Faith into this scripture, as the sense of it, where disputed, is deliuered by the Church, whose Faith the Apostle commands vs to follow and to whom Christ himself giues testimony, as S. Augustin Hebr. 13. 7. saith. As for Protestants, they resolue their De Vnit. 19. Faith into this scripture, as the sence of it is ultimatly apprehended and vnderstood by their own judgments: None here, to vse the Doctors words elsewhere, vsurping that [Page 69] Royall Prerogrtiue of Heauen, in prescribing Rational. Account. p. 133. 16. p. 58. infallibly in matters question'd (suppose in those Points the Doctor named before, the Do­ctrine of the Deity of Iesus Christ, or of the Trinity:) But leauing all to judge (and so the Socinians) according to the Pandects of the Di­uine Lawes: because each member of this so­ciety is bound to take care of his soul, and all things that tend thereto.

But here the Doctor will permit vs to aske whether euery one is bound to take care of his soul, so, as vnder the pretence hereof to disobey their Resolutions and Instructions in Faith or Manners, whom God hath ap­pointed to take care of and to watch ouer Hebr. 13. 17. their soules, and will require an account of them for it. Here therefore let euery one take the safest course; and, where there is no euident Certainty, always make sure to side with the Church.

XXIX. PRINCIPLE.

29 No Christian can be obliged, vnder 29. Princ. any pretence of Infallibility, to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith, but what was reuealed by God himselfe in that Book wherein he belieues his will to be contained; and consequently is bound to reject what­soeuer is offered to be imposed vpon his Faith, which hath no fundation in scrip­ture, or is contrary thereto: Which reje­ction [Page 70] is no making NEGATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH, but only ap­plying the generall grounds of Faith to particular instances, as, I belieue nothing necessary to saluation but what is contai­ned in scripeure; Therefore no such parti­cular things, which neither are there, nor can be deduced thence.

1. Here first obserue, That what no Consid. §. 54. Christian is obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church-Infallibility, he is (much rather) not obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church - Au­thority: And that the Doctors freeing the Churches subjects here from the former, doth so from the later. It con­cerns therefore his superiors to look to it whether their Churches and their owne Authority suffers no detriment particularly from this Principle, I mean, so as it can be applied to priuate mens practice.

2. Next obserue, That the Expres­sion §. 55. ( What is reuealed by God, &c.) as it is applicable to persons, must either mean, What such person only thinks, belieues, or is perswaded to be reuealed &c. or, what such person certainly [Page 71] knows to be reuealed: And the same may be sayd of the later expressions ( what hath no foundation What is con­trary.)

Now as either of these two Addi­tions are made, a great alteration is made in the Principle, and what in the one Addition is true, in the other may be false. As for example when a cul­pable Ignorance belieues something that is enjoyned by this Authority not to be reuealed in Gods Word, which indeed is so, and so rejects it, here such act is not justifiable. Very necessary therefore it seems here to make an exact distinction, that if the Doctor means it here of the one, viz. certain Knowledge, it may not be misapplyed by any to the other, namely, a belief or full perswasion. For so, men set once vpon examining well in such high my­steries their owne Certainty, will, I con­ceiue, neuer find just cause to reject what this Church-Authority, to which they owe obedience, recommends to them vpon Her Certainty.

But to take Expressions as they lye. §. 56. For the first Part of this Principle, thus much is granted, That no Christian can [Page 72] be obliged, vnder any pretence of Infallibi­lity, to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith, but what is reuealed by God him­selfe in his Word, Written or Vnwrit­ten, Rat. Account p. 162. 208. 210 both which the Doctor else where allowes to be of the same Value, so it be euident they are his Word. Where I adde vnwritten because though it is granted before, on Principle 14. that the Word written, or Book of scrip­tures contains all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary to be of all persons belieued for attaining saluation; Yet some Articles of a Christians Faith there may be that are not there con­tained, which may be also securely preserued in the Church by Ecclesia­sticall Tradition, both Written and Vnwritten, deriued at first from the Apostolicall; as for example, this by Protestants confessed, That these Bookes of scripture are the Word of God. I say thus much is granted. For no Church-Infallibility is now pretended, but only in declaring what this Word of God deliuers, requireth, authorizeth; and a Catholicks whole Faith is grounded on Diuine Reuelation: And, where such pretended Infallible Church-Au­thority [Page 73] enjoyns any thing to be belieued meerly as lawfull, it grounds it selfe on this Word of God, for the lawfulness of it.

