CONCERNING FAITH necessary to SALVATION, AND Of the necessary Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether This always in every Man ought to be Infallibility:

YOU have importuned me to communicate to You my opinion on these four Queries, as being (you say) the chief subjects which are debated by our modern Controvertists; and in which, if one side should gain the victory, there would follow a speedy decision of most other Theological Controversy. The First concerning FAITH, What, or how much is necessary for our Salvation? The Second concerning Infallibity in this Faith; Whether it be necessary in every Believer to render his Faith Divine and Salvifical? The Third concerning the Infallibility of the Church; Whether this is, at all, or how far, to be allowed? The Fourth concerning Obedience, and submission of private Judgment, Whether this be due to the Church supposed not, in all her decisions, infallible? For the two latter I must remain for a while your Debter. On the two former I have returned you, as briefly as I can, my Conceptions, no way swerv­ing, that I know of, from any general Decree or Tenent of the Church Catholick.

And First, concerning the former of these; What, or how much Faith is necessary to Christians for the attaining of salvation. PART. I.

[Page 2] 1. Faith, as it respects Religion or things Divine, in general §. 1. 1. Concern­ing Faith necessary for salvation. 1. Con­cerning the object or matter of Faith. seems to be an assent to the Truth, Goodness, &c of any thing that is God's Word, or Divine Revelation. And all truths whatsoever revealed by God, even every part and parcel of God's word, are the object, and so many points or articles, of our Faith; i. e. are not to be denied, but believed and assented to immediately, when ever we know them, or when ever they are sufficiently proposed to us, that we might know them, to be God's word. Amongst these therefore, all precepts of Manners are also matters of Faith; in as much as they must first be assented to, and believed by us, to be God's commands, lawful, good, holy, just, and most fit to be obey­ed; or else we cannot, as we ought, obey them. And he that should practise them, misbelieving them, either to be things evil, or things in themselves indifferent; in the first way would sin, in the second would perform a service utterly unacceptable, by rea­son of an error in his faith. See Rom. 14. 23. Surely every one of the fundamental rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God; and therefore virtually includes an Article of Faith. Again, all necessary deductions, and consequents of any part of God's word, or of any point or article of faith, are also so many points or articles of faith. (See Discourse of Infallibility §. 12.) So that the articles of faith taken absolutely are almost infinite; for whatever is, or necessarily follows that which is, divine reve­lation, may equally be believed, and so is an object of faith; and, when it is believed, is a point of faith. Consequently also all con­troversies concerning the sense of any part of Scripture, are con­cerning matter of faith taken in this general sense; even those concerning Grace and Free-will; as well as those about the Blessed Trinity.

2. Next, concerning the necessity of believing all such points of faith. We must say, in the first place: That it is fundamental, §. 2. 1. Con­cerning the necessity of our belief of such object of faith. 1. That it is necessary to our salva­tion, to be­lieve what ever is known by us to be Gods word. and necessary to our salvation, That every part of God's word, (fundamental or not fundamental it matters not) supposing that we exercise any operation of our understanding about it, be not dissented from, but be believed or assented to, when we once know and are convinced, that it is God's word. Else we knowing that it is God's word, and not believing, or assenting-to, it to be truth, must plainly make or believe God, in some thing to say false: which (if perhaps it be possible) is the greatest heresy, subverting the very first principle of faith, that God is Truth, and so necessa­rily excludeth from heaven.

[Page 3] And here also, first, concerning our knowing a thing to be God's word, it must be said, That we know, or at least ought to know, §. 3. Where 1. Concern­ing our ob­ligation to know any thing to be Gods word, which know­ledg oblig­eth us after­ward to be­lief. a thing so to be, whensoever either so much proof of it is proposed to us, (by what means soever it comes,) as actually sways our un­derstanding to give assent to it, (for which assent it is not necessa­ry that there be demonstration or proof infallible, but only gene­rally such probability as turns the ballance of our judgment, and out-weighs what may be said for the contrary; for where so much evidence is, either none can truly deny his assent, or cannot, with­out sin, deny it); or else, when so much proof of it is proposed to us, as (consideration being had of several capacities, according to which more things are necessary to be known to some stronger, than to some others weaker) would certainly sway our under­standing, if the mind were truly humble and docile, and divested of all unmortified passions, (as addiction to some worldly interest, covetousness, ambition, affectation of vain-glory, self-conceit of our own wit and former judgment,) and of all faultily contracted prejudice and blindness by our education, &c. which unremoved­first do obstruct and hinder it from being perswaded.

In which obstructions of our knowledge in things so necessary there are many several degrees of malignity, which it will not be §. 4. amiss to point at. For 1. it is always a greater sin caeteris paribus, i. e. the matter of the error being alike, obstinately to maintain a known error, and to profess a thing against conscience convinced, than to have the conscience unconvinced by reason of some lust that hinders it: because there is more ignorance of my fault in this latter; and ignorance always aliquatenus excuseth another fault, even when it cannot excuse it self. 2ly, In holding the same error not against conscience, tho from some culpable cause, some may be in very much, some in very little, fault, according to many circumstances (which none can exactly weigh to censure them) of capacity, condition, obligation to such duties, accidental information, &c. varying in several persons. 3ly. The sinfulness of the same man's erring in two things, tho both equally unknown to him, and neither held against conscience, may be very different: for the grosser and more pertinacious that their error is, the more faulty in it is the erroneous. Both (1.) because the necessary truth opposed to such error hath more evidence, either from Scrip­tures, or from Ecclesiastical exposition thereof; which exposition in the greatest matters we must grant either never, or seldom errs; and to whose direction all single persons are referred; whence any [Page 4] ones ignorance in these is much more faulty and wilful. And (2ly) because such an error is the occasion of some miscarriage in manners; so that tho formally he sinned no more in this than in his other errors, yet consequentially he sins more in many other things by reason of it, than he doth in truth mistaken in some smaller matter. And hence 4ly, it follows, that an error doing great mischief to manners, or to the purity of the Faith, on which (tho this foundation doth not always appear to support them) good manners are built, can hardly be held without a very guilty igno­rance; because such points are, by God's providence and the Church'es care, to all men sufficiently proposed. Indeed it is so hard a thing for a man to divest and strip himself of all irregular passion, and especially from prejudice contracted by education, that an error in some things of less moment, even out of some faul­ty cause, is very often incident to men good and honest. But when our passion shall grow so high, and our interest so violent, as to darken the light of truth in matters of moment, especially if recom­mended to us by authority, and as it were openly shining in our face, in such case there is but little difference between our * deny­ing a thing to be God's word when known to be so, and (by our own default) * not knowing it to be so; between knowingly gain­saying truth, and wilfully being blind; between shutting the door against knowledg, or affronting it being entered; between con­science witnessing against us, or by violence silenced.

Again, concerning this removeal of all passion and interest; as, §. 5. when we have used our uttermost endeavour to find out, and lay them aside, we are sufficiently excused; so we are not to pre­sume, that when ever we are not [...]. and know nothing by our selves, that we are therefore presently clear therefrom, (when as we have used no great examination or pains to discover or remove them): for most men that are obstinate and self-biassed do not think (tho they have reason to think) that they are so; and not without great diligence it is that men espy the corruption of their own intentions; but yet certainly this may with much vigilance be found out, and removed: els such men, who can no way discover it, would be in their obstinacy as excusable, as in an incapacity. Now in this search of our own integrity I can ad­vise nothing so necessary, as 1. to rectify our manners, where vi­tiously inclin'd, before we trust much to our own reasoning, (for the vicious seldom judg aright in divine matters.) 2. Then, to cast a jealous eye still upon the inclinations of our education: And [Page 5] 3ly, lastly, * to mortify the self-love we have to our own reason; by subduing and bending it to other mens, in the particulars which we doubt of, or would learn, whom it once acknowledgeth in the general learneder and wiser than we, and this especially when our judgment leads us to oppose common doctrines; and * to employ our understanding, not so much to find out, by it self, what is the true sense of disputed Scriptures, as what is the most universal ex­position of the Church concerning the sense thereof, wherein it may soon be satisfied. But of this see more in Tryal of Doctr. §. 14. &c.

2. Next, our passions being rightly ordered concerning suffici­cient §. 6. 2. And con­cerning sufficient proposal. proposal; we may not think it enough to behave our selves passively, i. e. to receive from time to time what happens to be e­videnced to us; and till then (concerning sufficient knowledge of divine truths) to think our selves in a safe condition. We may not rely on the security of believing some few things, in which all Christians agree; and on an implicit faith, and the preparedness of our mind, whereby in general we assent that all God's word is true, and are ready to believe with all willingness any thing whereof we shall be convinced that it is so. By which implicit faith of the Scriptures we may also truly be said to believe the con­trary to what we believe. This, I say, frees not our conscience from all guilt. For there lies a duty on all, not only willingly to entertain knowledg in divine matters, when brought as it were to their door, and infused into them, but to seek diligently and continually after it all the days of their life, (due respect being had to their secular vocations); as being the only foundation of a right obedience and service of God, which is the unum necessarium for this world and the next. And certain it is, that the most of men are much more obliged to the study of Divinity, (soberly un­dertaken, not for the teaching of others, but the informing of them­selves,) than (by reason of their secular condition) they think they are. By want of which study it is, that men become so fa­tally addicted to the doctrines, practices, religion of the place wherein they are bred, tho these never so gross and easily discer­nible for erroneous, and damnable to their souls.

Neither may we become careless in this search of divine truth by relying on a general repentance (as too many do) of our errors; §. 7. as if it were, tho not for all other sins, yet for these, a sufficient re­medy; and this because, tho many of our errors are sins, (as pro­ceeding [Page 6] from not an unavoidable, but a culpable ignorance, which so far as it is culpable, so far it is also voluntary,) yet those errors in which we err for the present (of which we speak) they are al­ways wholly unknown; nor can any man live a minute in a known error: profess it afterward he may, but hold it any longer he cannot, but that the very knowing or judging it to be an er­ror is the very act of forsaking it: and then if errors be unknown, a general repentance of them only can be made. I say this plea, tho it serves the turn for some smaller, yet not for grosser errors; because such, tho actually undiscovered, yet may be easily known, for we suppose sufficiently perspicuous revelation and proposition of the truths contrary to these. In such therefore the first and not very difficult business or act of repentance is, to endeavour to know and discover them, and so to make particular confession of them, nay further, publick recantation, if by them we have done much hurt to others; for many times errors are more pernicious than lusts, when ever they tend to patronize a lust: and so one he­retick may do more mischief in the world, than a thousand other­ways grievous offenders. It follows therefore, that errors are for­given after no other manner, than other sins are. Some smaller sins and errors, because less discernible, may be remitted to a general repentance; but greater, as well sinful errors, as sinful lusts, we are to acknowledg and forsake, the tenent of the one as well as the practice of the other. Only this difference there is, 1. That the errors so soon as known are ipso facto forsaken, tho not so other sins. 2. That, caeteris paribus, i. e. if the error by some ill conse­quences of it be not more mischievous, a gross error undiscovered hath less guilt in it, than a known and wilful sin; because the more knowledge, the more guilt.

What is our duty then? We are never to be secure of our­selves §. 8. in the search of Divine Truth, but are obliged according to, our several conditions, the opportunity of teachers, the times of manifestation we live in, &c. (for there lies a necessity or duty of knowing more of divine things, as upon some capacities, so upon some conditions of life, and upon some times of revelation, more than in others: and that knowledge is necessary to one man's sal­vation (that is, he shall stand guilty before God, and be called to a severe account for the want thereof) which is not to anothers): we are obliged, I say, all our life to seek earnestly further know­ledge of divine truths; and not to acquiesce in our present know­ing, no more than in our present working; but from milk to a­scend [Page 7] to strong meat, and to grow in faith, as in grace and holiness. (See Rom. 1. 17. Jo. 16. 22. 1 Cor. 3. 2. Heb. 5. 12. 14. Eph. 1. 17.-4. 13. Col. 1. 10. Phil. 1. 9, 10. 2 Pet. 1. 5.-3. 18.) And then upon our using such constant endeavour both for knowing, the wisdom of God to praise him, and will of God to serve him, our implicit faith is accepted; whether in our defects, or also errors, in mat­ters of faith: implicit faith being then only serviceable to us, where faith explicit (considering due circumstances) cannot be attained by us.

Now what is said hitherto concerning knowledge of the Scrip­tures, §. 9. may be applied to the knowledge of the Church, (our guide in the Scriptures,) and the obedience due to her. For he who be­lieves, 1. Either that the Church is infallible in her proposals to him what is the word of God; or 2. That, tho fallible, in some things, yet she is appointed in those things to be his Judge, and the final determiner of them; 3. or, at least that, in the exposi­tion of the sense of Scriptures, her judgment is better than his own; such a one is bound to believe any thing to be God's word, if she affirm it to him to be so. And he who doth not believe any of these things of the Church, is not presently therefore unobliged to her proposals, unless he hath unpartially examined this matter, and so finds no just cause to believe any such thing of her wisdom or au­thority, as is pressed upon him. For when some argue thus: There is no danger to me in so or so disobeying the Church where she ought to be obeyed, if having used the uttermost examination I can, both of the point, and of my own dis-interest, I can find no such obedience due to her; tis well reasoned, tho such obedience were indeed due to her, if we grant the Supposition, that he hath examined to the uttermost, who yet after all remains mistaken: for a mistaking examination, where there is no further power to discover it, is no more blame­able than a true one, and in this case invincible ignorance or in­capacity excuseth. And God doubtless imposeth nothing to be believed by us under the penalty of sinning, but that he gives suf­ficient arguments to evidence it to all men endued with the use of reason, and void of prejudice and passion. But hence is our error, that we take an imperfect trial and examination, for a compleat, and suddenly rest in the dictate of our conscience un- or mis-in­formed, which is virtually a going against it: and to God must we answer both for such a blind conscience, and all the acts of disobe­dience that flow from it.

[Page 8] Thus much concerning our obligation to seek after the know­ledge §. 10. of all divine truth, and concerning sufficient proposal; and 2 That it is not neces­sary to our salvation, that all that is God's word be known by us to be so, or, in general known by us to be a truth. that upon this whatever appears to be God's word is necessary to our salvation, to be assented to, and believed. But, this granted, in the second place you are to observe; that it is not necessary to our salvation, that all that is God's word be known to us to be so, or be known by us to be a Truth. For of these parts of God's word which are proposed to us, some there are which concern the busi­ness of our salvation; and again, some others which do not, (as some passages of history, and perhaps some subtle consequences of some beneficial point of Faith, &c:) Hence therefore ariseth a twofold necessity of belief; either only in respect of proposal, be­cause we know they are God's word; or, besides proposal, in re­spect of our salvation, because they are some way advantageous thereto.

Now concerning the first of these; tho such things, once evi­dently Where 1. That it is necessary to salvation that some points of Gods word be expresly known by all. proposed are necessary to be assented to, or rather not dis­sented from; yet it is not necessary at all that they should be ei­ther proposed to us, or known by us: but we may be ignorant of or also err in them without any sin, any danger. Concerning the second; Divine Truths necessary to be believed with relation to our salvation, may be taken either in a more strict, or in a more large sense. Taken in the most strict sense, they are such articles or points of faith, as without which actually known and believed none at all can possibly enter into heaven, and escape damnation; and of which not only the denial or opposition, but the pure nesci­ence and ignorance is a defect of faith, to all adulti absolutely irre­missible. And these must needs be very few; since we must make [...] points very few. them no more, than the knowledge whereof may be attained by the most illiterate, indocile, and the lowest conditions of men. And likely, according to the several degrees of the proposal, and revelation of the mysterys of salvation, fewer of these are required in some times (as those before the Gospel) than in some others, as those since it. Yet, that now also, in the greatest illuminati­on, there are but few, we may gather, both * from the short abridg­ment of faith the Apostles proposed in their Sermons to the people, commonly including the Articles of the Passion and Resurrection, and Kingdom of Jesus the Son of God and of David, and the remission of sins to the penitent thro his Name: and * from the yet shorter Con­fessions of Faith, which the Apostles accepted as sufficient for be­stowing of Baptism, i. e. for admitting men to salvation, and the [Page 9] Kingdom of Heaven; so that in that instant had they died, (as the good Thief also did,) doubtless upon such a small stock of faith they had entred into life eternal. See Act. 8. 37.—16. 31, 33. Act. 2. 38.—10. 43.

Now these absolutely necessary points are either 1. of pure §. 11. faith; or also 2. of practice, 1. Again; those are either, * such, wherein we more expresly give honor and glory to God; in ac­knowledging Him, and his wisdom, and his works such as they are, (and that is much better and more wonderful than any lye can make them,) or, * such whereby we * nourish our hope con­cerning good things belonging to our selves obedient; and * quick­en our fear concerning evil things appertaining to the disobedient: Yet are not those amongst them, which are most speculative, to be thought useless or unprofitable to us, even in respect of our pra­ctice; they all generally conducing to the advancing of our admi­ration, love, and affection to God; and of our confidence, and re­liance upon him; and so to the animating of our endeavours and obedience accordingly to his commands. Nullum est dogma Christi­anum quod non sit quodammodo necessarium ad praxim. So that an orthodox faith in Speculatives is a main ground of a right practice; and a strong faith of a zealous practice. 2ly. Those points of faith which are also of practice, are such wherein we learn our duty to God.

To particularize something in both these. 1. Pure faith abso­lutely necessary to all in general, even to those under the law of §. 12. nature, perhaps * is that faith only, Heb. 11. 6. (made evident e­vident enough to all by the works of God.) Again, faith absolute­ly necessary to those within the Church before the times of the Gospel, is perhaps, besides the former faith, * a general trust and hope in the Messias to come. (See Jo. 4. 25.—1. 21. Mat. 2. 5. Jo. 7. 42.) Again, absolutely necessary to those under the Gospel is * perhaps that faith Jo. 3. 18, 36. 1 Jo. 4. 2, 15. Jo. 11. 27. Act. 17. 18. Rom. 10. 9, Mat. 16. 16, 17. Act. 8. 37. (both these last kinds of faith being evidenced sufficiently to all where the sound of the Prophets, or the Gospel, hath bin heard.) And 2ly, for matter of practice and of holiness (in which there are as undispensable fundamentals for attaining salvation, as in pure credends: for as without faith, so without holiness none shall see God,) there is absolutely necessa­ry perhaps, besides the assent to the most clear laws of nature, (which were also afterward the law written) repentance from dead [Page 10] works, and the interior acts of Sanctification (in loving God and our neighbour.) See Heb. 6. 1.

Now the set number of these, the pure nescience or non-practice §. 13. Not easily defined. whereof certainly excludes from Heaven there where ever is the preaching of the Gospel, I do not see what way it can be certainly known: but the Apostles Creed seems too large a Catalogue (I In respect of these the Apostles Creed too large. mean in respect of pure Credends, not Practicals) of necessaries or fundamentals taken in this sense.

This being said of Necessaries taken in the most strict sense. 2ly, Fundamentals and Necessaries to salvation are taken in a §. 14. 2. Other points, only highly ad­vantageous to salvation that they be known. more large sense, for all such divine truths, the knowledge of which (and practice, if they be practicals) is very advantageous and beneficial to salvation; tho amongst these there are degrees of more and less necessary, and some approaching nearer to fun­damentals absolute, some further off removed.

These points are also said to be necessary, both * 1. because they (especially if they be points relating to some practice) are such helps to our performing the conditions of our salvation, and have such influence upon our lives, that they much facilitate our way to Heaven, which would be either much more coldly pur­sued, or much more difficultly proceeded in, without them. Con­cerning the danger of erring in which points, methinks Mr. Chil­lingworth speaks very well. There be many errors, saith he, not fun­damental, which yet it imports much, tho not for the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the probability, that you will be so: because the holding of these errors, tho they do not merit, may yet occasion, damna­tion. So that tho a man, if remaining godly, may be saved with these errors, yet by means of them many are made vitious, and so damned: by them, I say, tho not for them. Thus Mr. Chillingworth: And this said he; for a necessity of a reformation from the rest of the Church in such points: this say I; for a necessity of the Church'es gui­dance of us in them. And 2ly, * because God, both by a fuller re­velation 3. Yet our duty (each one accord­ing to his calling) to seek the knowledg of them. of them to us in the Scriptures, and by the doctrine of the Church, hath obliged all men, according to their capacity and condition of life, and opportunity of directers, to a certain measure of actual knowledg, belief, profession thereof, and obedience there­to. So that, tho they are not absolutely necessary to attaining Salvation, ratione medii, strictly so taken; yet they are so ratione praecepti, and it is our duty to know and believe them, (and doing of our duty is a thing necessary to Salvation): and we sin if we do [Page 11] not learn and use all diligence (competent with our calling) for to acquire the knowledge of them: and so also our teachers sin, if they neglect to instruct us in them. (Act. 20. 26, 27.) Neither can we be saved in the ignorance of them, but only by God's first forgiving us, both this sin of our faulty ignorance, and our negli­gence or obstinacy that caused it, and our disobedience in practi­cals that followed it: and then again, this forgivenes is not ob­tained where our fault, so far as we our selves have discovered it, is not first repented of; and, according to the time we have in this world after such our repentance, rectified.

Now taking Necessaries in this sense, the Apostles Creed, as it §. 15. In respect of these the Apostles Cre [...]d too narrow. was before too large, so now is much too narrow to comprehend them all: as being * a Catalogue (at least for the most of the Arti­cles thereof) 1. only of pure credends without practicals; in which practicals our Salvation mainly and fundamentally consists, as well as in speculative faith. ‘By fundamental points of faith [saith Dr. Potter Char. mist. 7. sect. p. 215. speaking there on­ly of pure Credends] we understand not the necessary duties of charity comprehended in the Decalogue, nor the necessary acts of hope contained in the Lord's Prayer &c, tho both these vertues of charity and hope are fundamentals necessary to the Salvation of Christians.’ And as we are bound to believe such and such things under pain of damnation; so, to do such and such: which doing still includes belief first that they are God's commands, and ought to be done under pain of being the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 5. 19. And 2ly, in those pure Credends, the Apostles Creed being a * summary not of all, but the chief of them, if we consider the Creed in the express terms, and immediate sense thereof: Els Arrians, Socinians, Nestorians, the Pelagian, or late Anabaptists, &c, may not be said to err in any necessary points, since they con­fess this Creed. But, if you include all necessary consequences of those Articles within the contents thereof to make it compleat; yet neither thus can many necessary points be reduced to it: and could they, yet secondly then where will there be any one found that thus being strictly catechized, may not affirm something con­trary to some necessary consequence thereof.