The Consequence also is granted, §. 57. viz. That a Christian is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offred to be imposed vpon his Faith, which hath no foundation in scrip­ture, or Gods Word, as before explai­ned; or is contrary thereto, (that is, which is certainly known to such Christian to be so) there being no matter of Faith enjoyned by such Authority, but what is pretended to be so founded.

But then, such Christian, where not infallibly §. 58. certain against it, ought to submit to the judg­ment of this Authority for the Knowing what things are reuealed in this Word, and what are contrary to, or not founded in it, and (to vse the Doctors Expression) to be guided by the sense of Scripture, as it is inter­preted by this Authority. Else a mistaken and culpably ignorant belief herein, will no way justify his disobedience. No more then the Socinians contrary belief justifies him against the Decrees of the Church in those Points which yet he belieues not to be founded in Gods word, and rejects as contrary. § 59. Rationall. Acc. p. 539.

And the Doctor els-where to express and curb such extrauagant and capricious beliefs, [Page 74] is glad to call in, for the interpreting of Scrip­ture to them, the concurrant sense of the Pri­mitiue Church, the common Reason of Man­kind (that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith) the consent of Wise and learned men. And on their side who disbelieue this Authority, he calls for no less then Demonstration; and this not some improbable Argument miscalled so, but which being proposed to any man and vnderstood, the mind cannot choose but inwar­dly assent thereto, that is, that euery reaso­nable man vnderstanding the terms, assents to. (But how this, and seuerall other things which haue fallen some times from the Do­ctors pen, do consist with these Principles, and some other Tenēts of his; Or how the true sense of Scripture in all Necessaries, is so clear and intelligible to euery sincere endeauourer as that he hath such Demonstration, for it, as that no rationall man hearing it, can dis­sent from it, I cannot vndertake to giue a Satisfactory account. Mean while, such Pro­testants as perhaps may cast their eyes on these Papers, may do well to consider, whether vpon such a Demonstratiue Certainty in the Points controuerted as this, it is that they oppose Church-Authority, teaching them otherwise.

Likwise, the Common Reason of Mankind­Christian, the Common consent of Wise and learned men named by him before, what are they indeed, but, where all are not vnited in the same judgment, the most common Suffrage and testimony of the present Vni­versall [Page 75] Church; whom also we ought sooner to credit then any other, touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitiue Church, in case this suffers any debate. And if, as he says, Particular persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they haue Demonstration, that is, their own certainty and Infallibility, as to such Point, to shew against it; then we need not seek for our Lords Patent of the Churches Infallibility for their, or our submission to it, tell the Oppo­sers of its judgment, for the Points they dis­sent in, produce theirs.

Here then we see the Doctor getts as near to an Internall Infallible, or at least Au­thenticall Proponent, as his cause and interest will permitt him: Hoping by his requiring Demonstration, and introducing Common Rea­son, and Wise and learned men, and Primitiue Church, to shake his hands of so many Secta­rists, who molest his owne Churches peace vpon the account of this his Proposition, or something like it, viz. that no Christian is bound, vnder what euer pretence of Church Authority, to belieue that which is not reuea­led in Gods Word; and is bound to reject what euer is offred to be impos'd vpon his Faith, that is contrary, or hath no ground in Gods Word, &c. And you must lett them judg of both these.

For the last part of this 29. Principle §. 60. (That such Rejection is no making Nega­tive [Page 76] Articles of Faith) I grant, that a rejecting of the imposition of a Belief of such a Positiue Point, or the refu­sing to admitt it as an Article of their Faith (which may be done whilst they eyther suspend their judgment concer­ning it, or also acknowledg the truth of it, supposed no Diuine Reuelation) if this were all the Protestants do, is not therefore making the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith. But mean while, the rejecting any such Positiue from their Faith, as not only vntrue, but contrary to the Scripture, is making or declaring the Negatiue of it an Ar­ticle of their Faith; because it makes this Negatiue a thing reuealed in Scrip­ture, and so a matter of Faith, (though I do not say, an Article necessary to Saluation.) And therefore perhaps it was, that the Doctor in the Reason he annexeth ( That they only apply the Gene­rall grounds of Faith to particular instan­ces, &c.) mentions indeed such Positi­ues as are neyther in, nor may be deduced from the Scripture, but warily omitts such as are pretended contrary to Scrip­ture.

[Page 77]Now that Protestants declare many of §. 61▪ these Positiues they reject, contrary to Scrip­ture; See for Purgatory, Adoration of Ima­ges, Inuocation of Saints, Indulgences, in the Article of the Church of England 22. For Works of Supererogation Art. 14. For Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacra­ments in a Tongue not vnderstood by the people Art. 24. Sacrifice of the Mass. Art. 31. Transubstantiation. Art, 28. And to this Belief of the Negatiues of them as contai­ned in Scripture, all the Members of the Church of England, or at least the Clergy, seem to be by their Canons as strictly obli­ged (though some of their Diuines appear not well satisfied with it) vnder these terms, To See Synod 1603. Can. 36. and can. 5. Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12 and Title of the Act. allow and acknowledg all the Articles (and so these fore-cited,) agreable to Gods Word. To declare their vnfeigned assent to them: and this for establishing Vnity of Opinion and consent, as those of the Roman Church are obliged to the Positiues: who are no such way obli­ged by that Church to such a necessary Be­lief of all her Positiues, as that a Person nescient of them cannot be saued, or that the explicit knowledg of them is necessary (though always in some measure beneficiall it is) to Saluation. But this indeed is necessary to Saluation, that any Subject of the Church knowing them to be determined by her, obey her Definitions, and not reject or dis­sent from them: Such Disobedience being conceaued a breach of Gods Command.

And from this (if I may be indulged to §. 62. [Page 78] trangress a little) an Answer may be giuen to Roman. Idol. p. 52. that Quaere of the Doctors in his Book Roman Idolatry. p. 52. which he says he could not hitherto procure from Catholiks, though he hath often requested it, viz. Why the belieuing of all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Saluation, vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome? Where if he will allow me here, for auoyding by disputes, to change these Words ( Communion of the Church of Rome) into ( the Communion of the Roman Ca­tholick Church; and 2. will giue me leaue to vnderstand a good life here, restrained to all other duties of a Christian, saue those which respect this Communion, else if a good life be generally taken, the Doctors supposition must not be allowed:) Then I answer, That such Belieuing and Leading such a life, can­not be sufficient for Saluation, to so many persons as persist, without repentance, ey­ther in a wilfull ignorance of their Obliga­tion to liue in this Communion, or knowing this Obligation, persist in a wilfull neglect to re-vnite themselus to it. Because all such persons liue in a mortall sin, viz. Disobe­dience to, and a willfull Separation from their lawfull and Canonicall Ecclesiasticall Superiors, whom our Lord hath sett ouer them. And this sin vnrepented of, destroys Saluation, being the same so heauily condem­ned by our Sauiour ( Si non audierit Ecclesiam.) Now that vnrepented of it is, we haue rea­son to fear, so long as they hauing opportu­nity, [Page 79] either neglect to inform their judgment, or this being conuinc'd, to reform and re­ctify their practise.

And this seems a judged Case in the Do­natist (who pretended some such thing for their Aug. Ep. 48. security) if we will admitt S. Augustins sen­timent of it: for thus he directs his speech to them? Nobiscum estis in Baptismo, &c. that is, You are with vs in Baptism, you are with vs in the Symbol, or Creed, you are with vs in the rest of our Lords Sacraments (and I may safely add with regard to some of them at least, You are with vs in a good life, with the former exception) But in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace, and lastly, In the Catholick Church you are not with vs: And so he leaues them to the punishment due to those who are out of it, and separated from Christ its head.