We find nothing therefore in it expresly concerning some pure credends, and those of great consequence. [For to say nothing of §. 16. the Deity of our Saviour; of his consubstantiality with the Father; of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son; and many other [Page 12] points added in the latter Creeds of Councils: how necessary is the be­lieving and acknowledging the Grace of God empowering us to all good works, against Pelagius, &c?] Much less find we any thing there­in concerning many practicals of our duty towards God, or our neighbour; yet is it as fundamentally necessary to Salvation to believe the Ten Commandements as the Creed. For, since the practice of these is granted necessary, to be saved, believing first is also a necessary precedent to all lawful practice; and all acts of obedience are grounded upon a foregoing assent of the understand­ing to the lawfulness or also divine command of what we practise: and how many of them are not of faith are sin. And to affirm the lawfulnes of any thing forbidden in Scripture, (suppose of adultery, or drunkenness,) or to deny the lawfulnes and goodnes of any thing commanded there, (suppose of marriage, obedience to Parents and Magistrates,) would be as fundamental an error (and perhaps more mischievous) as denying some Speculative article of faith. And many dangerous Hereticks have there bin in practicals. Again; in the Apostles Creed we find * nothing concerning what writings are to be believed by us to have bin heavenly inspired, and the un­doubted word of God; and hence the settling of the Canon was no small sollicitude of the Primitive Church; a point this of no small consequence, for the attaining of Salvation, to be believed, yet not absolutely necessary; since one may be saved without knowing the Scriptures, and many were so, before these writings. * No­thing concerning Ecclesiastical Orders, Ordinations, Sacraments; the Church'es absolving sinners, inflicting censures, prescribing publick Liturgies, points fundamental (and so called some of them at least, Heb. 6. 2.) in respect of the essence, and government, and u­nity of the Church, tho not in respect of the Salvation of some member thereof. Yet why not necessary to every person therein, as having reference, one way or other, to their particular good? * Nothing express concerning the obedience due to the Church, and her Governours, (else why do so many deny it, who confess the Creed, and in it the Catholick Church?) and yet this a very ne­cessary fundamental also in respect of Christian duties: for igno­rance whereof, whilst especially they will not believe the Church in attesting her own authority, how many deprive themselves of the help of her excellent rules? not to name here the Evangelical Counsels of Celibacy, and emptying our selves of our superfluous wealth, recommended to us by her; and her many injunctions sovereign­ly tending to the advancing of piety, and bettering of manners; which we will suppose here not to be contained in Scripture; as [Page 13] frequent confession of sins to the Priest; frequent Fasts; hours of Prayer; Communions, which who knows not of how much moment they are for the abstaining from sin, acquisition of Chri­stian virtues, and so consequently for our Salvation?

Now the obligation to know and believe these, and such like Necessaries of this 2d. sort, varies according to several persons §. 17. 4. That the obligation of knowing these varieth according to several per­sons, &c. and conditions, and according to the more or less evident propo­sal of them. ‘In this dispute (as Dr. Potter acknowledgeth Char. mistak. §. 7. p. 242.) of necessary and fundamental truths, both truths and persons must be wisely distinguished. The truth may be necessary in one sense, that is not so in another; and fundamen­tal to some persons, in certain respects, which is not so to some others.’ 1. * More points ought to be known, and believed by one than by another, according as more are made manifest to one than another, by the Scriptures, by the decision of the Church, or any other way. Where note, that, before the Church's determi­nation of some points of faith, one may have an obligation to be­lieve them, when another hath not, if, before this, they be evidenc­ed to him, when not to another, (what I mean by evidence, see before, §. 3.); by what means or author soever it be he receives this evidence. And after such evidence he that opposeth it is [...], and heretical in God's sight, even before that he hap­pens to be declared so by the Church'es censure, and is made yet more perversly erroneous after her definitions; and such obstinate error again is more or less dangerous (besides the sin of obstinacy) as the matter of the error is of more influence toward our Salva­tion: whilst mean-while others, not having the like evidence of them, are yet free to dissent or disbelieve them: but then, after the Church'es definition those also, upon this stronger evidence (shall I call it?) or authority, will become obliged to assent to them. Again, * more points ought to be known, and believed by one than by another, according as one hath more opportu­nity than another, by studying the Scriptures, the Church'es ex­position thereof and her decrees, to find out and discover such truths. Art thou a Master in Israel (saith our Saviour,) and knowest not these things? See Heb. 5. 12. There are those who are not ex­cused in acquiescing in the tenents of their particular education; but who are bound to examine the general traditions and doctrines of the Church, the ancient Fathers, Ecclesiastical Histories, &c. Again; others there are of another condition, who are not so far obliged. And in the former sort, if they either depart from the [Page 14] foresaid doctrines themselves; or continue a separation first made by others, it will be a damnable Schism; when perhaps the sim­plicity of the vulgar, their followers, will remain excused (if the error be not in a point absolutely fundamental); or will be much lightlier punished, Luk. 12. 48. [Which common people we must leave to God's secret mercies, in the same manner as we do all those others, who have not believed because they have not heard; which Hea­thens also, I charitably think, shall not suffer for want of that Faith, of which they had no Teacher, as that Faith mentioned Jo. 3. 36. but for want of that the sound of which hath come to all the world in all times, mentioned Heb. 11. 6. compared Rom. 1. 20, 21.] Thus many truths are necessary to be known by the Pastors and the Learned, And the de­crees of Councils not obliga­tory (at least to some) a­gainst a pure nescience, but, opposi­tion there­of: and not any opposi­tion, but, only when known to be their De­crees. that are not so by the illiterate people. And in respect of some vulgar, I conceive, that form Quisquis non confitetur, or, non credit, Anathema sit, concerning the Creeds drawn up against several he­reticks by the four first General Councils, is not to be understood to be of force against a pure nescience of some Articles thereof; for there are many subtilties exceeding vulgar capacities, and which they need not distinctly know: but against an opposition of them, or denial, or non-confession of these points, when they come to know the Church hath established them, and condemned the contrary; for thus to oppose the Church, is not to be ignorant of them, but heretical in them. Tho tis not necessary to Salvation, that either they should know the Church hath determined such a thing; or that such a thing is a divine truth; if such knowledg be beyond the compass of their moral endeavors (sutable to their capacity and their vocation) in the search of divine truth. (See this matter more largely discussed in the Disc. of Infallibility. §. 15.)

Nay, if the Learned also should (I say not be ignorant of, but) §. 18. err in, some point of such moment, that by consequence such error destroys some chief principle of our faith; yet, this being supposed and granted possible, that, having used their just endeavor in the search of the truth, they are by no sufficient proposal convinced of it, and that mean-while they contend for the principle with the same or more pertinacity, than for it, with a resolution to desert it, if once appearing to them any way repugnant to the other; such an error will no way hazard Salvation. Upon such Supposition; Tho the Lutheran is conceived, from his new fancied Ubiquity, by consequence to destroy the verity of Christ's Humanity, Again the Calvinist is conceived, from God's eternal predetermination of all our actions &c. by consequence to destroy God's Holiness and [Page 15] Justice in making him the Author of all sin; points highly funda­mental: yet are not these, holding most firmly the principle, and ready to quit the point controverted when to them apparently re­pugnant to it, charged by the contrary party of the Reformed to be fallen from Salvation; but are easily admitted to one anothers communion. So the Roman, or rather all the visible, Church of God before Luther, whether Eastern or Western, in adoration of the Eucharist is conceived, by consequence of this not being the Body of our Saviour, upon which ground they worship it, to worship a meer Creature, and so to commit idolatry, and give God's honour to another: yet this Church holding the contrary principle, That no Creature may be worshipped with divine adoration, is not said by this practice to err in a fundamental; nor are those, unconvinced of their error, dying in the Roman communion and in this practice, by the contrary reformed parties denied Salvation. See Dr. Potter sect. 3. p. 78. sect. 4. p. 123.

But note; That if the Sentence of the Church be a sufficient ground in such dangerous points, to regulate and guide our belief, §. 19. and that her Definition of them may be called a sufficient proposal: now after such decree we stand guilty in any of these erroneous Tenents, tho our reason perceives not the ill consequences thereof; because here, contrary to the Supposition made before, we have a sufficient proposal of the truth, or an authorized proposer, what in such doubtful points we are to hold. For if we know, or, being impartial, might know, that there is such an authority as it to which we are bound to submit our judgment, we are convinced by this authority determining, as well as by arguments proving. Neither have the first Councils endeavoured to prove their Creeds to those to whom they did enjoyn them. And thus much of Ne­cessaries or Fundamentals in the second place; the set number of which (varying so much according to several persons, and conditi­ons, yet all of these obliged to acquire as much knowledge as they can, tending any way to their Salvation) can much less be pre­scribed than of the former.

The next consideration will be concerning the Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether it ought to be absolute Infallibility, or, Whe­ther §. 20. PART. II. Concern­ing the ne­cessary Ground of Faith Salvifical: Whether Infallibility; that the matter of such Faith is a divine truth, or God's word. we cannot savingly, and with such a faith as God requires, be­lieve some divine truth, unless we be infallibly certain, that it is a divine truth.

[Page 16] 1. First then, concerning the object of Saving Faith, It is true §. 21. Concessi­ons. 1. Concern­ing the ob­ject of Faith; that this is only God's Word. and granted, that the object thereof is only God's Word; and that this Word is infallible: and that, since God cannot lye, fidei non po­test subesse falsum. Which saying refers not to the act, but the matter of faith: i. e. the matter of faith Salvifical cannot be false; because it is the Word of God, which is apprehended by this Faith: Thus therefore true faith is always grounded on (or ultimately resolved into) something which is infallible, i. e. God's Word, (whether this be written or not written,) and in believing divine things we cannot savingly for the matter (tho we may unfeigned­ly for the act) believe any thing but what is certainly true.

Saving Faith then requires both 1. that that which is believ­ed be God's word: and 2. that it be believed by us to be so; So the Schools, Fides non assentit alicui, nisi quia est a Deo revelatum: And 3ly, that this word be believed to be utterly infallible. From whence this therefore follows: 1. That Faith believing any thing which is false is no true faith. 2ly. That Faith believing any thing which is true, yet not as divine revelation or God's word, or this word not to be infallible, is no divine or saving faith. So that there is alway an infallible object for faith to rest upon. But our Quaere goes further: Whether it be requisite to Saving Faith, that we not only believe what is God's infallible word, but likewise that we be able to prove infallibly that it is God's word which we believe.

2. Concerning the act of faith, and the certainty and assurance §. 22. 2. Concern­ing the act of faith, and the certain­ty which it may receive from the ex­ternal mo­tives of Scriptures, Church, Tradition. which it may receive from the external motives of Scriptures, Church, and Tradition. 1. First it seems, that whatever certain­ty our faith may receive from these, these again, both the autho­rity of the Scriptures, and of the Church, do externally derive only or chiefly from that which is ordinarily called Universal Tradition. By which I mean * a Tradition so universal, as these things are rationally (considering all circumstances) capable of; i. e. from all persons who could come to the knowledge of them, and who have no apparent interest which may incline them to corrupt truth; and * a Tradition so full and sincere, as that the like in other matters leaves in men no doubt or dispute.

[Page 17] 1. For first, supposing the Church infallible, yet is she finally proved to be so only from Universal Tradition, which universal §. 23. That the authority of Scriptures and Church is learn'd from univer­sal Tradi­tion. Tradition hath its certainty and infallibility from the nature and plenitude thereof, and not from the testimony of Scripture, and so escapes a circular proof. The series then of proof is this; The Church is proved infallible (at least in Necessaries) from our Savi­our's promise of assisting her &c testified in Scripture. These Scrip­tures are proved to be God's word, and so infallible, from universal Tradition; and universal Tradition is allowed to be infallible, from the evidence and nature of it self: because it is morally (i. e. considering their manners and reasonable nature) impossible for so many men of so many ages, so dis-interested, to conspire to deliver a lye in such a matter. Or, as some others express it, such Tradi­tion (tho it were not so plenary) as is delivered to us by that con­gregation of men which is called the Church, must be allowed to be infallible, from its being invested and endued with such marks and signs, (amongst which are Miracles,) as it is contrary to the veracity of God (supposing that he requires from his creatures a due service and worship) to permit that they should be fallacious. The series of the probation runs thus. The Scriptures are proved to be God's word, and so infallible, from the testimony of the Church: which testimony of the Church, or of so many people so qualified, is proved to be infallible, not from our Saviour's promise testified by Scripture, (for thus the proof would run in a circle: tho to any one acknowledging first the Scriptures this proof is most valid; I mean the proof of the infallibility of the Church from the testimony of Scripture is most valid; tho it be true also, that the Scriptures are rightly proved to be God's word from the Church's testimony:) but as being so universal a Tradition, or a Tradition so sufficiently testified and confirmed, as it is morally impossible, especially considering God's veracity and providence, that it should deceive us. But, as I said, to prove the Church the other way to be infallible, i. e. by testimony of those Scriptures, which Scriptures (to be divine) we learn only from the Church: Or more plainly thus; to prove the Church to be infallible in all her traditions or doctrines from the testimony of the Scriptures, (our Saviour's promise &c. delivered there,) and then to prove the Scriptures to be God's word or infallible, because this is one of her traditions or doctrines, is granted, even by some of the Roman wri­ters, to be a circle. See Dr. Holden 1. l. 9. c. Non audentes fidem divi­nam in certitudine & evidentia naturali (i. e. in universal tradition, [Page 18] and he gives the reason, because they cannot be perswaded, quod illi nulla prorsus subsit aberrandi facultas) fundare, in circulum hunc in­evitabiliter illabuntur, & in orbem turpissime saltant &c. Indeed such argumentation would have no more strength in it, than this of Mahomet, If he should first write a law, which tells the people, that whatever he delivers to them is infallible truth, and then prove to them that law to be, or to say, to them an infallible truth, be­cause he delivers it. A circle I say it is to those who will not grant the Supposition, that Scriptures are the word of God: other­wise to men as to Protestants) supposing the verity of Scriptures, tho unproved by the Church, tis no circle, if any one (suppose a Catholic) from them being granted, attempt to prove ad hominem the Church's authority or infallibility, tho the same Romanist al­so doth affirm, that the Scriptures are proved to be God's word from the Church'es testimony, or from tradition. Only where both these (Scripture and Church-infallibility) are denied; neither can be proved by the other, till one is either supposed as true, or proved by some other medium; which medium is received to be tradition: and if so, then I say there can be no more certainty, that the Church is infallible, than that certainty which lies in uni­versal Tradition.

2. And secondly, the same may be said for Scriptures: which be­ing supposed to be infallible, because God's word; yet if they are §. 24. proved only by the same tradition to be God's word, all the cer­tainty that I have of their infallibility is also from universal tradi­tion. For the Conclusion can have no more evidence than the Premises or Proof hath. Again; suppose I were (without tradi­tion) infallibly certain, that such Books are God's word; yet can I not, for all this, quit the dependence upon Tradition in some points at least of my faith. For my faith being grounded not on the bare words, but sense of those books; and the sense of the same words being divers, (especially since the sense of no one text must oppose the sense of any other; and hence Scriptures most clear in their expression, by reason of other Scriptures as seemingly clear that express the contrary, notwithstanding this clearnes, become very ambiguous) and that in some necessary points of faith; as appears in those many controversies concerning their sense, some of which contests doubtless are in very necessary points and mat­ters of faith: to know therefore amongst these which is the true sense (as suppose in the controversies about the sacred Trinity, Grace and Free will, Justification, &c.) upon which first known I [Page 19] must ground my faith; I am no way helped by knowing that the writing is God's word. Here therefore, tho the Scripture for the Words should not, yet my Faith, for their Sense would, have a de­pendance upon, and repair unto, universal Tradition: and where­ever the Sense is doubtful to me, as the Scriptures may be doubt­ful to one, where perspicuous to another, the chief certainty I can have for that Sense, which my Faith ought to embrace, will be from the universal Church-tradition.

Now concerning this Universal Tradition therefore, on which §. 25. Concessions concerning Tradition, as the Final assurer of the Scriptures, or of the Church'es Infallibi­lity, the act of Faith must rest, let it be granted; 1. First, (with­out disputing whether it be absolutely infallible, because it is needles to the stating of our business,) That there is in it certainty 1. That there is suf­ficient assu­rance in Tradition (whether [...] ­fallible, or no) to ground a firm faith upon. or assurance sufficient to ground a firm faith upon. For tho tis willingly assented to, that Tradition, being in its nature a relation of a thing, gives not nor cannot give us such an assurance, as that we know the contrary thereof to be absolutely impossible, (for tis not absolutely impossible for all men in the world, from the be­ginning thereof till this time, to have lied in every thing they have said; but yet he were no ordinary mad-man, that, upon this non­impossibility, would believe no relation at all; only because tis not absolutely impossible that they may err, and himself hit the right:) yet 1. we must either allow a sufficient certainty therein; or else, that we have no sufficient certainty of the Scriptures, that they are God's word. Which, granting that some few learned and stu­died men may sufficiently discern from the light of Scripture; yet for this, the most of men, especially as to some of the books there­of, depend on the certainty of Tradition. And indeed it were im­pious to affirm; that we have not a sufficiently sure ground of that knowledg of good and evil, upon which our eternal happi nes is to be acquired, or misery sustained; or that God hath not left an undoubtable evidence of those truths, whereby we are to direct our lives to that end, for which he hath created us. But this can be assigned no other, at least to most men, than Tradition. Therefore it is the interest of all Christians, as well those who sub­mit themselves only to the Scripture, as those who submit also to the Church, unanimously to maintain a sufficient certainty there­in; lest whilst the grounds of our faith ascend not to a Mathema­tical or sensible demonstration, they be made Scepticism and Quod­libets.

[Page 20] 2. But 2ly, we must either hold certainty in Tradition; or that §. 26. we can have no assurance at all of any thing past or absent. Yet, transfer this discours to any other temporal matter, and who can wish to be more sure of any thing, than he is of many such which have to him only a general tradition for them. As for example: that there is such a City as Paris; or was such a man as Henry the 8th. But yet in divine things compared with other temporal matters, that are of the same distance of time from us, there seems to be much more certainty; in that the providence of God hath ap­pointed a selected company of men, successively in all ages, to be the Guardians, Conservers, Divulgers, thereof to the world for ever.

3. Lastly, if this Tradition, and the doctrines we acknowledge divine, were to be delivered authoritatively from God to men, §. 27. not in all, but some determinate, time and place; (see Christ's Ben. p. 35.): say how posterity can receive these from any other evi­dence; unless perhaps we further require the voices from heaven, Christ's preaching, miracles, death, to be presented before us; and that before every one of us; excluding all relations from others, because these may be fallible. But such a ground of our faith de­stroys the nature of faith; and it will be no more belief, but sight, and science; which are opposed to faith properly so called. See 2 Cor. 5. 7. Jo. 20. 29. The knowledge and assurance then of things past for time, or far distant for place, must be conveyed either by relation; only or extraordinary revelation.

2ly. Again; let it be granted, That Tradition may be certain §. 28. 2. That Tra­dition may have a suffi­cient cer­tainty; tho notabsolute­ly un versal. enough, tho contradicted by some, (for what is there also in nature or sense, that hath not by some bin opposed?) and not absolutely universal: Els the Scriptures themselves are not received by suffi­cient tradition; for most of the sacred books have bin opposed by some, and that for a long time; and some books by many. But if, notwithstanding this, they be thought sufficiently attested, so also may many other things, whereof hath hapned some contest.

3ly. Let it be granted likewise; that the universal Church of no one age can be mistaken in the delivering of any eminent and §. 29. 3. That no one age of the Ch. is mistaken in delivering any eminent Tradition. more material tradition, wherein her care is interested. For who so denies this, must either affirm, that no Tradition can be certain to us; or, that it is so only by the records and histories of former, and those the very first, times, (for if the present age may fail in [Page 21] these, so might any present age before it, except the first,) where­by the traditions of the present must be confirmed. But, since these records and writings of former times were casual, and since our Saviour established his doctrine only in a succession of his messengers, (and from them only, without any writings, for a time, the Church learned her faith;) surely Christians, according to this tenent, if destitute of writings, would have bin left uncer­tain in their religion, notwithstanding the provision made by our Saviour of Teachers of his Gospel to the worlds end.

4ly. Let it be further granted; 1. Not only that he, who dili­gently §. 30. 4. Tha [...] the testimony of the present age is suffi­cient to in­form us therein, searcheth after the truth of a Tradition, cannot ordinarily err or mistake that for a Tradition that is not; or that for no Tra­dition that is: but 2. that the general testimony of the present age is enough to warrant a Tradition to him; from which he may receive a sufficient certainty, without examining a succession of the same doctrine from the first age; or searching the conformity of the present with former times; as well as he is sufficiently assu­red that there was such a man as William the Conquerour, or is such a City as Rome, only by the general undisputed accord of all of the present time, namely, amongst whom he converseth; without reading the Chronicles up to the Conquerour, or consulting the se­veral interjacent Provinces between his abode and Rome. Nay 3ly, let this also be yeilded concerning the present age, That tho quo universalior (as well universalitate loci, as temporis) traditio, eo certior; yet one, without searching the universality of the present age, may have sufficient assurance of what he believes from the publick Liturgies, Canons, Articles, Catechisms, and other common writings, such as come to hand, where they all or most accord one with another; of which books also that such Fathers and Synods &c. are the Authors, as are pretended, let it be likewise granted, that he may learn from the same surenes of Tradition, as he doth, that such an one was an Emperour &c. (for so he believes the same Tradition for Tully, or Livy being the author of such books, as for Caesar being Emperour of such a people; and then the same assurance which he hath of Secular Authors, he may have of Sa­cred); or as he doth, that such are his Princes Proclamations or Edicts, which he submits to without any signed testimony, or any scruple that they are such; nor doth any venture to transgres them upon the not absolute impossibility that they are forged.

[Page 22] 5ly. Let it be granted, (which we know by experience,) That §. 31. 5. That Tra­dition of the Ch. is easier to be under­stood (in some things expounded by her) than the Scrip­tures. the Tradition of the Church is easilier understood in those points which she undertakes to expound, than the Scriptures themselves, which are by her explained. For supposing the contrary, then were Creeds, Catechisms, and all the Church'es teaching needles; since of two things equally obscure, the one can never illustrate or explain the other. Therefore men may be more assured in many things of the doctrine and meaning of the Church, than of the Scriptures. As for example, tis easier (especially when not some single text is considered apart, but all those, which both sides urge, are confronted together) to understand what we are to hold, con­cerning the Trinity, from the Nicene Creed; and concerning Grace and Free-will, from the decrees of the Milevitan Council; than from the Scriptures. So, in Luther's time it was easie for those to know the Church'es tenent and practice concerning Ado­ration of the Eucharist, Auricular Confession, Invocation of Saints, &c. who were not able to examin the doctrine of the Scriptures in such points; so that it must be yeilded, that Tradition is a more evident Guide for many things, than those Sacred writings are.

6ly. Lastly; since this Tradition of divine things, in which §. 32. 6. That the Ch. is a suf­ficiently cer­tain Guide to us in do­ctrines pro­posed by her as Traditio­nary. above we have pleaded sufficient certainty to be, is contained in the Church, and delivered as it were from hand to hand by the successive Guides thereof; therefore let it be granted, That the Church (which pretends not to make any new Articles of Faith at all, but to recommend to her children what is deliver'd to her) is infallible, or a certain Guide to us in doctrines proposed by her as Traditionary, in the same manner as Tradition may be said to be infallible or certain. For to say Tradition is certain, is to say we have some way to know Tradition (suppose that Tradition of the Scriptures being God's word) without being deceived in it. and this way is the testimony of the Church; therefore is this also cer­tain.

Having made these Concessions concerning the evidence of Church-tradition, and the sufficient testimony it affords us to §. 33. Digression. That all tra­ditions car­ry not equal certainty. ground our faith on, at least in all the principal points of our reli­gion, wherein such Tradition (both as to delivering a sufficient Canon of Scripture, and the true meaning of this Canon) is most full and unquestionable: Yet I must mind you, before I proceed further, to avoid your mistaking, that I hold not all Traditions that we [Page 23] meet with to have an equal certainty or creditablenes, one as an­ther; because, all circumstances considered, they have not an e­qual evidence, but very different, and therefore ought carefully to be examined and compared. For example. The Tradition, that such a person (suppose Mahomet) lived in such an age, may have much more certainty, than that Mahomet or such a person said or did such or such a thing in that age. Neither is the argumentati­on good, The one is believed from Tradition, therefore the other ought to be so; because caetera non sunt paria, and there may not be the same plenitude of Tradition for both; and more may bear witness, both in that and latter times, of the one, than do of the o­ther. Of Traditions therefore some there are (and those as well within as without the Church) much more doubtful, obscure, and questionable, than others. For 1. both truths committed to Tradition may fail in successive times, (vel per omnimodam cessatio­nem, vel ex eo quod oppositum introducatur) viz. where Tradition is not come to a convenient and due pitch of universality (as is grant­ed by the strongest abettors of Tradition: See Dr. Hold. Resol. Fid. 1. lib. 8. cap.) And 2. the unfailing Tradition of successive times may be defective, in its first original's being false; or els in its hav­ing many falsities, in its current thro posterity, superadded to, and mingled with, the truth, as persons are interested or fanciful. As Gentilism did superadd many things to the ground-work of religi­on received from the Jew and writings of the Old Testament. For falsum poterit quodammodo, caeteris paribus, aeque certo ac verum per traditionem communicari: els lies cannot be commonly believed. But many such we know were credited amongst the Heathen con­cerning their Gods, and are, amongst the Mahometans concerning their Prophet: and so it may happen, that as undoubting an assent may be given to these, as is to the truth, (for ignorance many times doubts less of a thing than knowledg doth.) But yet this we contend, that it will never be so rational.

And indeed many disparities there are between the credibility of Heathenish or Mahometan, and of Christian, Tradition: * Such §. 34. Where concern­ing the Church'es and the Hea­then and Mahometan Traditions. as are in Heathenism these; † 1. that (except some foundations of religion borrowed from the Jews, and so free from error) there is no constancy or agreeance in the tradition thereof, but tis varying according to each city or country; whereby any one of them much fails of universality; and contradictory Tradition destroys it self. And 2ly that, † as we have said, that falsities under the notion of falsities may be conveyed by Tradition; so, many of the absurd [Page 24] stories of Heathenism seem not to be believed even by the most, or wisest, of those who propagated them, (therefore are their Poets their Divines, out of whom chiefly such tradition is learned).

And * Such as are in Mahometanism, these. † Its spread­ing, 1. * by the force of the Sword, contrary to the nature of Tra­dition, and 2ly, * by its plausibility and compliance with carnal lusts; both great corrupters of the truth of Tradition: whereas Christianity, flowing down to all ages in opposition to both these, by how much it was less pleasing, or less protected, seems to be strengthned in all times with so much greater evidence of truth, and testimony irresistible. † Its wanting that universality which Christianity possesseth, never having had so large a circuit (the Western part of the world having always bin a stranger to it), and the growth of it now for many ages being stopped, and it de­creasing in the world, and this great falshood by little and little giving place (as is seen in the Eastern Countreys) to its elder the Truth. I say these, and many other disparities there are, but be­sides these the main thing, whereby all such Traditions are con­vinced of falshood, lies in this, that they came into the world still later than that of the Truth; and so are known to be false by their contradiction to it, so that Truth against them may always plead prescription. * So Heathenism was younger than the Tra­dition of God's word in the Old Testament: (and so indeed than the Gospel, which also was contained in the Old Testament, and taught from the beginning: see Rom. 3. 21, 23.) So that I may say, Heathenism was the Antichristianism of the former Ages, springing up after the tradition of God's true worship. Again, * so Mahometanism was later than the tradition of the New Testament, being the Antichristianism of the last times: but lest the world, I mean that part of it to whom it pleased God to divulge the truth, by false traditions should be deceived, God hath always provided true Tradition to pre-occupate Faith, and to anticipate and anti­date error. Therefore tho we yeild to the truth also of Mahometan tradition in some things; as that there was such a one as Mahomet, a Law-giver, a Conqueror. &c. yet we know that Tradition, that he received his writings from the Angel Gabriel, &c. to be false, be­cause contrary to that divine Tradition, which, besides many o­ther advantages, ought from its antiquity to be preferred; God having given to Truth the Eldership of Falshood. And on the same grounds may we reject that Heathen-tradition in the Acts, of the Image of Diana falling from God, &c.

[Page 25] III. And thus much be granted concerning the certainty which Faith may receive from the external motives or proponents, the §. 35. 3 Concern­ing the cer­tainty which Faith may receive from the inward operation of God's Spi­rit. Scriptures, Church, and Tradition. 3ly. Concerning the illumi­nation, adherence, certitude, which this Faith, that ordinarily first cometh by hearing, receives from the inward operation of God's Spirit, 1. First let it be granted; that the interior working of the Holy Spirit opening the heart is always required, besides the out­ward means, for the conception of all saving Faith: that we can­not exercise any act thereof without particular grace and motion Concessions concerning the Spirit. 1. That it is always re­quired be­sides out­ward mean. of the Holy Ghost; that it is the infused Gift of God, as well as other graces of hope and charity; (see Jo. 6. 29, 44, 45, 64, 65. Matt. 11. 25, 26.—16. 17. Act. 13. 48.—16. 14, 15. Rom. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 3, 9. 2 Cor. 3. 3. Gal. 5. 22, 23. Eph. 1. 17. &c.—2. 8.—6. 23. See Ben. Spir. p.) Whence Faith is said to be supernatu­ral, as in respect, * of its object, things above the comprehension of reason, and * of its ultimate ground it builds upon, which is divine revelation; so * of its act, being caused by the Spirit. All the acts of faith being in some kind supernatural, for such a degree of ad­herence as they have, both because the relater or proponent there­of is many times not (at least known to be) infallible; and because the object thereof many times (tho there be all certainty from the relater) is capable of much doubt and vacillancy from its superna­turalness, and seeming-repugnancy to reason. Therefore we see our first Father, or at least his wife (see 1 Tim. 2. 14.) failed in not believing the words spoken by God himself to him: and the Di­sciples, when rationally believing our Saviour to be the Son of God, and all he said to be truth, and seeing his miracles, yet desired the increase of their faith, and were in it many times not a little shaken, thro the contrariety or transcendency which it had to sense or reason. And it is reckoned to Abraham as strong faith, that he believed the word of God himself, in things contrary to nature, (See Rom. 4. 18, 19, 20.) which Sarah his wife flagg'd in. See Gen. 18. 12. 2 King. 7. 2. Thus Faith, to make it vigorous and lively, comes necessarily to be a work of the Spirit, either in regard of the sublimity of its object, or also, of the incertainty of the Pro­ponent.

2ly. Again, let it be granted as freely, That that Faith which is §. 36. 1. That all Faith wrought by the Sp [...]rit is infallible. the Gift of God, and work of the Spirit, must needs be infallible, and exempt from all possibility of error; because the supreme ve­rity cannot inspire a falshood.

[Page 26] 3ly. Let it be granted also, That the Spirit produceth many times in the soul such a supernatural and undiscursive light, and evi­dence §. 37. 3. That sometimes the Spirit produceth evidence be­yond sci­ence, &c. to the understanding, and (following this) such a strong inclination of the will, and adherence of the affections to the mat­ter believed, as do far exceed all science, sense, experience, demon­stration: Tho this intuitive, rather than argumentative or proba­tive of such truths, either to other's, or, our own, reason (which this Spirit captivates, and brings into obedience) * moving us to the strongest faith upon very small evidence (and the smaller the evidence, the stronger the power of the Spirit) against many temp­tations of infidelity; and * opening the heart to such a degree of undoubtedness, that we are willing to undergo any Martyrdom, rather than quit and renounce our belief. See for such certainty, 2 Tim. 1. 12. Act. 2. 36. Jo. 6. 69.

IV. All this therefore being granted; namely, That all true sav­ing §. 38. 4. Th [...]t from these concessions it follows not, that all who s [...]ving­ly believe have, or must have, aninfallible, or such suf­ficient cer­tainty as may possi­bly be had, of what they believe, faith is grounded on God's word, which is infallible; That all true faith is wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which Spirit is in­fallible; That there is a certainty or assurance sufficient (if not in­fallible) to be had from universal Church-tradition of both the former; namely both * that such writings, on which our faith is grounded, are God's word, and such their meaning; and conse­quently * that the belief of such things contained in them is the work of God's Spirit. Yet our Query remains still uncleared: Whe­ther (I say not, some, for I grant many have, but) every one that truly and savingly believes, must have an infallible certainty of his faith; or must have a known-to-him infallible teacher or motive ex­ternal, (as Tradition;) or internal, (as the Spirit); to ground his faith upon: by which he is (not fully perswaded, but also) ratio­nally sure of the truth of that which he believes? And this to me (notwithstanding the former Concessions) seems not at all neces­sary, for the producing of a saving Faith.

And first for the assurance we may have from the Scriptures; by knowing either in general that they are the word of God; or that §. 39. N [...]i [...]ther from the e­vidences * of Scrip­tures. in such places or points, where their sense is doubtful, this and no other is the certain meaning of them; I have shewed (§. 23. and 35.), That the knowing this must either be devolved upon Eccle­stastical Tradition, or upon the Spirit.

And first for the assurance of these Scriptures, and so of our faith, §. 40. Nor * of the Spirit. from the inward testimony of the Spirit, (to which many fly for [Page 27] succour; and first taking this for granted, that every believer must be infallibly certain of his faith, and then that tradition, tho the most full, (and much more any private instructer,) being some way liable to errour, sufficeth not for to produce such an effect, they labour to ground this certainty upon the assurance of God's Spirit.) None can plead this at all from our faith being caused by this Spirit: for it follows not, that if the Spirit begets faith infalli­ble in our hearts, or also the most unexpugnable adherence there­to, therefore we know this faith to be begotten by the Spirit; or if it move us, that therefore we can certainly tell when it doth so, so that we can say, to this God's Spirit moveth me to assent, to this not. For we may have from the Spirit the greatest perswasion, or internal evidence (if you will) of a truth that may be imagined, and yet not have any rational or discursive evidence thereof from it; neither by other proofs, nor by this (which is sufficient) that we clearly discern the good Spirit to produce it: since the like as­surance or confidence, to some degree, is frequently begotten by an impetuous lust, or by the evil Spirit, for most pernicious errors; so nearly imitating the Spirit of illumination, as not to be discerna­ble from it by this sign of strong perswasion, since many have had it so strong as to dye for them. The assurance therefore or full perswasion of a Divine truth by the Spirit, is one thing; the assurance, that this assurance cometh from the Spirit, is another. And indeed, tho in some general things, as of the Bible being the Word of God, and of some universally-believed points of faith, all men are con­fident of their assurance in them, that it is from God's Spirit, be­cause indeed all Christians are in these agreed; yet, in descending to particulars, as, whether such or such a Book of Scripture be God's Word, or be written by an heavenly-inspired author; whether such a particular point of faith be to be stated thus, or so; whether such be certainly the meaning of some particular place of Scripture, here I say, where there is contradiction and doubt between parties, few there are, who will offer to plead such assurance from the Spirit, as that they cannot be mistaken; but labour to inform themselves as well as others, the best they can, from other reasons. And in­deed did the Spirit thus always bear witness to it self; had we any such internal assurance ordinarily, (for, extraordinary assurances of it, happening to some greater Saints of God in very many things, I deny not) I mean not of the belief of the thing, but that such be­lief of the thing cometh from the Spirit, there needed no more confirmation of any point, either from Church, or universal Tra­dition, or collation of other Scriptures, or any other way, but this [Page 28] For thus, tho some men might profess an error against conscience, yet err in very deed, in matter of Divine faith, none could; for, knowing that the Spirits operation is necessary to all true faith, and knowing again when it operates; he may be sure that that which it operates not, is no true faith. But this sufficiently argues, that there is no such ordinary effect thereof, in that the pretenders of the Spirit so frequently by this Spirit contradict one another: and indeed this arrogant perswasion, and ultimate refuge of singu­larity, hath bin the great Source of all Heresie and Schism, by rea­son of mens departing from Tradition, and from the Church, up­on confidence of this. Therefore we conclude a man may believe by the efficiency of the Spirit, and yet not certainly know its effi­ciency; and may know that by it he believes all, which he truly believes in divine matters, and yet not know, that by it he believes such or such a particular thing. So that tho this be laid for a ground, That all true Faith is the work of the Spirit, yet we must by Scripture, or, in things doubtful, by the Church'es traditionary exposition thereof, first know our faith to be true; and thence by consequence gather, that it is the work of the Spirit; not è contra argue, that it is the work of the Spirit, (in which we may easily be deceived,) Ergo, That it is true.

This for the Spirit. In the next place to come to consider, Whe­ther all, to have true and saving faith, must be rationally assured §. 41. Nor * of Church-Tradition. thereof from the to-them-known Church-tradition. And here we will grant, as tis said before, 1. That there is in Tradition sufficient ground for such assurance as is necessary: and that it is a medium, for necessary points of faith, free from error. 2. That the saith of very many hath this rational assurance, and that any, or most, by some reasonable diligence may attain it for necessary points, from the traditionary doctrine and practice, which they may see and hear dispersed thro the Church: for doubtles our care­ful Saviour hath provided a rational means sufficient for producing a full perswasion of faith in all sorts of men there, where his Gos­pel is preached; and this means, all men, for the ascertaining of their faith, as much as may be are bound to seek after all their life, according to their condition &c. 3. That the Church-de­crees may be certainly known, and are easily understood, and more easily in many things than the Scriptures; namely, where these happen to be doubtful to us, (and doubtful they are or should be, where ever Church-tradition expounds them otherwise than we,) and hence that (this point being supposed that the Church is infalli­ble) [Page 29] those who believing her to be so, do rely upon her judgment, have for the most part a stronger perswasion, and those knowing her to be so, have a more rational assurance of the truth of their faith in all other points, than only relying on the perspicuity of Scriptures: because the former persons faith rests on a double ground; the saying of Scripture, and the sense of the Church in­terpreting it. And thus one adhering to the tradition and do­ctrines of the Church, hath more warrant for his Faith, than a sin­gle Scripturist. 4. That those, who hold Church-tradition falli­ble can have no other way an infallible evidence, whereby they can demonstrate the truth of their faith.

But, all these granted; yet such a degree and measure of cer­tainty §. 42. or assurance, as that of Tradition or Church-infallibility is, seems not to be necessary to make faith salvifical; or defect of such a motive sufficient to void it, and render it no true, divine, and acceptable faith, but an humane opinion and perswasion; as some contend. But saving faith may be begotten, where the proponent of the word of God, or of divine revelation, mediate or immediate, is not, or at least is not known to be (which is all one with the for­mer to the believer's certainty) infallible: and it sufficeth to it, that what one believes, is the word of God; and that he believe it (in some degree or other predominant to unbelief) to be so. And this I think may be shewn in many instances, and by many rea­sons.

1. For first, some at least of those primitive converts of the Apostles (questionles endued with true faith, yet) believed before §. 43. For these following Reasons. any certainty of the infallibity of their teachers, or before, or with­out seeing their miracles (tho these also seen afforded to some no certainty, who thought that such might be done by the Devil's power, see Matt. 12. 24. Deut. 13. 1.) meerly by the powerful ope­ration of God's Spirit. So the Eunuch, to be a true believer, need­ed no more than the bare exposition and relation of S. Philip: So Cornelius, and his friends, some words of St. Peter: The Jaylor and Lydia, of S. Paul; strangers, and formerly altogether unknown to them; the Holy Ghost presently unlocking their hearts, and finish­ing the work. For so the three thousand converted by S. Peter in one day, supposing he at that time wraught miracles, yet tis not probable, that all these were spectators of them; or yet auditors of his doctrine from his own mouth; but believed only the relati­ons of others, persons fallible, who stood near him. The Bereans, why examined they the Apostles doctrines, if they knew or e­steemed [Page 30] him infallible? The Believers at Antioch, zealous of the law, why contested they with St. Paul? and those of Jerusalem with S. Peter, Act. 11. 2. if acknowledging them infallible? Or the weaker brethren, tho of the number of true Believers, why doubted they long time of some meats unclean, contrary to the Apostle's instruction? Tis true, that whoever believes that which another relates, must ipso facto believe the relater in that thing not to be deceived; but yet he, who in any other one thing doth not believe him, doth not believe him to be infallible. And granting that all the primitive Christians assented to the infallibi­lity of the Hierosolymitan Council; yet many points of their faith were learned not from the Council, but private Doctors, whom I have shewed that some of them accounted not infallible, nor yet was their faith nullified thereby.

2. Believers, no way heretical or schismatical, but submitting §. 44. unto the Church in all things, and believing her and her traditions to be infallible, &c, and consequently, whose faith is allowed by the most rigid exactors of certainty to be most safe and secure, yet, if things be well examined, all of them cannot be said to have an infallible means, or motive, or proponent of their faith: I mean so many as are neither able to search the H. Scriptures, nor the Tra­dition of former times, nor universal present Tradition, nor yet the Catechisms and common writings of the Church; neither for o­ther points, nor yet for this, That the Church, or the Tradition they rely upon, is infallible: But being young, (as many undoubtedly are made faithful Christians, when children) or illiterate, necessitated to handy-labour, quiescent in one place, or perhaps inhabiting de­serts and solitudes, &c, do receive the doctrine of their faith (be­lieving and yeilding obedience thereto) only from their Parents, or the Curate of the place, or from their bare reading, or hearing read some portion of Scripture, recommended to them for, but not proved at all to them to be, the word of God. Believing indeed what is truth, and obeying it, but having no more external argument or assurance thereof, than another (suppose educated in an erroneous Church, and taking the false Tradition thereof for Apostolical) hath of his error? Now private teachers even with­in the Church may first possibly by their negligence be themselves ignorant, or rationally uncertain of what they teach; and a Ca­tholic Priest be able to give no better account for his religion, than the Protestant; both inheriting their tenents from their next Ancestors. For Error once begun is propagated afterward by [Page 31] Tradition, as well as Truth. Or 2ly, being rationally certain of the truth, yet may he wilfully, for filthy lucre, for fear, for lascivi­ousnes, &c, (see 1 Thes. 2. 3, 5, 6. 2 Pet. 2. 14.) misguide his disci­ples. Or 3. lastly, teaching only the truth which he perfectly knows, yet is this his certainty, tho something to the truth of the others faith, nothing to their certitude thereof, as long as they are not certain that he is not deceived. Neither doth any ones be­lieving the Church to be infallible ascertain him of the truth of his faith, if he believe this her infallibility only upon the relation of his Pastor; for so he hath no more certainty of the Church'es in­fallibility, than he hath of the truth of such a relation; which we have shewed is liable to error. And then again, it is much to be noted, that one believing only, and not being certain of the Church'es infallibility, tho he immediately received all his do­ctrines from her self, yet this could produce no certainty of the truth of what he receives: it being no good consequence, I believe such a one is infallible, therefore I am certain what he saith is true. But lastly, let one be certain of this one point, That the Church or her tradition is infallible, (which how many are there, that can­not clearly prove?) and then from this known let him have in­fallible certainty at once of all other points whatsoever, that are delivered by her or it; yet supposing any to learn what are these her doctrines, not from her self, but from his private Curate, (which doubtles many true believers within the Church'es com­munion do,) his faith cannot plead any certainty this way. For there is some distance between my knowing the Churche's tradi­tion to be infallible, and knowing in every point what is her tra­dition. That which is said by Mr. Knot [against Chill. p. 64, and 358.] in this point; That a fallible motive applying divine revelation by God's supernatural concours may produce an infallible act of faith, is granted. But then this act of faith is infallible not from the pro­ponent, but God's Spirit; (in respect of which, as is shewed be­fore) all saving, is also infallible, faith, but not therefore known al­ways to the believer to be infallible. See before §. 38. Again; that which is said by Dr. Holden, Resol. fidei 1. l. 2. [...]. That their faith, who depend on their Pastors instructions, is tutissima, ipsique in re­bus fidei securi, modo sint membra illius Ecclesiae, quae veritatem omnem revelatam amplectitur & docet; cujusque pastores & rectores medii [istius], quo sibi divina haec doctrina applicatur, veram & rationalem habuerint certitudinem, is also granted; but it seems to affirm only sufficient safety in their faith, without their certainty of the truth thereof.