To conclude, I ask this Counter-Question concerning a Christian liuing, for example, In the Fift Age of the Church, Why the be­lieuing of the Apostles Creed (as those of the first Age did) and leading a good life, may not be sufficient for Salvation to such a one, vnless he continue in the Communion of his lawfull Ecclesiasticall Superiors of his owne Age, requiring of him vnder Anathema, or penalty of damnation the belief not only of the Symbol of the Apostles, but of all the Articles of the Athanasian Creed (as in the beginning and Conclusion of that Creed it is clear they did▪ Here, what Answer the Do­ctor [Page 80] shall make to this Question (supposing he will not justify such Separatist) I cannot imagin but it must fitt his own.

Here therefore such a Christians business for knowing whether he stands safe as to his Faith and Life in order to Saluation, seems to be, That he seriously examin, Whe­ther those whose Communion he rejects, are the true Legall Ecclesiasticall Superiors who are sett ouer him by our Lord, and to whom he is enjoyned Obedience, and with whom he ought to liue (to vse S. Augustins words) in the Spirit of Vnity and bound of peace.

XXX. PRINCIPLE.

30. There can be no better way to pre­uent 30. Princ. mens mistakes in the sense of Scrip­ture (which men being fallible are subject to) then the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their Sal­uation is concerned: And there can be no sufficient reason giuen why that may not serue in matters of Faith which God him­self hath made vse of as the means to keep men from sin in their liues: vnless any jmagin, that errors in Opinion are farr more dangerous to mens souls, then a vi­cious life is, and therefore God is bound to take more care to preuent the one then the other.

[Page 81]Whereas the Doctor says, That the Consid. §. 63. best way to preuent mens mistakes in the sence of Scripture is the considering the consequence of erring in a matter wherein their Saluation is concerned: Our dayly sad Experience shews, that though our seeing or considering the dangerous consequence of a mistake affords vs, how good soeuer, yet no certain way to preuent it; but our being directed by an Infallible Externall Guide, certainly doth. And the consideration of such Consequence, should hasten euery one to prouide this only certain Remedy, I mean, in committing himself in such matters of Faith as are much disputed, to the Guidance of men more studied and experienced in the Diuine Laws; and that are also sett ouer him by our Lord for this very thing to instruct him in them.

Where in case these Guides shall disagree, yet euery Christian may easily know whose judgments among them he ought to follow: namely, always of that Church-Authority that is the Superior, which in most cases is indisputable; This Ecclesiasticall Body being placed by the Diuine Prouidence in an exact Subordination. As here in England it is not [Page 82] doubted whether we are to pay our Obe­dience rather to a Nationall Synod then to a Diocesan; to the Arch-Bishop or Primat, then to an Ordinary Bishop or Presbiter; And then, He who hath some experience in Church affairs, if willing to take such a course, cannot but discern what way the Major part of Christendom, and its Higher and more comprehensiue Councills that haue hi­therto been, do guide him. And the more simple and ignorant, who so can come to know nothing better, ought to follow their example.

As touching the following Clause in §. 64. this Principle, That the same means may serue to keep men from Error in matters of Faith, as is vsed by God to keep men from Sin in their liues. Hereto I add, That here God hath taken care by the same Church-Authority to preserue his Church in Truth, and to restrain it from Sin: giuing them an equall Commission to teach the ignorant, and to correct the Vicious. And since their Doctrine directs our manners as well as Faith, their infallibility is as necessary for things of practise, as of speculation.

Error in Opinion also may be such, §. 65. as may be much more dangerous to vs, then for the present a vicious life, sup­posing [Page 83] our persistance in a right Faith; because we haue our Conscience still left vncorrupted to reclame vs in the later, but not so in the former: And there is more hopes of his recouery, who as yet doth ill with a relucting judgment. Some erroneous Opinions or other also are the ordinary sources and springs of euill practises; and the Do­ctor cannot but acknowledg this, who hath spent a considerable part of the Book, to which he hath annexed these Principles, vpon pretending to shew, how Roman Errors do induce an euill life, and destroy Deuotion.