[Page 32] Now as those of one side cannot plead their faith certain and in­fallible from their hearing and believing their private Pastor; so §. 45. neither may those of another side from their reading and believing, and resolving their faith into the Holy Scriptures. For since, not so much the Letter of Scripture, as the Sense, is the infallible word and revelation of God; and the letter many times is capable not only, when in expression ambiguous, of divers senses; but also, when most seemingly-plain, of another sense than they import, because of the consonancy they are to have with some other Scrip­tures, lest God's word be made to contradict: Hence is one man's Bible, where thus ambiguous, as fallible a proponent to him, in re­spect of the possibility of his mis-intepreting it, as another man's Pastor, in respect of his possibility of erring. And indeed the for­mer interpreting Scripture to himself seems to be less infallible in his faith, than the other learning of his Pastor expounding it; be­cause he is more likely to mistake the sense thereof than the other; els why is he appointed for his teacher, whose faith he is to follow, Heb. 13. 7? tho I affirm a sufficient and saving faith may be, and is, attained by either means, hearing ones Pastor, or reading the Scripture.

3. Since all saving faith in us is the effect of the Spirit, why may not our faith be so, without any precedent rational certainty §. 46. thereof? According as it seems before granted; That God's super­natural concours may advance an act of faith relying on a fallible mo­tive, into a belief infallible, why may not this Spirit shew its strength then in the weaknes of external proposal? But if we sup­pose it a partial cause, and add to it for the production of faith not only some external proponent, (which that there is (ordinarily) is granted,) but this infallible, and known also to be so: Then [to say nothing of the instances given before of the contrary; nor to urge here, why such an infallible proponent sometimes at least, namely where the matter of our belief is (as in many things it is) most conformable to reason, should not be a sufficient cause to beget saving faith, without the supernatural concours of God's Spirit, and what needs that to be also spi­ritually, which is rationally, discerned?] I ask what do we mean by a stronger and a weaker faith so often mentioned in Scripture? Do we mean several degrees thereof, the least of which is certain? No. For we find doubt, nay some degree of unbelief, and that of the same thing, sometime mixed with true faith. See Mar. 9. 24. Mat. 14. 31. Which unbelief or doubt, that it never happens in respect of the truth of the relation, but always only in the super­naturalnes [Page 33] of the object, I think none can rationally affirm. See Luk. 24. 11. Only if there be not so much of assent, as to turn the scale of our judgment, then will it not be faith, but either pure doubt, or, (further) unbelief. Faith therefore as it comes both from the outward hearing of God's word, and the several proofs thereof, and also by the inward operation of the Spirit, so is it ca­pable of many degrees, both from the several evidence of those proofs, and also from the several influence of the Spirit: God giv­ing more external evidence to one, than to another: (as to those who see miracles, or who read and compare Scriptures and Coun­cils, than to those who only hearken to their Pastor); and, upon the same evidence made to many, God giving a stronger adherence to such a truth to one, than to another; either * from the energy of the Spirit; thro which many can die for Christ, that cannot well dispute for him: or also * from a natural more passionate tem­per; or * from hiding from them contrary verisimilities, and * from ignorance of the weapons of error &c. So the unlearned many times believe and adhere to a truth more strongly thro ignorance of any arguments to the contrary, than the learned do to the same thro reason assaulted with many doubts; and a small argument to a weak understanding begets a more firm credence, than a stronger to the learned. So a true believer may be less confident, thro a rational perswasion, in his faith, than another thro the violence of a misguiding lust, in his falshood: nay; he may have less reason or proofs (tho there be more) for the one, than this man hath for the other; and yet his faith vivifical and acceptable; and oftimes there is the greatest glory and merit in it, when having stronger adherence upon smaller evidence, (provided, no evidence attaina­ble be neglected. 1 Pet 3. 15.) See Jo. 20. 29. The reason of which is; because faith is no way acceptable to God or saving, so far as it is by true or by seeming demonstration forced upon the understanding, with a reluctance mean-while of the will; for then the faith of Devils would be so, who doubtles have much more evi­dence of their faith, than many Christians) but only so far as it is embraced and accepted of by the will, and affections, and in some manner becomes our election and choice: which election, so con­trary in many things to the flesh, being never made without the power of the Spirit; hence chiefly is faith, such as is saving, said to be its work. See Ben. Spirit. §.

4. Again; if men for the sufficiency of their faith depended on the infallibility of the Church or her traditions, it follows, none §. 47. [Page 34] can have of any thing true faith, which is not first determined by the Church, or known from universal Tradition. Therefore none can be said fide divina to believe, or assent to any of those Theolo­gical verities which are ordinarily drawn by clear and necessary consequence from the Scriptures, and (tho not by the Church) de­cided by the Schools: which seems absurd.

5. Lastly, Let but a rational certainty from the infallibility of Tradition be necessarily required to faith for one point; namely §. 48. this, That our Scriptures are God's word; (for which all sides are a­greed in admitting it,) and I do not see how it can be denied, that for many other points, i. e. those wherein God's word is clear, and which are by no side controverted, one may be sufficiently certain from the Scriptures themselves independently on the Church or Tradition, fave for the one point above-named. For since God's word may be in some things (I mean such as are uncontroverted) as plain and consonant to it self as any Synod-Catechism, if such a Catechism is thought a sufficient ground to one to assure his faith, why may not the Scripture?

Now after all, that I may not seem to you, in this my judgment, heterodox, at least to other Catholic writers, you may be pleased §. 49. to view what Estius, the famous Divinity-Professor at Doway, and what Card. Lugo a Spanish Jesuit, have delivered on this subject. See Card. Lugo, tom. de virtute fidei, dis. 1. §. 12. n. 247. &c. where he brings reasons for this opinion, not much differing from those above-mentioned. As 1. Since the belief of Infallibility it self must be produced from some other motives, if such motives be suf­ficient for the begetting the faith of this, why may they not be suf­ficient for some point of faith besides it? 2. New converts em­brace and truly believe some other articles of faith, before they are acquainted with that of Infallibility. 3. Rusticks commonly re­solve their faith into no further proof than their Parish-Priest, and what he relates to them. 4ly. Under the law of nature before Moses, most were believing only upon the authority of their Pa­rents, without any Church-proposal. His words are these, num. 247.—Probatur facile; quia hoc ipsum [Ecclesiam habere autho­ritatem infallibilem ex assistentia Spiritus Sancti] creditur fide di­vina, quae docet in Ecclesia esse hujusmodi authoritatem, ergo ante ipsius fidei assensum non potest requiri cognitio hujus infallibilis authoritatis. Et experientia docet, non omnes pueros vel adultos, qui de novo ad fi­dem accedunt, concipere in Ecclesia hanc infallibilem authoritatem & [Page 35] assistentiam Spiritus Sancti, antequam ullum alium articulum credant. Credunt enim articulos in ordine quo proponuntur. Hunc autem articu­lum authoritatis Ecclesiae contingit credi, postquam alios plures credide­runt. Solum ergo potest ad summum praerequiri, cognoscere, res fidei proponi ab Ecclesia; concipiendo in Ecclesia secundum se authoritatem maximam humanam, quae reperitur in universa fidelium congregatione. Again; num. 252. Probatur Conclusio: 1. Quia in primis in lege naturae plures credebant ex sola doctrina parentum sine alia Ecclesiae pro­positione. Deinde in lege scripta plures crediderunt Moysi & aliis Prophetis, antequam eorum Prophetiae ab Ecclesia reciperentur & propo­nerentur; quia soil. vitae sanctitate, & rerum convenientia, & aliis de causis objectum reddebatur prudenter credibile; praesertim cum vide­rent aliqua ex iis, quae Prophetiae praedicebant, quotidie impleri.—De­nique in lege Evangelica Act, 3. & 4. c. Beatus Petrus, miraculo fa­cto, testatus est se illud fecisse in nomine Christi; &, nulla facta men­tione authoritatis Ecclesiae vel suae, convertit tria millia hominum, qui sane prudenter moti sunt, licet non conciperent Ecclesiae authoritatem. And num. 251. Non requiritur ex natura rei Ecclesiae propositio ad cre­dendum. In all which note, that this Author speaks of sides divina & salvifica, as appeareth, in the first instance naming fides divina; in St. Peter's converts &c. and all his discourse otherwise were be­sides the purpose.

See Estius to the same purpose, in 3. sent. 23. dist. 13. sect. where after many considerable arguments he goes on.—Fidei imperti­nens §. 50. esse, quo medio Deus utatur ad conferendum homini donum fidei; quamvis enim nunc ordinarium medium sit Ecclesiae testificatio & do­ctrina; constat tamen aliis viis seu mediis fidem collatam fuisse ali­quando, & adhuc conferri &c. Nam antiqui multi, ut Abraham, Melchisedech, Job, ex speciali revelatione; Apostoli ex Christi mira­culis & sermone; rursus ex Apostolorum praedicatione & miraculis alii fidem conceperunt; alii denique aliis modis crediderunt, cum nondum de infallibilitate Ecclesiae quicquam eis esset annunciatum. Sic ergo sieri po­test, ut aliquis non inhaerens doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam regulae infalli­bili quaedam ad fidem pertinentia pro Dei verbo recipiat, quia vel nunc vel olim miraculis confirmata sunt, vel etiam quia veterem Ecclesiam sic docuisse manifeste videt, vel alia quacunque ratione inductus, licet alia quaedam credere recuset.—Again; Haereticus potest quaedam te­nere ea firmitate assensus & promptitudine voluntatis, qua ab aliis om­nia quae fidei sunt tenentur. Again; Nihil vetat, quo minus haeretici, quamvis in multis errent, in aliis tamen sic divinitus per fidem illustra­ti sint, ut recte credant. Where note, that Estius also speaks of sides [Page 36] vera, and fides donum Dei quo divinitus illustramur, such as that was of Abraham, Melchisedech, and the Apostles converts. And note a­gain, that tho this Fides vera & divina is in no Heretick's integra, as to all points of faith perfect, because if one failed not in some point of faith he could be no Heretick; yet many times it is not his meer misbelief of that point for which he is accounted an heretick, which excludes him from salvation: Because perhaps many good Catholicks, before the Church'es determination, have mis-believed the same point (as for example the point of rebaptization) as well as he, without any danger to their salvation. But that which con­demns him is, that he hath fidem (tho divinam,) yet not operantem per charitatem, that he is obstinate and disobedient to the Church'es orders and decrees; or (if you will) that he dis-believes this great Article of Faith, (which dis-belief is the fountain of his dis-obedi­ence,) That the Church hath such an Authority committed to her by Christ, as that he ought to conform to all her determinations, and pre­serve in every thing the unity of her faith. [Of the Donatists, here­ticks, thus S. Aug. (Gesbacum Emerito.) Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam potest [Emeritus (Evangelium tenere, potest in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, fidem & habere & praedicare, sed nusquam nisi in Ecclesia Catholica salutem poterit invenire, giving the reason after­ward,—quia charitatem non habet: and (Ep. 48. ad Vincentium,)—Nobiscum estis in Baptismo, in Symbolo, in caeteris Dominicis Sa­cramentis, in spiritu autem unitatis & vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique Catholica. Ecclesia nobiscum non estis.] To Estius and Lugo add a third, Layman, a Casuist of great reputation. Thus he therefore, Theolog. moral. 2. l. 1. Tract. 5. c.—Fieri saepe solet, ut alii Articuli fidei nostrae, puta, quae sunt de Deo Uno & Trino, explicite credantur ante hunc, qui est de infallibili Ecclesiae authoritate. Quinimo haec Ecclesiae infallibilitas Spiritus Sancti promissione nititur: ergo prius oportet credere Spiritum Sanctum, adeoque Trinitatem in divinis esse. Praeterea constat, Beatissimam Virginem, Apostolos, primosque Chri­stianos fide divina credidisse; non ob authoritatem Ecclesiae, quae vel fun­data non erat, (v. g. cum S. Petrus credidit Christum esse Filium Dei vivi, Mat. 16.) vel nondum fidei dogmata definierat.—Again, For­male assentiendi principium, seu motivum, non est Ecclesiae authoritas. Si enim ex te quaeram, Cur credas, Deum esse incarnatum? responde­asque, Quia Ecclesia Catholica, quae errare non potest, ob S. Spiri­tus assistentiam, ita testatur: iterum ex te quaeram, Unde id scias; vel, cur credas Ecclesiam non errare, vel S. Spiritum ei assistere? Quare recte dicit Canus, l. 2. de loc. Theol. 8. c. post med. Si gene­raliter quaeratur, Unde fideli constet, ea quae fide tenet esse a Deo revela­ta, [Page 37] non poterit infallibilem Ecclesiae authoritatem adducere; quia unum ex revelatis est, quod Ecclesia errare non possit. Interim non nega­mus (saith he) quin resolutio fidei in authoritatem Ecclesiae, quatenus Spiritu Sancto regitur, fieri possit, & communiter soleat a sidelibus ipsis, qui infallibilem Spiritus Sancti assistentiam, ac directionem, Ecclesiae promissam certa fide tenent: his enim ejus testimonium, ac definitio cer­ta regula est ad alios articulos amplectendos.—Imo talis regula, seu norma exurgentibus circa fidem dubiis, omnino nobis necessaria est, put a ad discernendum Scripturam Canonicam ab Apocrypha; traditiones ve­ras a falsis; denique credenda a non credendis;—Sententia Scoti & Gabrielis, qui in resolutione recurrere videntur ad fidem acquisitam propter authoritatem Ecclesiae, quatenus ea est illustris congregatio tot ho­minum excellentium: Exempli causa; Credo Deum esse incarnatum, quia divinitus revelatum est; revelatum autem hoc esse divinitus, seu revelationem hanc a Deo profectam esse ideo accepto, seu credo (fide acquisita,) quia it a scriptum est in Evangelio S. Johannis, cui omnis Ecclesia, seu congregatio hominum vitae innocentia, sapien­tia illustrium, testimonium & assensum praebet: Haec sententia (in­quam) si recte explicetur, a vero aliena non est. Non enim mens est Doctorum illorum, quod fidei divinae assensus in fidem acquisitam prop­ter authoritatem Ecclesiae resolvatur, tanquam in principium; sed tan­quam in extrinsecum adjumentum, & conditionem sine qua non. Et­enim authoritas illa Ecclesiae, non quatenus consideratur ut organum Spiritus Sancti; sed ut illustris congregatio hominum prudentum &c. est quidem formale principium credendi side humana; sed non fide divina. Quia fides divina est, qua Deo dicenti credimus ob authoritatem & ve­ritatem ejus: consequenter qui credit propter authoritatem hominum, vel simile motivum humanum, is fide solum humana credit. Accedit quod (sicuti ipsemet Scotus & Gabriel argumentantur) assensus cogno­scitivus non possit excedere certitudinem principii, quo nititur: assen, us autem fidei divinae certitudinem infallibilem habet: ergo fieri non potest, ut assensus fidei divinae, tanquam principio nitatur authoritate hominum, vel simili motivo humano, quippe quod secundum se absolute fallibile est.—Major autem, imo maxima & certissima animi adhaesio, quam sides di­vina continet, non ex viribus naturae, aut humanis persuasionibus pro­venit; sed ab auxilio Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui & liberae voluntati nostrae. By this it seems, that ultima resolutio sidei divi­nae is in illam certitudinem, quam habemus per auxilium Spiritus Sancti &c.] Hear then his last stating of the point.—Quod ad forma­lem, de qua nunc agimus, fidei resolutionem attinet; expeditus ac ve­rus dicendi modus est iste, [citing Cajetan for it 2. 2. q. 1. a. 1.] Quod si­des divina ex parte objecti, ac motivi formalis resolvatur in auhorita­tem [Page 38] Dei revelantis: Credo Deum esse incarnatum; [Credo] Eccle­siae item definientis authoritatem infallibilem esse; quia prima & summa veritas id nobis revelavit. [But if you ask, whence or why he believeth Deum summam veritatem id revelasse; he goeth on,] Deum autem veracem talia nobis revelasse, ulterius resolvi, vel per fidem [i. e. divinam] probari, non potest, nec debet: quandoquidem principia resolutionis non probantur, sed supponuntur. [I wonder why he adds not here, that the believer hath fidem divinam & infallibilem, Deum veracem talia revelasse ex auxilio Spiritus S. succurrentis intellectui &c. for he saith it before. But then, if asked again; How he knows or believes that this his faith Deum revelasse &c, is ex auxilio Spiri­tus Sancti; here at least he must have stay'd as at the first principle of Resolution of Faith divine. But now, that fides, which he calls humana, and fallible, can go on further, and give a ground or motive why it believes Deum veracem talia revelasse, or se hanc fidem, Deum revelasse, habere ex auxilio Spiritus Sancti, and this a motive mo­rally infallible; namely consensum Ecclesiae, or Universal Tradition: concerning which he thus goes on.] Verum in ordine ad nos, re­velatio divina credibilis & acceptabilis fit per extrinseca motiva, inter quae unum ex praecipuis merito censetur authoritas & consensus Ecclesiae, tot saeculis, tanto numero hominum clarissimorum florentis: [But then this evident or morally-infallible motive is not held always neces­sary neither, for the humane inducement to divine faith. For he goes on:] quamvis id non unicum, neque simpliciter necessarium mo­tivum est: quandoquidem non omnes eodem modo, sed alii aliter ad fi­dem Christi amplectendam moventur. (His adde.)—Non tantum va­riis motivis homines ad fidem amplectendam moveri; sed etiam alios aliis facilius, partim propter majorem internam Spiritus sancti illustra­tionem & impulsionem, sicuti not avit Valentia q. 1. p. 4. arg. 18. par­tim propter animi sui simplicitatem, quia de opposito errore persuasionem nullam conceperunt. Qua ratione pueri apud Catholicos, cum ad usum rationis pervenerunt, acceptant sidei mysteria, tanquam divinitus reve­lata, quia natu majores & prudentes, quos ipsi norunt, ita credere ani­madvertunt. So then; if all saving faith must be sides divina infal­lible, that which can rightly be produced to advance sides humana into it, is not the authority of Scriptures, or of the Church, (for Qui credit propter authoritatem hominum, vel simile motivum huma­num, is fide solum humana credit); but only auxilium Spiritus Sancti succurrentis intellectui &c, in the stating of this learned Casuist. Thus you see by what is quoted here out of Estius, Lugo, and Layman, that the moderate Catholick writers concede divine and salvifical faith where no infallibility of any outward evidence [Page 39] or motive. And perhaps it might conduce much more to the pray­ed-for union of Christ's Church, if so many Controvertists on all sides (perhaps out of an opinion of necessary zeal to maintain their own cause to the uttermost) did not embrace the extreamest opi­nions; by which they give too much cause to their adversaries to remain unsatisfied, and to make easie and specious replies, being helped also by the more moderate writers of the other side: As if they chiefly endeavoured to fright their enemies from any yeild­ing or hearkning to a peace, whilst they hold it still upon higher terms than those the Church Catholick proposeth; which hath redounded to the multiplication of many needles controversies.

From what hath bin said I think we may infer, 1. First; That it is not necessary to true and saving faith, that all the mediums by §. 51. Necessary Inferences upon the former rea­sons. which we attain to it be infallible. That neither an infallible Judg, nor a known-infallible argument from the Scriptures or writ­ings of Fathers, &c. is absolutely necessary to it; but that it is sufficient to believe the things revealed by God, as revealed by him, (see §. 1.) holding whatever is his word to be infallible, (which is a principle to all men, and needs no proof,) by what weak means soever we attain the knowledge of such revelations; whether it be by Scriptures, Catechisms read, or Parents, Pastors instructing, yea tho these instructers did not know whether there were any Scriptures, (as the Eunuch believed without those of the New Testament,) and how unevident soever their confirmation thereof to us be; only if we receive from them (whether from the credit we give to their authority, or to their argument) so much light, as (together with the inward operation of the Spirit, open­ing the heart to receive and accept of it, of which Spirit yet we are not so certainly sensible, as to know the proper movings there­of, for then this were a motive all-sufficient without Scripture or Teacher) doth sway and perswade the understanding, and so pro­duceth obedience. Which faith, tho it is not such, for its imme­diate ground, as cui non potest subesse falsum, by reason of any hu­mane evidence it hath; yet many times it is such, as cui non subest dubium, of which we doubt no more than we do of a Demonstra­tion, by reason of the strong adherence we have to it, either from the power of God's Spirit, or probability of arguments &c. See §. 35. &c. But neither is this actual non-doubting necessary, (for there is many times doubting in a true (but weak) faith, see §. 46.) but this is enough, if any thing be so far made probable, as that it turns the ballance of our judgment so far as to win our as­sent: [Page 40] nay, nothing can be without sin disbelieved, which seems generally (including here also the argument from authority) more probable than another thing, tho it have no demonstration. Which demonstration, or also an infallible proponent, that the faith of most men wants, see the plain confession (as it seems to me) of Mr. Knot, in his Answer to Mr. Chillingworth, 4. cap, p. 358. ‘A man may exercise (saith he) an infallible act of faith, tho his im­mediate instructer or proposer be not infallible; because he be­lieves upon a ground which both is believed by him to be infalli­ble, and is such indeed, to wit, the word of God; who there­fore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every true act of divine faith. Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be no means left for the faith and salvation of unlearned persons; from whom God exacts no more, but that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their several capacities, and use such diligence as men ought in a matter of highest mo­ment. All Christians of the primitive Church were not present, when the Apostles spoke or wrote, yea, it is not certain, that eve­ry one of those thousands, whom St. Peter converted, did hear every sentence he spoke, but might believe some by relation of o­thers who stood near.’ And (1. c. p. 64.) the same Author saith: ‘—that a Preacher or Pastor, whose testimonies are humane and fallible, when they declare to their hearers, or subjects, that some truth is witnessed by God's word, are occasion, that those peo­ple may produce a true infallible Act of Faith, depending imme­diately upon divine Revelation applied by the said means.—And if you object (saith he,) That perhaps, that humane authority is false, and proposes to my understanding Divine revelation when God doth not reveal; therefore I cannot upon humane testimony, representing or applying Divine revelation, exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer: it is one thing, whether by a reflex act I am absolutely certain, that I exercise an infallible act of Faith; and another, whether indeed, and in actu exercito I produce such an act. Of the former I have said nothing, neither makes it to our present purpose. Of the latter I affirm, that when indeed humane testimony is true, [tho not certainly known by me to be so,] and so applies a divine revelation which really exists; in such case I may believe by a true infallible assent of Christian faith. The reason of this seems clear, because altho a truth, which I know only by probable assent, is not certain to me; yet in it self it is most immoveable and certain, in regard that while a thing is, it cannot but be, for that time for which it is, &c.’ Thus he..: The [Page 41] sum of which is; That the infallibility of many mens faith is not from any external Proponent, but only from God's concourse. See Dr. Hold. 1. l. 2. c. p. 36, 37. de resol. fid. saying the like.

2. Again, in the 2d. place it may be inferred, * That receiving §. 52. of the Articles of his Creed from the Church'es proposal is not ne­cessary to true faith: or, * That one may truly believe some, who doth not believe all the, points of faith, which the Church pro­poseth; or, any for, or upon, her proposal: or lastly, * That one may truly and savingly believe an article of faith, who is not cer­tain of the divine revelation thereof. I willingly grant here, 1. first; That he who believes aright any divine truth, must be­lieve that it is revealed by God, or that God hath said it; and, That he that denies any one thing which he believes is revealed by God, can believe no other thing at all as he ought, that is, as from divine revelation: he must believe all such, or none at all aright. 2. Since a rational certain knowledge of divine revela­tion (as of the Scriptures, or also of the Sense thereof where doubt­ful) is only receivedd from the Church and her Tradition, I ac­cord, that none can rationally or so infallibly believe any things to be revealed by God, but such as he knows to be proposed to him, by the Church, or Tradition, to be such, either immediately, in her exposition of obscure Scriptures, or mediately, in her delivering to him the Canon of Scripture; and therefore, that who denies this authority in some points, (suppose in those points, where this au­thority is granted by him to be of equal force) hath no rational ground or certainty of his faith in any other of those points, ac­cording to the Schools; Qui inhaeret doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infal­libili regulae, [i. e. in omnibus quae proponit,] omnibus assentit quae Ec­clesia docet, [i. e. quae scit Ecclesiam docere,] alioqui si de his quae Ec­clesia docet tenet quae vult, & quae non vult non tenet, non inhaeret in­fallibili doctrinae Ecclesiae, sed propriae voluntati. [But note, that eve­ry one who doth not inhaerere doctrinae Ecclesiae tanquam infallibili, may not therefore be said inhaerere propriae voluntati, because he may hold such tenents, not quia vult, but * for some other reason abstract from the Church'es authority: as Protestants do * for the evidence of Tradition in this point, That Scripture is God's word.] So those who rejected some parts or books of Scripture, because containing something opposite to their opinions, could not ground any certainty of their faith upon the rest: because that Scripture they refused, came recommended to them by as much and the same authority, as that they accepted.

[Page 42] But these Concessions destroy not the former proposition: be­cause (for the former concession) it is one thing to believe such a §. 53. truth to be divine revelation; another, to be rationally assured thereof: the first we grant is, the second I think we have proved not to be, necessary to all true faith. For the second, tho he who certainly knows not Church-tradition, cannot have a rational or discursive certainty in his faith, (abstracting here from what in­ternal certainty one may have from the Spirit,) nor upon that principle can believe one thing, unless he believe all the rest that have the like Tradition with it; yet he may without such a cer­tainty or such a ground truly believe: as I think is before-proved. And hence it follows, that one may truly believe some other points of faith, who doth not believe this point in particular; That the Church, or Universal Tradition, is infallible.

Thus much, * of the non-necessity of infallible certainty in eve­ry believer, to render his faith true, divine, and salvifical; * and of §. 54. the erring in some one article its not necessarily destroying the true faith of all the rest. But (to conclude this Discourse) Three things mean-while are acknowledged and confessed. 1. First; that he that truly and divinely believes all the rest of the Articles of our Faith, and erreth only in one Article that is absolutely necessa­ry to salvation, such error may be said to destroy his whole faith in some sense, (that is) in rendring his faith in other points tho not false, yet non-salvifical to him. 2. Again, he that disbelieveth and opposeth the propositions of the Church (known to him to be so) in some point not absolutely necessary (I mean to be explicitely believed for attaining salvation, as some points there are so neces­sary,) tho this error doth not null the body of his beleife, yet this opposition in that error is, by the common doctrine of the Church, accounted so great a crime, as that, unrepented of, it renders his true faith, being destitute of due obedience and charity, unprofi­table for his salvation, (which I thought fit here to mind you of, that none may presume salvation from the truth of his faith in all necessaries, as long as he stands, tho in some (as he accounts) smal­ler points, after sufficient proposal, in opposition and disobedience to the Church, i. e. to his supreme Governour and Guide in all Ec­clesiastical and Spiritual matters. (See before §. 50.) 3. And lastly, if this Article of Faith [That the Church'es authority is either abso­lutely infallible in all things she proposeth to be believed, or at least so supreme, that none may in any wise dissent from her determination] can [Page 43] be proved one of the points of faith absolutely necessary to salva­tion, to be by every Christian believed; then, since there can be no disobedience and non-conformity to the Church, but that it is grounded on the dissbelief of this Article, it must follow, That every one that opposeth the Church, is also, from his disbelief of this Article, excluded from salvation.

A LETTER concerning the obligation of not professing or acting against our Judg­ment or Conscience.

YOU ask my Opinion; 1. Whether we are bound to the obedience only of Non-contradiction, or also of assent, to the Decrees §. 1. of acknowledged lawful General Councils in Non-fundamen­tals; wherein such Councils are supposed by you errable, (supposing that such Councils require our assent therein)? And 2ly, Whether one is, or can be, bound to assent, when these their Decrees are contrary to his own private judgment? and Whether one may go against his conscience in any thing?

Answ. I answer, (on which subject I desire you also to peruse what is said in the Discours of Infallibility. §.) That, if you take §. 2. n. 1. In what sence it may be lawful to believe, or do, a thing against our own judg­ment. judgment here for infallible certainty, (which see more largely ex­plained below §. 19. &c.) I can soon resolve it negatively; That you are not, nor cannot be, so bound. (Of which see more below §. 20.) But if you mean, by your private judgment, opinion short of infal­libility, (i. e.) some reasons that you have (either drawn from the natures of things, on from the sence you make of divine revelation) to think that a thing is thus, or so, contrary to that general judg­ment; 1. First, this question seems * decided on the affirmative part, viz. that you may go against your private judgment, in mens ordinary practice. In secular affairs, do not we commonly, upon receiving the advice of an experienced friend, both, believe him to be in the right; and do a thing contrary to our own judgment, i. e. contrary to those reasons, which our selves have, not to do it? Is not Abraham said to believe a thing seeming contrary to his own [Page 2] reason? Rom. 4. 17, 18. And so the man in the Gospel, Mar. 9. 24? Yet I know you will not say, that they went in this against their con­science. What is the meaning of that ordinary saying, [These and these reasons I have for my opinion, but I submit to the Church?] Is it only, I submit my judgment in regard of the publishing of it? [So Dr. Fern comments upon it, 2. Treat. 1. c. numb. 1 [...].] But thus the phrase seems very improper; for this is a submission of our speech or silence, but not of our judgment at all; and is a submission which may well be professed also in things, wherein our judg­ment is utterly unchangeable; namely in things, whereof we are infallibly certain.

2. Again, * decided by the concessions of several Protestants, §. 2. n. 2. which seem to yeild the very same thing. See Dr. Fern, ib. n. 13. where he alloweth; that in matters of opinion and credibility, or ‘of discipline and rites, till we have sufficient evidence or demon­stration of truth to the contrary, our conformity’ [i. e. of judgment, which he expresseth afterward by submitting our belief and our pra­ctice] ‘remains secure. Secure, (saith he) till we have sufficient evidence, &c. But sufficient evidence we have not, in opposition to the Church, in things where possibly we may be mistaken; and we may be mistaken in any thing, whereof we are not certain; ergo sufficient evidence in such cases is only certainty. Likewise Dr. Hammond, Reply to Cath. Gentl. 2. c. 3. s. 18. n. when the person is not competent to search grounds’ [I add, or not so competent as those, to whose definition he is required to submit his assent] alloweth a ‘bare yeilding to the judgment of Superiors, and a deeming it better to adhere to them, than to attribute any thing to his own judg­ment; a believing so far as not to disbelieve [them]. Which [he saith] may rationally be yeilded to a Church, or the governors of it, without deeming them inerrable.’—And in Schism. 2. c. 10. s. he saith; ‘A meek Son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, [i. e. of enjoying the communion of the Church]: and when the fundamentals of the faith, and superstructures of Christian pra­ctice are not concerned in the concessions, he will chearfully ex­press his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reve­rence and deference to his Superiors in the Church, where his lot is fallen.’ Where surely this submitting, and depositing our own judgment, implies something more than the concealment of it only; since the concealment of our judgment, being the least degree of obedience we can give to our Superiors, will be due to [Page 3] them in some of those definitions made by them in fundamentals of faith and Christian practice; which points he excepts here from submittance or deposition of our judgment. See likewise (which especially I recommend to your reading) what Mr. Hooker, as writing not against Catholicks but Puritans, copiously saith in behalf of submission of judgment to the Church, even when thwarting our private opinion; in his Preface, 6. §. and in 2. l. 7. §. near the end, (which you may find more fully set down, and Mr. Chillingworth's Comment upon it in Answ. to Mr. Knot, who pressed him with it, discussed, in the discours of Infallibility, §. 45, 46. &c.) In the Preface, speaking upon Deut. 17. 8. &c, he hath these words: ‘God was not ignorant, that the Priests and Judges, whose sen­tence, in matters of controvesie, he ordained, should stand, both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment. How­beit better it was in the eye of his understanding, that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail, till the same au­thority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct and reverse it, than that strifes should have respit to grow, and not come speedily unto some end.’ [And there he answers that Obje­ction, That men must do nothing against conscience: saying;] ‘Neither wish we, that men should do any thing, which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not to do: but we say; this perswasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts, that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality, the will of God is, to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and fi­nal Decision shall determin; yea tho it seem in their private o­pinion to swerve utterly from that which is right: as, no doubt, many times the sentence among the Jews did, unto one or o­ther part contending: and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that, which in their private judgment it seemed, yea and perhaps truly seemed, that the law did disallow.’ Thus ju­dicious Hooker. And see what Dr. Jackson saith to the same pur­pose below §. 29, 30. Thus the reformed seem to allow in some things a submission of private judgment to the Church; a submis­sion not only of concealing it, but of renouncing and deserting it, in believing and hearkning to the Church rather than to it.

Now the Church doth never exact, that you should profess or subscribe, * that your own reason or private judgment, caused §. 2. n. 3. from some evidence in the thing, suggests or assures to you such a thing to be truth; but, * that you believe her in such a thing more than your own reasons to the contrary: or, * that you confess her [Page 4] judgment better than your own; and so, are content to be sway­ed by it in such a thing. For, if you heartily believe, that the Church'es judgment is likely to be better than yours; or, that she is authorized by her judgment to guide yours; it necessarily fol­lows, that, in obeying her, you do according to your judgment one way; tho contrary to it, in another way. For, your final judg­ment upon the points is this; that tho you see reasons, ex parte rei, most or all contrary to what she defines; yet, that her judgment is better than yours, or ought to guide yours; and upon this, you, against your own judgment or reasons, assent unto hers. [Note here, that by the Church'es judgment, I mean the ultimatest judg­ment, and the highest court thereof that we can have. So that when your Pastor teacheth any thing which is contrary to your private judg­ment, you are not obliged to assent to him, if another Ecclesiastical judg­ment superior be contrary to his. For the decision of the Superior (to whom in any doubting you may repair) voids that of an inferior unto you, and so voids also his Excommunications, and Ecclesiastical censures; and if the superior (man or Council) tell you one thing, and the inferior ano­ther, you are to hear the Church in the superior, not in the inferior.] Neither can that of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, (which text see further explained below §. 31.) be ap­plied to any, for so doing: because who so doth thus submit, doth this out of faith; namely this faith, that the Church is wiser than he; or that he is obliged to obey her expositions of Scripture, directi­ons, counsels, &c, when contrary to his own. It is not only possi­ble then, but usual, for one to believe a thing against his own rea­son, or judgment, or conscience, (if you will take these in such a sence,) i. e. against the reasons drawn a parte rei, which he hath for disbelieving it; but it is not possible for one to believe a thing against his reason, or judgment, or conscience, in general; or a­gainst some other reason taken ab authoritate, which he hath still for believing it. For certainly, * when a fool believes a wise man against some conceit he had of his own; or, * when Roman-Catholicks consent to the Church, in something doubtles wherein some of them may see reasons for the contrary, and no reason per­haps for it, save that ab authoritate, viz. the Church'es determina­tion and command; or, * when an Israelite submitted to holding or doing a thing which the Judges decided. (Deut. 17. 11, 12.); none of these may be said to do thus without, or against, reason, because perhaps their private judgment is not convinced in the thing: for they have that reason still, for going against their other reason, that the others, whom they follow, are wiser than they: [Page 5] or also a 2d. reason, that the others are by God appointed to guide their judgment and opinion in such things; and that they are commanded by God to consent to what ever those shall decide.

3ly. This thing seems decided by the allowed practice of the Church in excommunicating, at least for such matters as she e­steemeth §. 4. 11. 2. necessary and fundamental, those who dissent from her judgment. For, if in any thing at all, if at least in fundamentals (in which some say she cannot err) the Church may excommuni­cate dissenters: hence it follows, both that it is possible, and that a man ought, in some things, to consent to the Church even against his own judgment; unless we will affirm, that no man in such points (as suppose in fundamentals) can possibly have another judgment than hers. But so there would never have bin any man erroneous or heretical in a point fundamental. I say, ought to con­sent. For, if God hath given power to the Church (I mean the highest court thereof) of punishing by excommunication all those who do not consent to some decision which she maketh; then all ought to consent to such decision, whether it be right or wrong to his seeming arguments or reasons, whose consent is required; for every one ought to do that, for the not doing of which God ap­points him to be punished: besides, that he, who consents not to the Church'es judgment, refuseth it only to consent to another judgment much more fallible, i. e. his own.

Now, that God hath granted such a power to the Church, of excommunicating dissenters to some of her decisions at least, is §. 3. acknowledged by the Reformed, * who allow the Church'es pra­ctice of it in her first 4. General Councils, concerning the additions in the Nicene and other Creeds; * who allow the Church'es pra­ctice in commanding something to be done, or forborn, by her subjects under the penalty of Excommunication: but wherever the Church enjoyns any thing to be done, she inclusively enjoyns assent, or belief, that such a thing is lawful to be done. Lastly, * who practise such excommunication themselves, not only toward men for contradicting, or for declaring their dissent, but for dissent­ing from, their decrees. 1. † As appears in the closes of the 3. 4. and 5. Canons &c of the English reformed Synod held under K. James 1603. where (Can. 5.) ‘Whosoever doth affirm any of the 39. Articles to be in any part erroneous, stands excommunicated [not till he recants his publick contradicting the Church'es doctrines, but] till he repents of, and publickly revokes such his wicked errors:’ [Page 6] and † as appears in all those Canons, wherein that Synod enjoyns any Agends upon pain of Excommunication; which injunctions of Practicals (as I said before) involve also an injunction of Assent first, that such practicals are lawful, See Can. 9. 12. 59. of that Sy­nod. 2ly. As appears in the English Synod under K. Charles 1640. * where, in the 3. 4. and 5. Canons, any accused of Popery, Soci­nianism, Anabaptism, are to be excommunicated, till they abjure such errors; and that is, till they assent to the contradictory of those errors; and that is, till they assent to the doctrine of the Church of England, where it is contradictory to those errors: and * where Can. 6. ‘There is required an approbation and sincere ac­knowledgment (which is no less than assent) to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, as containing all things ne­cessary to salvation; and this confession required upon oath.’ See this matter discoursed more at large in Church-government, 3. part. §. 29. And hence a sober man may discern, how that without submission of judgment in some things, none, that are learned, and much studied in Theological controversies, can enjoy the ex­ternal communion of any Church. For since (for example) the English Church excommunicates all that shall say, that any of her Articles or Canons is erroneous or repugnant to Scripture, (see for this her 4. and 5. Can. set down before, 2d. part of Church-govern­ment) untill they shall publickly revoke, not such their saying, but such their error; and since the Rom. Church is said to require belief of so many Decrees of the Tridentine, and other former Councils; if any one Canon or Article, tho of never so little moment, of the Church of England, or Canon of those other Councils allowed by the Church of Rome, whereto assent is required, doth appear mistaken to such a one's private reason: hence he can be of neither of these external communions, and sic de caeteris; yet one of which cer­tainly is the communion of the true Catholick Church, of which we say, Credo unam sanctam &c. I may add; Neither could he here­tofore be of the external communion of the former Church Catho­lick for many ages, wherein, by reason of new rising heresies, the Church'es determinations (and those requiring assent) have bin multiplied; from some one or other of which a learned man is likely to vary in his private judgment, being perhaps not every way so well informed, as that of the Church was, who made them. So suppose one, holding all the rest with the Council of Trent, should differ from it in this one tenet, That the Baptism of S. John Baptist, and of Christ, were not of the same efficacy,—or one holding all the rest with the Church of England, should only differ from it [Page 7] in this point of her 28 and 29th Article, That the Real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist only by those, who have a lively faith: for which see Mr. Thorndike (Epilogue to the Church of England, 3. l. 2. c.); or (before the Reformation, and Council of Trent) one should in some thing hold differently from the Decrees of the 2d. Nicean or Lateran Council: he is thereby excluded from the external com­munion both of the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, and of all the former Church following the 2d. Council of Nice, unles he be in something content to mortify his rationale, and make a submission of his judgment-Therefore the Schoolmen, so subtil in their disputes, and so various in their resolves, yet laid aside their private reasons, and bended their judgments to the yoke thereof, where any controversible point was formerly stated by the Church; taking liberty to expatiate and exercise their sci­ence only in those disputables, wherein she had no way bounded them.

Now to come to your other Query: Whether if, in non-fundamen­tals, the Church require our assent to something contrary to our private §. 4. Concerning the church|'es lawful authority to excom­municate dissenters in non funda­mentals judgment, we ought to yeild to it? To this I answer; We ought: Because the Church'es power of punishing by Excommunication all that do not consent to all her decisions and determinations, wherein she requires consent, seems to be absolute and unlimited. For to some of her decisions, the reformed grant that he who as­sents not is justly excommunicated by her. I ask therefore to which?

1. Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh according to the Scriptures, that if any assent not to them, he may be justly ex­communicated §. 5. by her? See the 20. and 21 Article of the Church of England. But then, before she may justly exercise such Ex­communication, some body must judge, when her decisions are made according to the Scriptures, when not. This Judge must ei­ther be her self, or private men. If she must judg this, then tis all one, as if there were no such limitation: for we may be assured, she will never make any such decision, as her self will judge not to be according to, or to be contrary to, the Scriptures. If private men must judge this, then this her authority is null toward so many private men, as shall judge her decisions to be contrary to Scrip­tures; and to the rest, that judge them according with Scripture, she hath no use of this authority, because they already consent. Tis null, I say, to the former, because as the power of excommuni­cating those who do not consent to her decisions, when made ac­cording to the Scriptures, is committed to her; so the power of [Page 8] judging, when they are so made, when not, is here supposed to be left by God to private men. Therefore these being judged by them not to be so; her authority, which was thus limited, is now, toward all such men, voided. And how will this consist with God's giving Pastors &c, for the unity of the faith, and that men may not be carried away with every doctrine &c. (Eph. 4. 11, 13)? Her authority (I say) toward all such men is voided: because these two, the giving private men power thus to judge, and then the punish­ing them, if they do not consent, or if they declare their dissent, do contradict. For tis saying to them, I grant, and teach you, that when you shall judge any thing which I enjoyn you, to be con­trary to God's word, (as possibly it may be); so often it is your duty, not to obey me: nevertheles, for doing this your duty I may justly punish you by Excommunication.

Or 2ly, Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh in points, §. 6. of the truth whereof she is actually certain? For thus it is plead­ed by some, That a Church which confesseth, that she may err, and mislead others, and upon this consideration alloweth, that private men may lawfully dissent from her, may yet be sure, that she doth not, in such and such definitions, contradict Scripture; and therefore may (according to the power given her by God Matt. 18.) excommunicate her children, for preaching contrary to, or dissenting from, her definitions, and for violating her truth, and her peace, and upon this ground may affirm, that what she thus binds on earth, is bound in heaven: as a man that may sleep, run mad &c, may yet be sure, that now, at this time, he is awake, and in his wits. See much-what the same said by Dr. Hammond con­cerning General Councils affixing Anathema's to their Decrees. (Paraenes. §. 12. p. 158.) But this plea seems to ground the Church'es power of excommunicating, and consequently her sub­jects necessity of obeying, (at least so far as not to contradict her definitions,) not upon her authority, tho she (as those Judges Deut. 17. 8.) may be in some things liable to error: but only up­on her certainty of the truth in those things which she enjoyns; as it is willingly granted, she, or any else, of some things may be certain enough. But then, if others obedience depends not upon her determining or commanding, but upon her being certain; what is said before returns again, they must have some means to know, not only what she commands, but also when she is certain in what she commands, (or that she commands nothing wherein she is uncertain): in which she may be still uncertain, even when [Page 9] she saith, nay even when she thinks, she is certain. But, there be­ing no means to know this, all men again will be left to their li­berty. The Church of England (see before §. 3.) hath excommu­nicated all that shall say any thing is erroneous, either in her Li­turgy, or 39. Articles. Was she sure, that she could not possibly mistake in any of these things, which she hath said there? if not; such her Excommunication of contradicters will be (according to this opinion) unlawful. Deut. 17. 12. it is said; The man that will do presumptuously, and not hearken unto the Priest, even that man shall dye.—Matt. 18. 17. it is said; If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an heathen. Are these punishments lawfully inflicted, only in case that such Priest and Church be certain and infallible in their judgment? or that such Priest and Church do not seem to any to mis-interpret the divine law?

3ly. Is it only to those decisions, which she maketh in points fundamental? But here the same doubts arise still. For I demand; §. 7. As likewise to decide which points are funda­mental, which not. Whether are you to judge, or she, which these are? or how many? Surely this is very necessary to be known. If you grant that she must judge this too for you, which, or how many be fundamentals; (as Mr. Chillingworth saith (3. c. 39. §.) in all reason she must, if in fundamentals she be acknowledged your guide, and therefore he denies her to be a guide at all); then this thing, To how many of her decided points you are to consent, lies only in her judgment. And then I ask; Since some Non-fundamentals are plain in Scripture, and since in these Non-fundamentals if a private man may be in­fallibly certain of somethings, (as they say he may, and upon this infallibility of his seems to be grounded all his dissent from the Church; for in things, tho not fundamental, wherein he is not in­fallibly certain of the contrary, I suppose, he is also to consent to the Church'es judgment); then surely the Church may be so too: why should you not be here also tied to take her sentence, when she saith, that she is infallibly certain of them too, as you do take her sentence when she telleth you how many are fundamental? And, if you are to consent, tho it be against your own judgment, in the greatest matters; what reason is there you should not do it in lesser? You will answer; because in these greatest matters she cannot err, but she may in others. My reply is; and may not you in others also err much more? Is she to guide your judgment in the main, and not in less, matters? Is Scripture be plain in these smaller points, for you to guide your self by it; is it not so, much more, in fundamentals? why therefore relinquish you your own, [Page 10] and adhere to her, judgment, in these things most plain in Scrip­ture? and then take up your own, and leave hers in the rest; e­specially when, being asked your reason for this, your plea is, be­cause such points are plain in Scripture? But then if our Saviour, as this opinion makes him, enjoyns only subscription to the Church in fundamentals; who sees not, that it is as necessary, that our Sa­viour should have told us, which points those were? els we may assent too much to her in things, wherein she may err; or too little in the other, wherein she cannot err, (I mean fundamentals,) and so be certainly damn'd. But then; since, tho the General Church cannot, yet a National Church may, err in fundamentals also, and may apostatize; therefore you are, here, (according to that opi­nion) to assume to your self to judge, what points are truth, and what not, even in pretended fundamentals, before you yeild any consent to any thing at all, call'd fundamental, or other, which a National Church proposeth: and thus a self-opinioned man may easily throw off the yoke of obedience to all the proposals of all, except General, Councils; a thing very unreasonable. And as unreasonable is that, which some say on the other side; That we may not contradict or oppose our Pastor, or Bishop in smaller matters, but may in the greater; when-as indeed in these greater matters there is more reason for our obedience, and far more dan­ger, if we err, in our contradicting, Therefore neither in Non-fundamentals, nor yet in Fundamentals, may we properly contra­dict them; i. e. in opposing our particular judgment upon Scrip­ture, to theirs. What then must be done (you will say) since our Pastors and Bishops may err in fundamentals, and particular Churches may apostatize? Resp. Why, both in fundamentals and non-fundamentals also, where any considerable doubting ariseth, we may repair from them to a further information from the Church General, such as we can have: and then we are to follow her judgment, when evident and undisputable (as many times it is); and, if we be Presbyters, we are also to teach her Doctrines, (and that in not-fundamentals, as well as in fundamentals) tho contrary to the commands of some inferior Bishop or Council. Nor is this properly our, but the Church-Catholick's, contradict­ing such a one; and our obeying only her's, rather than her infe­rior's, injunctions.

This discours ariseth from that term [Non-fundamentals] put in the Quaere: when-as mean-while you may observe, that this curi­osity §. 8. of knowing precisely what are fundamentals, what not, [Page 11] presseth only one side: namely that, which will allow obligation of assent to the Church'es decrees only in some things, not in o­thers: but it doth not concern the other side at all, because they hold assent necessary to all points, wherein the Church (I mean the supream power in it) requires it. And so also, 1. ancient Coun­cils, under pain of Anathema, require, as in some things non-con­tradiction, so in other things consent; with whom [Siquis non con­fitetur &c, Anathema sit] is ordinary, without setting down that the point is fundamental; as likewise [Si quis dixerit, only] is used by them in other points of greatest consequence: which shews, that the Church, expecting the same obedience to her also in the points we call not-fundamental, took not such exact care to deliver them distinctly; nor indeed perhaps knows how to sever all points under such a distinction. To say therefore, that all such points, where assent and confession is required, are fundamental, is gratis said, and as easily denied: but that all such points are very profitable to salvation, I doubt not. 2. Again; all practical points cannot be said to be fundamental; but where ever the Church enjoyns any practical things under Anathema, she requires more than Non-contradiction, as hath bin noted already: for I may not practise a thing, when I do not first assent to the lawfulnes there­of. In practical things therefore, commanded by her to be done, I either owe her no obedience at all, or els more than Non-contra­diction (Now the ancient Councils are frequent in these); but if God had given her subjects liberty, not to practise such things as are enjoyned by her, if against their judgment; neither hath he given the Church liberty to anathematize them, for thus follow­ing their conscience. For I pray you consider these two Propo­sitions, how they can both agree to the Church: [I know God hath given order, that in non-fundamentals no man shall owe me such, so much, duty, as to yeild his assent to me; or to practise what I bid him, when his judgment is contrarily perswaded; but only so much as not to contra­dict me yet I do require of those same men, not only not to contra­dict, but to consent &c, or els I anathematize them.] Certainly if, in Non-fundamentals, a man of a contrary judgment to the Church can be only faulty in contradicting the Church; she can excom­municate none such upon any other terms, but only if they shall contradict her. 3. Again; the Scriptures have appointed Pastors, Teachers, &c, have bidden us hear the Church [he that heareth you, heareth me &c,] without limitation to fundamentals; sure this o­bedience to teachers is not fulfilled in reserving my own opinions, and in not openly contradicting or confuting theirs. Sure, that [Page 12] power of teaching, exhorting, reproving, correcting, the word of wis­dom, the word of knowledge, given to our Spiritual Governors, for 2 Tim. 4 [...]. 1 Cor. 12. 7, 8. the edification of the Church, in truths and practices any way profitable to salvation, as well as in fundamental, are not suffici­ently answered on our parts with the obedience of Non-contradi­ction of them, when they shall speak any thing contrary to our sence, except it be in fundamentals only, i. e. perhaps in two or three points: but these Scriptures oblige us to submission of Judg­ment, either to our particular teacher, or (when he seems to guide us contrary to the word of God, or contrary to the rest of the Pa­stors of the Church,) to his, and our, Ecclesiastical Superiors, in whose judgment we must acquiesce, and consent, that we may not be tossed &c, (Eph. 4. 14. compared with 11); as we see they are, that take only their own sence of Scriptures. See Heb. 13. 7. I Tim. 4. 11. I Tim. 6. 3, 4. [Where note, that consent is not to Scriptures, that were not then so common, but to the doctrine of Godlines delivered by Timothy.] If therefore, any dissent from an inferior Pastor or Council, (as he may, upon any suspition, that such goeth against the Scriptures, or the Church'es doctrines,) he may not therefore acquiesce in his own judgment, either concerning the sence of Scriptures, or the sence of former times, the Fathers, but is to repair to his Superiors, and to hear the Church then in being, (in all things wherein he clearly sees her opinion, and in which she requires his subscription): which Ch. is set, for a guide to him, on an hill, to interpret to him the Scriptures in all controverted matters; for if she be worthy to be heard in fundamentals, as well agends, as credends; is she unworthy to be heard in smaller matters? And such a Church, eminent and conspicuous, there always was, even in the Arrian times, to which Athanasius fled for succour also, and with which he joyned himself; and always such there will be, nor will she ever be hid: and who goes with her, shall go with the Scriptures, and with the Fathers too; but whoso will go with them against her, shall also lose them, and vanish away in his own self-conceit.

If we now on the other side take into consideration the obedi­ence §. 9. Several ex­ceptions a­gainst obe­dience of non-contra­diction. on­ly, for non-fundamen­tals. of Non-contradiction, much pressed by the Reformed, as (in many cases) only due; yet the limitations which they annex to it are such, as leave not the matter clear, to what points, and from what persons, such obedience-only is required as necessary. For, 1. it is not said by them, that all men are bound even to this lesser obedience of Non-contradiction. For, if this were affirmed, that [Page 13] all inferiors, whether Pastors, Bishops, or Councils, were obliged to such obedience in respect of their superior Councils, it were something: but, as I think, tis affirmed, that a National Council may contradict a superior Council; and so a Diocesan, a National. And 1. I ask; Why may not then a Pastor contradict his Bishop, or the Diocesan Council? (which the reformed will not so easily al­low,) since this Pastor also is a teacher, and an over-seer over God's flock, (Act. 20. 28). and if private men may, so may he, be infal­libly certain, that such a thing is in God's word; and that thing too, wherein he contradicteth, may be very beneficial for salva­tion. Neither is the peace of the Church disturbed more by him teaching contrary to a Diocesan, than by a Bishop teaching con­trary to a Provincial Synod; and as other mens contrary do­ctrines may consist with their charity to other Churches, (i. e. with not condemning them to be no Churches,) so may his. Consider­ing these things, may not such a one say, Whether it is better to o­bey God than men, judge ye? 2. Again, I ask; If the power, in the Church, of Excommunication of private men, binds them not to contradict her; why doth not the same power, in superior Coun­cils, to excommunicate Bishops, and to annul the acts of inferior Councils, bind such inferior Councils also to Non-contradiction? 3. Again; the obligation of Non-contradiction of private men to their Bishop, or to his Synod, in not-fundamentals, will signifie little; because an Episcopal, or a National, Synod may err in fun­damentals; and the judgment of this Synods erring in a funda­mental is by the reformed left, not to It, which will never judg such a thing to be; but, to its subjects; and they may misjudge a point not-fundamental to be fundamental, and so may break their due silence: neither can there be of this any remedy. For none hither­to have contradicted the Church-decisions, but they have made that which occasioned their contradicting to be a thing of great consequence. Here therefore again; in the yeilding of our obedi­ence of Non-contradiction to a Provincial or National Church, the Queries concerning Fundamentals will return. Who is to de­termin, what are such, both for agends and credends? which it is extream necessary to know, that, in such, we may be sure to vindi­cate God's truth against that particular Church wherein we live. Is not idolatry an error against a fundamental truth? and doth not the Roman Church then err in fundamentals, in worshipping bread, as the Protestants think they do, for Christ? So that tenet of the Greek Church [à Patre per filium] is said to destroy the Tri­nity: and so the Lutheran's Consubstantiation is said by conse­quence [Page 14] to destroy Christ's Humanity: the Trinity, and Christ's Humanity, fundamental truths. In such points and the like there­fore none must be tied, in obedience to their Bishop or Church-Na­tional, to a Non-contradiction.

2ly, In respect of the Church in general, the obedience of sole-Non-contradiction §. 10. is limited by the reformed (as we have said before) to Non-fundamentals, wherein the Church may err; whereas in fundamentals, wherein this Church cannot err, here they also allow an obedience of assent. But I ask again; Who shall determin, both in credends & agends, which are fundamen­tal? And why in these fundamentals especially are we wished in our judgment to conform to the Church'es? since these are the points most clear in Scripture, and such as, without the Church'es direction, we cannot mistake. And methinks those places of Scripture concerning Tryal of Doctrines, which we have learnt to turn against the injunctions of the Church, hold as well, or more, for trying her Doctrines in Fundamentals, than in any thing els; because the rule, by which we try, is the most plain in these points. Again, I ask; Are all the necessary consequences of fundamentals to be accounted fundamental? If so; then who knows how far these points may extend, in which we are to con­sent to, and not only not-to-contradict, the Church'es decisions?

3ly. This obedience (not of yeilding assent, but solely) of Non-contradicting, §. 11. And that all at least not infallibly certain of the contra­ry, are bound, in non funda­mentals, to anobedience of assent. Therefore the most are so bound. is allowed and secured by the reformed, only to those persons; who, upon examination of Scripture and Tradition, are certain of the contrary; surely then it must extend to very few persons, and in very few things: for how few are there, that are able to compare the Scriptures, or search Traditions? There­fore the Scripture seems to make rules of our obedience to our pre­sent Spiritual Governors; as if we were void of writings; and not according to the extraordinary skill and learning of some few, that are not rulers, but according to the general capacity and knowledg of the flock of Christ. 1. Therefore it were well, if these men, who would not have their own knowledge restrained by authority, would yet let the people know, That only those, who by long studying the Scriptures and Fathers have arrived to infallible certainty, are tied, only-to Non-contradiction to the Church-decisions; but that all the rest, to assenting. For doth it not make our hearts yet to bleed, to see so many thousands of the common people amongst us, upon this mistaken priviledge, even [Page 15] to disbelieve, and not to yeild consent to the Church in fundamen­tals? 2. When this is done; how few are there of the learned, that can say; they are certain (without some doubt) that what the Church proposeth is false? Are not all the rest then, who are not infallibly certain, to be taught, that they must, in Non-fun­damentals, subscribe to the Church-decisions? Why labour we then, more, to free, then subjugate, mens judgments? 3. But then, for a private man's being infallibly certain, (upon which the re­formed opinion seems to build much) methinks this concession of [the Scriptures which he reads to be the infallible word of God] is not enough for his certainty almost in any point; because there must be a comparing of Scriptures, and a not interpreting of some places so, that other places contradict: and because the sence of the words may be diversly taken, tho he were to judge only of one place by it self. Besides there are many degrees of seeming cer­tainty; and tis hard to know when it is a presumption only, and when a true certainty. That men are ordinarily deceived, in making this judgment, is plain: because two, contradicting one another, will often both affirm, that they are infallibly certain. The thinking ones self infallibly certain mostwhat ariseth from knowing no objections of any difficulty to the contrary: which objections as one afterward discovers, so his former certainty by degrees abates. Hence we see the greatest Scholars many times dubious, when the ignorant are either certain, or strongly confi­dent. Four texts of Scripture, that seem plainly to say a thing, make one sure, as it were; and then two texts suggested to him, that seem to say the contrary, reduce him to doubt, and make him begin to deliberate of the sense of the former. I speak not this to affirm, we are certain in nothing at all: but that we have almost always reason to doubt, where the same certainty, that we have, appears not to others. But then if private men may be in­fallibly certain; much more may the Church, and so many Do­ctors be so, they also all agreeing in their certainty. So that all proofs of certainty to be had in divine truths rather strengthen the argument for obedience to the Church. And she deals but with us in our own kind, if she plead infallibility to require our submission to her, even in Non-fundamentals, as we do plead in­fallibility to avoid it.

[Page 16] As for those objections, which the Reformed opinion makes: §. 12. Replies to several Ob­jections.

1. That possibly a National, or Provincial Synod, may, or also hath, broached some new mischievous tenet; the contrary to which tenet neither the Creeds expresly, nor former Councils have decreed; into which error therefore my too secure obedience 1. Concern­ing an infe­rior Coun­cil's decree­ing some new dange­rous error, which no former Council su­perior hath condemned may betray me. I answer: That from this judgment of such a Church, so often as it is suspected by me, I will not retreat to my private judgment, but I will appeal to a more general judg­ment of the present Church: which judgment I can either have conjunctim, or divisim; (as it was ordinarily procured in ancient time,) and (by the reformed opinion) I shall be secure, if I part not from the present Church: for in fundamentals she shall in no age err, but hold forth to me visibly the truth; and if this error be in Non-fundamentals, it amounts not (as the reformed say) to a heresy: therefore will I still cleave to her, (i. e.) the present Church, and the supremest Authority I can find therein; neither will I embrace any sence put upon Scriptures, or Fathers, against her; because she cannot be (at least in points of great consequence) opposit to them. And, if that religion (as it might have bin) had bin conveyed to our days by unwritten Tradition, and only so as the Apostle directed in 2 Tim. 2. 2, and that we had had neither New Testament-Scriptures, nor writings of Fathers; then I must have relied only on the guidance of the present Church: neither needed she, for this, to have bin made more infallible than now she is; and doubtles my faith should have bin (nevertheles) suffi­ciently grounded, i. e. on the word of God still orally delivered by her: neither could any have made an argument, that my faith was not salvifical, for this reason, because fidei non potest subesse falsum; for she must then, in defect of all writings; have bin con­fess'd the pillar and ground of truth, and the dispenser or steward of the mysteries of God, (1 Cor. 4. 1.): the same (then) must she be still; and Nations now, as at the first, before writings, are still con­verted by her; by her preaching, before they come to peruse those Scriptures. And so are we all also taught our faith first by her; neither suffers she diminution in her authority from co-ex­tant Scriptures and Fathers. But yet, besides that in these Scrip­tures is ascribed to her great authority; any help, that is from these writings enjoyed by any other, is also by her: that no bo­dy may boast over her in these advantages.

[Page 17] 2. It is objected: That our faith, to be salvifical, must be grounded on something that is infallible; and therefore only on §. 13. 2. Concern­ing faith sal­vifical: that: it is to be infallible. God's word. See this answered at large, in the Treatise of Necessary faith, §. 43. &c. Surely, the Church groundeth her faith, which she recommendeth to us, on the Scriptures, as well as private men think they do theirs, when they leave hers, to follow their own, judgment. And, if the Church'es judgment is not, neither is their own, infallible; for which, they desert the Church'es. But, tho it is most true, that true faith is always grounded on the word of God, (which word of God is infallible); yet is it not necessary, that every one, who hath true faith, do know that it is infallible, or be infallibly certain of it: For many have saving faith, doubtles; that learn this word of God only from a fallible man; suppose from their Father, or from their Pastor. Neither is it necessary, that this faith should be received from another person infallible, besides God; nor that it should be received from a writing at all. There may be a strong adherence, beyond evidence; neither can it be unsufficient, if it be so strong, as to produce obedience to God's commands.

3. Tis said: That one is, for his salvation, secure enough, where ever these two are; Unity of faith with the Church, in §. 14. 3. Concern­ing union of Charity, sufficient. fundamentals; and then Charity toward the Church, in the points not-fundamental, wherein I disagree from her. Charity, i. e. not condemning her, for them, to be no Church, &c. I an­swer: 1. First, such a one must know well, what are Fundamen­tals, that perhaps he take not liberty to differ from the Church in any of them. The Apostle reckons doctrines of Baptism and of lay­ing on of hands among foundations, (Heb. 6. 2.); if we will make unity in fundamentals so large as he doth, I know not how many other points may be brought in. And I am perswaded by reading the Catalogues of anciently-accounted Heresies, that the Fathers and Primitive times would not have stuck to have pronounced some side highly heretical, in those differences between the Re­formed and the Catholic Church, and even in those differences that are now in this Church of England about Baptism, Bishops, Ordina­tion, &c. 2ly. Without doubt there may be a larger unity of faith, than only in fundamentals; (unles all points of faith be fundamental; and if so, then Churches that differ in any point of faith, differ in fundamentals.) 3ly. If there may be a larger unity then Spiritual Guides, doubtles, are set over us, to build us up in the unity also, of this faith, and not only of funda­mentals. [Page 18] (See Heb. 5. 11. &c.—6. 1. And therefore, why [Eph. 4. 11. compared with 13.] should be restrained only to fundamen­tals, as it is by some, it seems to me strange. I cannot think, that the Corinthians differed amongst themselves in fundamentals, (see 1 Cor. 1. 4. &c): and yet the Apostle is very angry with them for their divisions, and exhorts them to be all of one judgment; which union of judgment could not be by following the judgment, each one, of their private reason, but of the Apostle, and of their or­thodox teachers appointed by him. See 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 12. 16, 18. Rom. 15. 5, 6. Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2, 3. 1 Pet. 3. 8. where [speaking the same thing, and being joyned in the same judgment; con­tending for the faith of the Gospel with one mind; glorifying God with one mind, and one mouth, &c.] argue an unity required, not only of charity, but of opinion and judgment; and that, not only in fun­damentals, (in which, as I said, all the factious Corinthians, or most of them, accorded,) but other beneficial truths: which uni­on how could so many judgments, undependent of one another, attain, but by, all of them, retaining the same doctrine of their Pa­stor, or Pastors? 4ly. If these points, wherein the reformed re­cede from the authority of superior Councils, be not very neces­sary, tho not fundamental; how can a separation for them be justified? but if necessary; why should we say, that God requires not an unity of faith in them? 5ly. Again; as faith and charity secure not our salvation, if we be guilty of some other vice, (adul­tery, &c); so they do not secure it, if there be any denial of o­bedience, where tis due; especially to the Church, disobedience towards whom is, in a more special manner, disobedience to Christ, and to God himself: and why may not this then endanger us, if God hath provided teachers, to keep us in the same judgment, and we (to the great hurt, both of the Church, and of our selves too, by these divisions) will every one follow his own judgment? especially since union of charity, as this opinion limits it, excludes not all separation from a superior authority, but only requires non-condemning of such authority, or those that adhere to it, in our separation. But here methinks the words of Cassander. (Consult. Art. 7.) are of some weight: where, granting that the reformers did not condemn the Church from which they separated, yet, Non video (saith he) quomodo illa interna societas consistere possit, si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, in observatione tam universalium, quam parti­cularium rituum, violes, & condemnes, & institutis majorum pertina­citer repugnes; quod certe est contra officium charitatis, qua maxime in­ternam hanc unitatem consistere certissimum est.] Contra officium cha­ritatis, [Page 19] I say; if we take charity not negatively, for not hating, cursing, damning, but positively, for love and amity: which sure the Apostle requires in all the members of Christ, especially toward their Mother, the Church: which charity he describes (1 Cor. 13. 4. &c,) to think no evil, and well to interpret all things: and we may judge this in private amity, where our love ordinarily hap­pens to be very cold toward the person, whose ways, customs, con­ditions we once hate and condemn. Certainly, in the many sects now in this Church of England, and in the division of the Prote­stant from the former Church, tho it be supposed all these agree in fundamentals, and have all such an union of charity to one an­other, as is mentioned before; yet there is a great fault somewhere for diversity of opinions, that must be answered for by some side at the day of judgment: nor doth the Church seem sufficiently in charity toward those superior Church-governors, whose decisions, and Canons she not only refuseth, but also proceedeth so far, as to reject their external communion, and not to admit them, or the Churches adhering to them, to her communion, because of the faultines, wherewith she chargeth such their canons and deci­sions. 6. Lastly, let this be considered, (which you may find more prosecuted in Tryal of Doctr. §. 42. &c.) that, tho one fol­low the Church in fundamentals, yet, by departing from her judgment in other points, he may lose many wholsom advices in things practical extremely profitable and advantageous to attain­ing salvation. Our own judgment sways us to liberty; and God knows how many souls have perisht in the reformed religion, by throwing away the Church'es counsels and commands, tho in to­them-seeming small matters, as Fasting, Confession, &c. And that text 2 Pet. 3. 16. methinks might a little affright us, wherein the Apostle saith, that there are things in Scripture that are hard to be understood, [sure these are not Fundamentals then, which we con­tend are plain,] which are wrested by the unlearned and the unstable [sure he means here men not adhering to the fixed doctrines of the Church] to their own [not harm, but] destruction.

4ly. It is urged, that the H. Scriptures have commanded, that all men, lest they should perhaps be misguided, should try, and §. 15. 4. Concern­ing tryal of Doctrines, necessary. that by the same Scriptures, their teachers doctrines; that so if they find these doctrines not to agree with the H. Scriptures, they may withdraw their belief from them. See Jo. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11. 1 Jo. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 21. 1 Cor. 10. 15. Matt. 16. 6, 12.—15. 14. Gal. 1. 8, 9. Esay 8. 20. In answer to this, for a stricter examina­tion [Page 20] of some of the texts here urged I must refer you to Succession of Clergy, §. &c. and to Trial of Doctrines §. 3. 11. &c: Only here this I say to them in general. Trial of Doctrines by Scripture is; 1. either of the doctrines of private teachers by the Church-go­vernors; of which no question is made: or 2. of the doctrines of private teachers by private men: and these they may try by the Scriptures, so that they guide themselves (left their trial be mista­ken) in the sence of these Scriptures, according to the exposition thereof by the Church; i. e. * in her General Councils; or * in the most unanimous consent of those, whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church, and Expositors of the Scrip­tures; and if thus searching we find the doctrines of the teach­ers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded, we may and ought to withdraw our belief from them. Or 3ly, this trial by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church, i. e. of those doctrines which are delivered not by a private teacher, but * by a general consent of the Church-guides, (at least the fullest which we can discover); or * by General or other Superior Councils; or * by the Apostles, or by our Saviour Himself. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two sences. 1. Either in this sence: Search and try my, or our, doctrine by the Scriptures, for you will surely find my doctrine agreeing thereto, if you search aright, and as you ought. And in this sence the tryal by the Scriptures, of the doctrines of the Church, nay of the Apostles, (St. Paul's by the Bereans); nay of Christ himself, whether the Old Testament, as he urged, testified of Him, is both allowed and recommended. For since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ, or of S. Paul, or of the Church, from the teaching of the Scripture; the one will never fear, but freely appeal to a trial by the other, if it be rightly made. Or, 2ly. it may be understood in this sence: Search and try my doctrines by the Scriptures, and if you in your search do not perceive it agreeable unto them, I declare, that you have no reason to believe, or that you are excusable in rejecting my doctrine. Now in this sence our Saviour, or S. Paul, or the other Scriptures, never recommended private men's searching, or gave any such priviledge to it: unles you put in this clause, that they have searched aright. But if you put in this clause, then is the searcher, after his searching, not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostle's or the Church'es doctrine, till he is sure first that he hath searched aright. I say our Saviour or the Scrip­tures cannot recommend searching in such a sence, or upon such conditions. 1. Because such a searcher or tryer by the Scriptures there may be, as is prejudiced by passion, or interest, ormis-edu­cation; [Page 21] or as searcheth negligently and coldly; or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures, he searcheth, when perhaps it is in some difficult point, wherein they are not so clear; as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul, of the abrogation of Circumcision un­der the Gospel. Neither can any be easily secure of his dis-ingage­ment from all such Letts of using a right judgment in searching. 2ly. Because however the search or searcher prove, there are o­ther means and mediums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines, and by which not bearing witnes to a falsity, one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss, so often as he thinks it to contradict them. Such mediums are; † Miracles, and other mighty operations done by the power of the H. Ghost, upon which our Saviour (Jo. 5. 36, and elsewhere,) and S. Paul (Rom. 15. 19. 2 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. Mar. 16. 20.) re­quired belief and submission to their doctrine. And † Universal Tradition; upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures: the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures de­livering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures, as are found in the Church▪ So that a Pharisee searching and not find­ing in Scriptures (by reason indeed that he searched them not a­right) such testimony of Jesus his being the Messias, as was pre­tended; yet ought to have bin convinced, and to have believed his doctrines, from seeing his miracles; and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search. So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Paul's doctrine, suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ, as was pretended; yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul, or from the authority he or the Council at Jerusalem received from Jesus working miracles, and raised from the Dead, as Universal Tradition testified. And the same may be said for the Church'es doctrines. And therefore, as there are some Scrip­tures, that bid us search the Scriptures, because, if we do this aright, we shall never find them to disagree from the doctrines of the Church; and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scriptures very evident: so there are other Scriptures, (if those who are so ready to search them on other, would search them also on this, point,) that bid us Hear the Church; because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken; and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult: in which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath ap­pointed to be the expounders thereof, (Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. Matt. 18. [Page 22] 17. Lu. 10. 16.) cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures, to try whether their expositions be right. Therefore that text Gal. 1. 8, 9. is far from any such meaning: If the Church or Church-men shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures, as you under­stand them, let these be Anathema to you. But rather it saith this, If an Angel, or I apostatizing (as some shall, Act. 20. 30.) shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received, i. e. from the Church let him &c. which makes for the Church'es authority very much. The Scriptures then recommending tryal do no way warrant to us a tryal of the publick doctrines of the Church by our private sence upon the Scriptures, that so we should adhere to it against them; but a tryal of the doctrines of private teachers by the Churches publick sence of the Scriptures, that in adhering to it we may be always secure.

5ly. They question, since there are many present divided §. 16. 5. Concern­ing what Churches determina­tions, when several con­tradict one another, we are to ad­here to. Churches, to the judgment of which of them they shall repair? I answer. Had this question bin asked an hundred years ago in Luther's time, any one could have solved it. What any one would have done then, let him do now: since all grant that the Church, which was then Catholick, is not changed since in its doctrines or practices; only some men are since gone out of it: and he may know by this, that he is not to follow them, because they are gone out, if he resolve once to be a follower of the Church'es authority. All or most of modern controversies either Councils, which the present Church allows, have decided; or collectively the solution of them may be known by the agreeing tenets of particular Churches and their Bishops, even before, and without, any Ge­neral Councils. Most of the decrees of the Council of Trent (tho it should stand for nothing) yet we must grant, were the general tenets and practice of the present Church of that age, and of many ages before that: and many Councils also (which must be granted at least Patriarchal, or Provincial) have decided the points now in controversy, or many of the most considerable of them; and we find no other superior Synod at all contradicting them in those or later times, but the same things ratified by the general practice which followed. If therefore there was a church Ca­tholick in those days, that had or exercised any authority, (and this I think we confess in our Creed), surely such tenets were e­stablished by it: neither can we acknowledge one Holy and Apo­stolick Church in those times, save only that, by whom such things were used, and by whom also many of them decreed▪ After that [Page 23] therefore we have once yeilded to conform, in our judgment, or in not-contradiction, to the Church; we need not demand, and expect (for these things) a future General Council; for we are judged already: we learning what is the Church'es judgment suf­ficiently by the decrees of former Councils, (Provincial at least), which, with this universal practice following them, are equiva­lent to General. Els many ancient heresies (as Pelagianism &c) remain yet uncondemned in the Church, these having bin cen­sured only by Councils Provincial, whose judgments afterward were generally approved; and by the general practice of that Church, which Church we cannot deny to be the same with that, which once was the total Catholick, and which is also now (if we look after the major part of the Church) the greatest communion of Christians. Such things as these are said; and you must tell me, what I must reply to them. And indeed, if Protestants saw no eminent Church, to which, if all her decisions were made au­thentical, men would presently apply themselves, their contention would not be so earnest against our ascribing too much to the Church'es authority. But suppose (say they) that the church present determin things against Scripture, and against the former Church? Why may not I (say I again) as well suppose you, who think thus of the present Church, to mistake Scripture, and the former Church your selves? and why may I not say again to you; sup­pose that she err in fundamentals, where are you, that in these do follow her judgment? Yes: but the fundamentals, she directs me in, are more plainly set down in Scripture. Well then: since you may not judg against her, in the plain; may you, in other things less plain? But, say you, our Saviour hath promised, in these, she shall not err. Then you need not fear erring with her, in the rest: for were truth in the rest so necessary as you pretend, God could and would, here also, have made her an infallible directer. And we are to know this, that the Church may be faulty in something that she enjoyns, and yet he, that assents to her judgment, not be so: but faulty he will be, if he do not assent. Els what shall we answer to Deut. 17. 11? unles we will say, that those Judges were absolutely infallible.

Now, after all; let Non-contradiction be all the obedience we (when otherwise perswaded) ow to the Church; and this Non-contradiction §. 17: be due only from the subjects of a Diocese, in re­spect of the Bishop or Diocesan Synod; not from the Bishop or Diocese, to superior Synods: yet hence it will follow; 1. First, [Page 24] that the Reformation abroad was unlawful, which we followed; and that no Minister might then preach against Popish doctrines, unles these things had bin first decided by his Bishop; which, I think, is more than many of the reformed will defend. 2. Again; from this distinguishing of our obedience to the Church, accord­ing to several things commanded by her, methinks this may rea­sonably be demanded, since neither King nor Church can justly punish, or anathematize any, for not yeilding that obedience to them, which God hath not bound men to yeild them; Therefore if they are bound to yeild obedience of consent, in some points, (as in fundamentals,) and only obedience of Non-contradiction in o­thers, (as in Nonfundamentals), when our private judgment therein happeneth to be contrary to the publick; methinks, I say, this may reasonably be demanded, That there should be some certain way, how both the Church may know, when to enjoyn the one, and when only the other; and how the subject may know also, when the one, and when the other is due: for none can be justly punished in an invincible ignorance of his duty. And if this be the rule of their non-obligation to consent; namely, when the point is not fundamental; and when they are also in­fallibly certain of the contrary: there must also be some way for men to know, when they are infallibly certain, and when they think only that they are so. For I should have thought any one might know when he is sure, but that I see so many, that say they are sure, when mistaken; and but that I have also found my self afterward mistaken in things, of which I once thought my self infallibly sure. Another thing: methinks. Non-contradiction sounds well in speculatives; but in practicals what must be done? For unles the Church in practicals may bind men (tho of a con­trary perswasion) to consent to what she defines, she cannot en­joyn them to do what she commands, or to forbear what she for­bids; because this doing or forbearing necessarily presupposeth consent first to the lawfulnes thereof, els the action will be sin. Now the Church many times commands and forbids several pra­ctices (doubtles not-fundamental) under Anathema's. And in­deed might not people (in matters practical) be tied (beyond their own inclinations and opinion) to conformity in these; the church, that is founded by the God of holines and order, what a disorderly Society would it be? and how full of several impieties?

[Page 25] To conclude the whole matter: since, in this division of Chri­stendom, one party in general seems many ways to crush the §. 18. Conclusion. Church'es authority; and the other to crush private judgment; and since there seem to be some inconveniences on all hands: a wise man will chuse that way which seems the more safe; which, I think, is to adhere, not to our own, but the common, judgment of the Church. In which there seems to be much humility also, and mortification of our rationale, (in which we are all very strong), and also the not hazarding the breach of the great duty of our obedience to the Church; which I think had far better be yeilded too much, than too little. And, besides these motives, we have seen more evidently the effects of both these tenets upon men in our days: and there seems to be no comparison between the mischiefs, which too much obedience to the Church hath wrought; and those, which the following of private judgment hath produced.

IN the former Discours (§. 2.) it is said; That our Judgment, if it be taken for any degree of private opinion, short of infal­lible §. 19. Concern­ing infalli­ble certain­ty. certainty, ought to be submitted to the judgment of our Ecclesiastical Superiors. Where, infallible certainty, a thing so or­dinarily mistaken, seems to stand in need of some further explica­tion. By infallible certainty; therefore, I mean, either, * that which ariseth from demonstrative arguments, drawn from the nature of the thing, (but this is a certainty which consists not with faith; for faith walks not by sight): or (which most concerns our busines) * that certainty, which ariseth ab authoritate dicentis, when we know infallibly, both, that he saith it, who cannot lie; and that such is the meaning of what he said, els the former of these, with­out the later, breeds no certainty.

1. Now; if you make your proposal thus: Supposing that I am infallibly certain of a thing, that is contrary to the Church'es judgment, §. 201 1. Infallible certainty ex­cusing all submission of judgment to anyother. whether am I obliged to consent to that judgment &c? I must answer, No, by no means. For indeed, if we speak of interior assent, such a thing as this assent cannot be at all; unles one can hold two contradictories to be true. And 2ly, for exterior assent, (that is, professing an assent, when you do not assent,) this you may not do neither, for this is hypocrisy and lying; which the God of [Page 26] truth always hates and forbids: neither hath he tied any man to forsake or renounce, tho in profession only, an infallibly known truth, great, or small. And therefore, from hence, as long as you cannot believe, that the Church hath any authority to guide you; or that her judgment is, so good as your own, or, fit to be followed, so long you cannot profess a consent unto her judgment, a­gainst your own, without sinning; but, whilst you may not do this without sinning, you sin again in not believing otherwise. For no man may do what he thinks he ought not to do; and yet he doth sin in not so doing, because he ought to think otherwise. When I shew you, that you may without sin obey the Church, contrary to what your judgment is in the thing which you assent to; I do not tell you, that you may without sinning obey the Church contrary to this your judgment, that you ought not to obey her; or, when your judgment is, that you ought not to obey her. Where ever the mouth or hand goes contrary to the heart, tis hy­pocrisie and lying, contrary to Christian simplicity, and unlaw­ful. But if the mouth and hand go with the heart, and the heart go not right; here also will be sin, tho not the same sin.

2. Now, in the 2d. place, if you ask me; Whether, hoc dato, §. 21. Infallible certainty to be had in some things. that such a book is the word of God, rightly translated &c, you may be infallibly certain of the sence of it in some things? This, I also grant, you may be: for, hoc dato, that the New Testament, which we have, is the word of God; and that God, in this word, meant to speak so, that it should be intelligible to us, (els it were no revelation of any thing): a private man, that hears, or reads it, may be as certain of something therein clearly delivered; as, for example, that, Jesus is the Lord, or that he died, in some sence or other; as, hoc dato, that he is the Lord, he may be certain that he is the Lord: or, as he may be certain of identicals. (And, as I think, one may be certain of this, so I do not think, that ever there was any heretick, that allowed the Scriptures, i. e. as we have them, that ever denied any such thing in general terms: for this would be to affirm contradictories both true.) Again; since the Ch. may be infallibly certain of something in the Scriptures, from the evidence of revelation; why a private man may not be so too, I see no reason: since the Church consisteth only of so many parti­cular men; and the reasons appearing to the Church may also be clear to him. Tho here I must put some difference; because as there is a certainty arising from clearnes of revelation; so there is another from illumination of the H. Spirit, (see Jo. 16. 13.) which [Page 27] illumination is promised to the Councils of the Church; but not so to particulars: and, for this it is (I think well) said; that the conclusions of such Councils may (from the superintendence of God's Spirit over them) be orthodox; when the reasons, upon which they are grounded, may be fallible, or not proving such conclusions.

A private man, then, in some things may be infallibly certain; §. 22. Of the dif­ficulty of knowing, when one is infallibly certain. but, since he (also) may be mistaken, not only in * very plain Scrip­tures, by † not comparing them with other places, that say some­thing contrary to the sence, which they seem to him to bear; † by education in such mis-interpretations, and many other thousand ways, (as we have much experienced of late in the Socinians, and our English Sectarists, both great Scripturists); but also, * in think­ing himself infallibly certain of something there, when he is not; (which conceit many times ariseth, not from the places incapa­bility of any doubt, but from his not being then acquainted with any objections against his sence of it): The chiefest signs, that I know, by which any one may gather that he is infallibly certain indeed, when it is in any point that is controverted, are these two, (and they are such, as will litle nurse him in his opinion of infalli­ble certainty.). 1. The first is; that no other man, or at least not the major part of men, having the use of reason, understanding our terms, and granting all the suppositions which we do, doth contradict, or frame any objections against, our tenet. The 2d. That all having use of reason, &c, or the most that were former­ly of another perswasion, to whom we propose all our grounds, become certain of the same thing also. I say the most, because it is not here altogether, as it is in Mathematicks; the demonstrations whereof never any, that see them, contradict. Now, that you may not think these marks of certainty too rigid, see the same proposed by the Reformed against the Puritans, whom they think too rashly to pretend certainty in heterodox opinions. See Hook. Eccl. Pol. preface 6. sect. and Bishop Laud, §. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1. Therefore thinking one's self certain, and his not having any doubt at all of the truth of the thing he holds, is no sure note of cer­tainty. For potest non subesse dubium, where yet subest falsum, from the ignorance of those texts or arguments which prove the con­trary of what he holds. And tho there may be no doubt from con­trary arguments, yet is the greatest reason that can be to doubt from a publick contrary judgment, where the much major part of such, as I have opportunity to know their opinion (these having all the same evidences as my self) dissent from me.

[Page 28] Now, against these indications of certainty proposed by us, it may be, and is, said: That passion, self-conceit, pride, love of con­tention, §. 23. and especially contrary education and custom in error, may blind some mens judgment, so as not to discern the plainest things. But mark first, that this is said, ordinarily, by a man that is singular against the contrary judgment of the Church of God. Thou that judgest another, judgest thou not thy self? What can be a better argument for the Church, than her former customs, which thou accusest to mislead her present judgment? Who are liker to be clear of passion, those that submit to anothers judgment, or those that adhere to their own? Lastly, from this it will follow, that we also, to be infallibly certain of a truth, must be infallibly certain, we are not misled by passion, or education in an error, as well as that others may be so; and this surely is very hard to know. ‘In dissent from our Pastors (saith Dr. Jackson) we can­not but doubt, whether we have learnt, as we should, the pre­cepts of Christian modesty: whether learnt to deny our selves, and our affections, to reverence him as God's Minister, taking no offence at his person: whether we have abandoned all such delights, and desires, as are the usual grounds of false perswasion.’ And in another place, he grants, that ‘to the disobedient, and those who hate the light, even plain Scriptures are difficult. If we cannot be resolved in these, then must we doubt (whether we will or no) whether our doubt and scruple be of faith and conscience, or of humor.’ What Dr. Jackson saith here of doubt, I may say of certainty, (since many also are deceived, in thinking themselves certain, when they are not): that till we are certain that we are void of such passion, we cannot be certain that we are certain, &c.

Again; tis said: That in points, which we must needs grant to be most certainly plain to any rational man, yet some here­ticks §. 24. have bin of a contrary judgment: as tis instanced in the Ma­nichees, and in some frantick people of late, acknowledging no ob­ligation to the practice of Christian vertues &c. I answer: this comes about, for the most part at least, by their denying some prin­ciples, which others argue upon. The Manichees acknowledg­ed divine Scriptures, but not such as we have them; but said, that our Scriptures were miserably corrupted. Our Sectarists of late acknowledge our Scriptures; but say, they were writ for, and belong only to, new beginners in Christianity, not to the perfect, &c. So likewise, those that vary in their conclusions, tis notable [Page 29] to see, how much they vary also in their suppositions. Some, in Scripture, hold those to be counsels only, which others take for ab­solute commands: some suppose those precepts temporary, (as I think we must needs confess that Act. 15. to be) which others will needs have to be eternal: some will have the practices set down in Scripture to oblige, as well as peremptory precepts; others not, &c. And upon these various grounds, which others grant not, every one builds, from those grounds most infallible conclusi­ons; which all the world, if they yeilded to his principles, would also with him assert. Mean-while he, looking at the plainnes of his deductions, and seldom examining the soundnes of some ground, which he (irrationally) takes for granted, becomes in­fallibly certain (as he thinks) of what is indeed an error, and many times a gross one.

But it may be said again; that where we can shew none of these differences in principles, yet there have bin hereticks, that §. 25. have gone against tenets even in fundamentals,, of which tenets we must needs grant, that any man may be infallibly certain: as the Arrians, Socinians, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. To you I may speak my opinion. In all these, and many more, which, being chief foundations, we usually also call most manifest truths, yet the most of Christians (E will not say all) are very much beholden to the determinations of the Church, from time to time; by which they are kept fixed, and not shaken in them. And you see how the contrary tenets grow upon the sharpest men of reason, where the authority of the Church is laid aside. Certainly (to name some of them) the omnipresence of God, not in his power, but sub­stance; his certain foreknowledge of, not only what may, but also what shall, be, yet so, as not to destroy mans free election; Christ's non-inferiority, as touching the God-head, to the Father; and all those particulars about the Trinity, Person, Natures, and Wills of Christ, can hardly be said to be so plain in Scripture (to every one that grants it to be Scripture) that all men, without the Church'es guidance, and education in such a faith &c, would have bin infalli­bly certain of them.

2. But, to let these pass, and suppose, in private men, what in­fallible certainty you please, of them, or also of many other divine §. 26. truths: yet in the 3d. place, I do not see how, from the former in­stances, we can proceed to make any use of this plea of infallible 3. The plea of infallible certainty at least not usable against any general contrary judgment of the Church. [Page 30] certainty, against the judgment of the Church of many former ages, for the controversies now on foot between the Reformed and the Catholic Church, against whom this infallible certainty is chiefly made use of.

One of the most seemingly gross and unreasonable points on §. 27. An instance in the con­troversy a­bout giving the Com­munion in one kind on­ly. their side, I suppose, is Communion in one kind only: which hath this prejudice also accompanying it; that it was practised by the Church Catholick in the publick ordinary Church-communions only in some latter times before the Reformation. Yet, I think that none will offer to affirm that he is (I say not, much perswaded, but infallibly certain, of) the unlawfulnes of such a practice, when he hath seriously considered these things which I shall briefly name unto him: * That many practices in Scripture are alterable by the Church, and some precepts there only temporary, not perpe­tual, (as Act. 15. 20. and Jam. 5. 14. as some will have it): * That the Church hath altered many other things, not only without our complaining thereof, but with our imitating her. Nay further; * That some learned Protestants number the communicating the people in both kinds, not amongst things strictly commanded in Scripture, but amongst Apostolical Traditions only. See Montag. Origin. Eccles. p. 396. Ubi jubentur in Scripturis Infantes baptizari, aut in Coena Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare? And Bishop White on the Sabbath, p. 97. ‘Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are received and honoured by us. Such as are these which follow. The Historical Tradition concerning the number and dignity of Canonical Books of Scrip­ture. The Baptism of Infants. Perpetual Virginity of the B. Vir­gin. Observation of the Lord's Day. The Service of the Church in a known tongue.’ The delivering of the H. Communion to the people in both kinds.—When he hath considered * the practice of the primitive times, even in the Eastern Churches also, of giv­ing it in one kind to sick men, to Seamen, to Travellers, to the ab­sents (upon necessary occasions) from church; to those also, who came to church, to carry home with them, that they might there reserve it in readines, and communicate themselves therewith, when they thought fit, on those days when there was no pub­lick communion, or they hindred from it by distance, danger, (as in times of persecution), or necessary secular busines; that which they carried home with them being only of one species, viz. that of the bread. And * these things; tho so done, to avoid some in­convenience, (I suppose the spilling, and the not-keeping of the [Page 31] wine, as also it is now); yet so done, without any absolute ne­cessity; for, the sick can take wine sooner than bread; and it might be conveyed from vessels without spilling, and those vessels also be first consecrated; and might also be possibly preserved in a close bottle for some long time. When he hath considered * the ancient practice of giving the Communion sometimes to In­fants newly born and baptized (to whom this Sacrament was thought also necessary) only in one kind; namely that of the wine.—When one considers, * the ancient custom likewise in time of Lent (in the Greek Church, for all days save Saterdays and Sundays (because, saith Balsamon, Deo sacrificium offerre, they ac­counted to be, festum diem agere) in the Latin Church, for Good-Friday) to communicate expraesanctisicatis; i. e. on what was con­secrated on another day, and reserved till then; which Symbol reserved was only that of the bread. * The great cautiousnes of the former times, against the too frequent casualties of spilling that precious blood (which could not be gathered up again, as the bread might) in their receiving it, in some places sucked up through a pipe; in others, by intinction, and dipping only, or sopping the bread in the wine; a custom also used at this day in some of the Greek and Eastern Churches. Again; (whereas one of our greatest complaints in this matter is an imperfect commu­nion, and robbing the people, as it were, of the chief part of their redemption, yet) when he hath considered, * their never que­stioning the compleatnes of such Communions, who thus received it in one kind; which it most concerned people going out of the world, and some of them perhaps then first communicated, for their last viaticum, to have most perfect. Where note also; † 1. First; * that the sufficiency of such a communion was so con­stantly believed; that the use of the Cup also in publick commu­nions was (upon many abuses committed about it) by little and litle, in a manner generally laid aside in the ordinary practice, some hundreds of years before any determination passed in any Council concerning it: and * that that decree made first in the Conc. Constant. 13. sess. was only to warrant and justify the Church'es former custom against those, (Petrus Dresdensis, the Hussites, and others,) who then began, to inveigh, against it, say­ing; AEn. Sylv b [...]st. Bohem 35. c. hanc consuetudinem observare esse sacrilegum & illicitum; as likewise against that custom, to communicate men fasting; and hence began to change it, and to communicate after Supper, and in both kinds. And 2ly, † * That some of the Reformed also acknowledge, totum Christum to be contained in, and exhibited to [Page 32] us by, any one species, and by the least particle thereof. See Con­fessio Wirtenberg. Chamier de Eucharist. 9. t. 8. c. our Saviour's bo­by, and blood, and soul, and Deity, suffering now no separation. See a further proof of the things said above, in the discours on this subject. And lastly, if he hath considered a case not much unlike; i. e. the communicating of Infants; wherein if the Prote­stants had retained a contrary custom to the rest of the present Church, perhaps they might have accused the Church for chang­ing it, not with less evidence than they do in this. For first; the Scripture saith plainly, as of Baptism, he that is not born again of water so, of the Eucharist, he that eateth not my flesh &c, shall not inherit eternal life. 2ly. And then the Primitive times, accord­ing to these precepts, practised it. 3ly. No more knowledge and preparation is required to the Lord's Supper, than to Baptism; for examining ones self, and repenting, is required to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist; therefore, if such things are not required of children for the one; so neither are they for the other. And I could press the like in Extream Unction; which suppose that we had retained, and the Roman Church left off (as it is contrary); how easily could we have charged them for abrogating a plain Apostolical precept, Jam. 5. 14? And the same may be urged con­cerning the great act of humility, washing one anothers feet be­fore the Communion: for which, after that our Saviour himself had first begun the practice thereof, there seems to be a plain precept. Jo. 13. 14.—And so the Church'es changing the cele­bration of the Lord's Supper into a morning exercise, and that it should be received fasting, was not done without some mens scru­pling it; See Januarius his consulting S. Austin about this, Epist. 118. &c. But, if we can alledge in this matter the desuetude of former Church to be a sufficient rule and warrant to us for omit­ting of it; then why may not the same plea of the Church'es de­suetude be as well by some others enlarged to some other points, wherein Scripture is urged against them? I say therefore, if such cases as these be well considered, together with the understanding and the holines of these men, who, after our reasons given them, are not convinced by such an evidence, as we pretend; methinks for one to say, notwithstanding all this, not, that he is much per­swaded, but that he is absolutely infallibly certain, of the unlaw­fulnes of such a practice, would not consist with that Christian humility which we ought to have, and to which only God gives true knowledge; nor with that charge of the Apostle, not to be wise in our own conceits. Whereas it is noted, that the more emi­nent [Page 33] in sanctity any one hath bin, the more eminent obeyer and defender (not opposer) hath he bin of the Church'es authority. A like instance might be made in that mainly opposed doctrine of Transubstantiation: where, as long as a possibility thereof is granted, (as it is by many of the Reformed); and such a de­claration is found in Scripture as this, [Hoc est Corpus meum,] (the most literal and proper sence whereof that can be, tho the most heightning this mystery, is Transubstantiation of the Elements; See Treat. of Euchar. §. 28. n. 2.); and as long as this Scripture is not found contradicted by any other Scriptures, but that with less force the literal expression of them may be brought to comply with it, than the literal expression of it to comply with them; we also adding to these the final determination of the Church (long before Protestancy thought on) after so long and subtle dis­putes for about 300 years, from the 2d. Nicene Council till the days of Berengarius, and after so curious an examination on all sides of Primitive Tradition by Paschasius, Bertram, and others, 800 years ago; I do not see, where a man can ground an absolute infallible certainty against it. Tis a dangerous case to disobey, where we see others of great judgment and integrity yeilding obedience with ala­crity, saith Dr. Jackson. And indeed I cannot but approve of that constitution of Ignatius; and think him a too much self-conceited man, who, when he hath, I say not, to the Church, but, suppose only to three or four, whom he knew wise, and learned, and unin­terested men, shewed his reasons, and they have weighed them, and concluded against his former opinion, would not quietly ac­quiesce in their contrary judgments, supposing no superior judg­ment to have prejudiced them; and this especially in a point not fundamental. Tho (I know not how it is, that) when we plead our security in our dissent from the Church'es judgment, we pre­sently say, that the point we differ from her in is not fundamental, and that unity of faith in those fundamentals is sufficient: but again, when we plead the necessity of using our own judgment, and not trusting or relying on any other mans, we presently re­present the same Not-fundamental truths, as of great consequence; and say, the blind (meaning the Church, which may perhaps err in such things) leading the blind, both may fall into the ditch: and that that ditch also is damnation.

I cannot conceive therefore, how any man can assure himself (in any thing that is not of fact or sence, but that is only a dedu­ction §. 28. from Scripture and Tradition) contrary to the judgment (I [Page 34] say not of his private Pastor, but) of the supremest Court of the present Church, that he is infallibly certain of any thing, small, or great. Small, I say, as well as great: for from the Church'es being liable in some things to error doth not follow any likelihood of his being infallibly certain in those things of the contrary truth; but rather otherwise: because tis a sign, that such things are not clearly revealed, and that they being dark to her, will be so much more to him. To confirm which, add these two. 1. That in Fundamentals this thing is granted; That none can be certain of the contrary to what the Church defines: and then, that how many points are fundamental, is to him uncertain. 2. That a­mongst many tenets of the Church, this is one; That private men are bound in all things to yeild their consent to the Church'es decisions, where they are required so to do. This tenet is plain in the practice of General Councils; which Councils, as well for Non-fundamen­tals as Fundamentals, and for things of practice as well as of belief, have anathematized the (not only contradicters, but) Dissenters and Non-conformists. Now then, unles any one be infallibly cer­tain of the contrary to what the Church determins, and that this is no fundamental point also; his judgment, against hers, cannot be infallible in any point whatsoever, where she requires submis­sion of his judgment. In prosecution of which submission of our judgment in Non-fundamentals, also it is to be noted; that, if our submission to the Church in fundamentals were performed from any such obedience, as we confess is by the command of God's word due to her determinations; then the texts, which may be urged to oblige us to obedience in these points, would oblige us also in others: for these texts are without any limitation of our obedience to fundamentals only. But indeed, our not so much assenting to her, as consenting with her, in fundamentals seems to proceed from other motives than obedience: as from this; that our Saviour hath promised, that the Church (for fundamentals at least) shall not err: and from a second; that all fundamentals are most plain in Scripture: and therefore, as they cannot be hid to us, so neither can they to her; and therefore in fundamentals we must necessarily both agree; in which agreeing, we obey not her, but, together with her, the Scriptures. Mr. Chillingworth well saw this. And hence, those who withdraw one of these mo­tives, as those amongst the reformed, who say, Christ's promise (before-mentioned) is only conditional, (i. e. if the Clergy shall do their duty); or who say, that Christ's promise is more general, i. e. made to Christianity, but not to the Clergy thereof, or to any [Page 35] General Council; those, I say, make nothing to dissent from any Council, or any Church, that can authoritatively declare her opi­nion. To conclude this Query; I do not see then, how any man can be, or at least can know, that he is, infallibly certain of any point, wherein the Church'es judgment is contrary to his.

4. Now (next) if you be not infallibly certain, then, tho you have never so great probability (that is short of certainty) for your §. 29. 4. The greatest pro­bability, short of in­fallible cer tainty, not excusing one dissenting from the judgment of the Church, private opinion, yet I think, and I think the Reformed Divines conclude, that you are notwithstanding to consent to the contrary determination of the Church or Council. Els if only probabilities may serve to counterpoise the Church'es or Council's authority, when or where will these be wanting? You have seen Mr. Hook­ers, and Bishop Laud's, and Bishop White's opinion in Church-gov; 2. part. §. 36.—Infallib. §. 45. And Dr. Jackson on the Creed, 2. l. 1. §. 6. c. I find saying thus, ‘Our disobedience is unwarrantable, unles we can truly derive some formal contradiction or opposi­tion between the injunction of Superiors, and express law of the most high.’ And elsewhere he saith: ‘Every doubt or scruple, that the Church'es edicts are directly or formally contrary to God's law, is not sufficient to deny obedience.’ And again: ‘In doubts (saith he) [and I say, all is but more or less doubt until we be certain] it will abundantly suffice, to make sincere protestation in the sight of God, or before the Magistrate, if need require, that we undertake not such actions upon any private liking of the things enjoyned, but only upon sincere respect of performing obedience to Superiors &c.’ And elsewhere: ‘We may not put the Superior to prove what he commands, but he is to be obey­ed, till we can prove the contrary.’ Again: ‘We can no more obey, than love, God whom we have not seen, but by obeying our Superiors whom we have seen. True Spiritual obedience will bind us rather to like well of the things commanded for Au­thorities sake, than to disobey Authority for the private dislike of the things commanded.’ Again: ‘If Pastors are only to be o­beyed when bringing evidence out of Scripture, what obedi­ence perform we to them more than to any other man whomso­ever? for whosoever shews the express undoubted command of God, it must be obeyed of all. If we thus only bound to obey, then I am not more bound to obey any other man, than he bound to obey or believe me: the flock no more bound to obey the Pa­stor, than the Pastor them: and so the donation of Spiritual Authority, when Christ ascended on high, were a donation of [Page 36] meer titles.’ You see how we plead for obedience, against our own Non-conformists: yet, for the former Church, we support our selves against her authority, with having infallible certainty. But the Non-conformists cease not to plead this certainty also a­gainst us. But indeed, this, he saith here, is most reasonable. For if you do not submit to the Church'es judgment, when you have greater probability to the contrary; you never submit to her judgment at all: for when ever you have not greater probability to the contrary, you have either greater probability of what she saith; or are in a pure equilibration: and in either of these you do nothing with, or for, which you would not, and may not also, do without, her. Well, then we may not exact of the Church that she should prove, nor may not only then yeild obedience, i. e, consent and conformity, when she doth prove, to us that that is truth, which she commands us to believe; and that that is lawful, which she commands us to do. But it is our duty to obey, if our selves have not infallible certainty and proof that such things are untrue or unlawful. It is not enough, to license us to withdraw our obedience or assent to her, that she may possibly err in what she commands us, unless also we know, that we cannot err our selves: for the power of giving our assent requires not infallible knowledge, that the thing, we assent to, first is true; but only, a not knowing infallibly, that it is false. It is not enough, that we are not certain that she erreth not; not enough, that we have some scruples, some reasons and arguments, whereby it seems to us that she erreth: but only certain infallibility that she doth err, this indeed excuseth our non-obedience. Els our Spiri­tual Superiors are in the place of God, and of Christ, to us: and we are to shew to them, whom we do see and hear, the humble o­bedience we are ready in all things to render to God, whom we do not see nor hear: and, as we are to shew our love to God in our Neighbour, so are we to shew our obedience to him in his Substi­tutes. 1 Thes. 4. 8. compared with 2. And it is not only lawful, but a great virtue in us, (since the contrary is most-what an effect of self-conceit and arrogancy of wisdom and knowledge), as to suppress the seeming suggestions of reason and sence about natural things, which suggestions are against the revelations of God and divine truths; so, to captivate our understandings also, and crush the suggestions of any singular interpretations and sences about these divine revelations, which are against (I say not, every pri­vate teacher, but) the common exposition of the Church.

[Page 37] Were then all those, which are the Church's, decrees acknow­ledged; and 2ly, our infallible certainty (so much pretended by §. 30. us) so strictly examined, that weak probabilities be not accepted by us in stead thereof; how few would the points be, in which (upon our concessions) we could oppose the H. Church? But again; were all those people, that had not, in these few points, that infallible certainty, which the others (learned) have, (as one may be certain of a thing, of which another is not, tho he also might be, certain), conformable to the Church's definitions, how near would this come to a perfect union? Thus Dr. Jackson, on the Creed, 2. l. 1. §. 6. c. ‘Superiors are to be obeyed in all such points as their inferiors are not at leisure to examin; or not of capacity to discern, whether they be lawful or no. And in ano­ther place. Some may sin in obeying authority, whilst some others do not sin. And again, ib. Unles a man can justly plead some pe­culiar reason or priviledge, it is a very dangerous case to disobey lawful authority in such matters, whereunto he sees many men by his own confession of great judgment and integrity of life yeilding obedience with alacrity &c.’ (For indeed I suppose all inferiors not bound to examin the doctrines they receive from the Church.) But how is it then, that those that are not certain, are taught to believe those, that (upon this certainty) depart from the definitions of the Church, rather than to adhere to the Church? Surely, they ought to be taught otherwise, even by these that are departed. For suppose Luther, upon some private certainty, might not yeild his consent to former Church-definitions, yet all the rest not having the same certainty (even by the Protestants stating of this question) ought to adhere still, not to Luther, but to the former Church. And again, Luther, in this certainty, being bound at least to Non-contradiction of the Church, neither might he then go about to teach others that infallible certainty which he had, of those points which oppose the Church.

You know the ordinary objection, against what is above-said, out of Rom. 14. c. 23. Where the Apostle saith: He that doubteth §. 31. An explica­tion of Rom. 14. 23. of the lawfulnes of a thing, and yet doth it, sinneth: and therefore it is urged, that he that practiseth a thing upon the Churches com­mand, whereof he doubts, whether it be lawful; or subscribeth to the Church's judgment in a thing, whereof he doubteth whe­ther it be true, sinneth. To this I answered before, (§. 2. and §. 20.) that he that believeth, or is perswaded, that he ought to yeild obedience to the Church in things contrary to his private judg­ment, [Page 38] sinneth not in this sort, because such a one doubteth not, but is satisfied in what he ought to hold, or to do. But, if the que­stion be asked of those, who have some doubt whether they ought to obey the Church, or to follow their own judgment; whether such at least ought not to follow their own judgment, to avoid sinning? I answer; neither do such sin in obeying the Church, ra­ther than themselves. Indeed where one side is undoubtedly lawful, and the other only is doubted of, whether lawful; he who doth that, which he doubteth of, sinneth. But where one hath, or hath reason to have, a double doubt; and a doubt of the lawfulnes of both sides: you see, that here he must (go what way he will) do something, when he doubteth, or hath reason to doubt, of the lawfulnes thereof. And thus it is, where ever the Church commandeth me to do a thing on one side, and my particular judgment in the thing disswades me from doing it on the other; for here, in not doing it, I may, or ought, to doubt, that I sin a­gainst the obedience I owe the Church; as well as, in doing it, against the obedience I owe to my own judgment or conscience. Here therefore, I am not to say, [my judgment being against it I must not do it,] or [I sin if I do it,] and so oppose the Church'es authori­ty out of conscience, as I think: but when a command of the Church is now come in upon me to do it, and so it is not left free to me in respect of external authority (as before, and as it is in the Apostle's instances) not to do it; here I am first to examin, whether this my judgment is not to be submitted to the Church'es judgment: for if I am perswaded, or so much as doubt whether, it ought to be submitted, I may now sin, in not doing according to her judgment, against my own; i. e. I may sin in not doing it, tho it is against my judgment to do it. As in two instances it will be plain. For, suppose a Church-injunction come forth for Christians not to observe Jewish Sabbaths, and some Christian, Judaic in his own particular judgment, thinks such Sabbaths are to be observed; yet such a one sinneth, if he doth according to this iudgment, after, and against, the Church'es injunction; (see Gal. 4. 10.) tho before this he had sinned, if he had not done ac­cording to his own judgment. (See Rom. 14. 5. 14.) Again; suppose a decree of the Nicene Council, that all men should sub­subscribe their Creed, and that some particular Christian thinks (thinks, I say, is not certain) in his own particular judgment some­thing in it to be false: if such a one doth not subscribe it, tho a­gainst his own particular judgment, he sins: because he either knows, or ought to know, that, in fundamentals at least, his [Page 39] particular judgment is to yeild to the judgment of the Church. But 3ly, if the question be asked again; Whether he that doubts not, but is fully perswaded, that he ows no such obedience to the Church; and that he is to follow his private judgment rather than to follow that of the Church, when they cross; whether such, I say, may or ought to obey the Church, against his private judg­ment? I answer; No, by no means: because an erroneous con­science obligeth; i▪ e. our words or actions may never go contra­ry to our heart. And if any one, tho in doing well, thinketh he doth evil, he (in his intention) doth evil. But yet, if his judg­ment oweth obedience to the Church'es, tho he doth not think so, in this following of his conscience he sinneth, because he doth a­gainst his duty; of which he ought to have informed his consci­ence better: and this no small sin, after such a known declaration; He that heareth you, heareth me: and, If he will not hear the Church, let him be accounted as a heathen, &c.

Of the danger of SCHISM.

COncerning the hainousnes and danger of Schism, I have read over those quotations you directed me to in Mr. Cressy's §. 1. Motives, c. 46. but cannot consent to what he there (sect. 5. com­pared with the former quotations) deduceth from them: [i. e. that no man, if living in a Communion or Church schismatical, tho he hath no influence upon the beginnings of the separation; tho he judge charita­bly of the Church which others have separated from; and approacheth as near to it in his belief, as that which is truth, in his opinion, will permit him, can be saved.] Unless 1. first this be true also, (which he indeed seems to affirm, 47. c. 2. §. that the true Church cannot be hidden from the eyes of any man, who doth not willingly shut them), That any ones opinion, that such a thing as he or his church holds is truth (I add; or, that that Church, wherein they are baptized and educated, is the true Church), of what condition, age, calling, capacity, soever he be, must needs proceed in him from some corrupt passion, (as S. Austin instanceth in two such passions which chiefly make ones error an heresy; qui, alicujus temporalis commodi; or, qui, gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas & novas opi­niones vel gignit, vel sequitur), and from ignorance, not invin­cible, but obstinate and affected. Now I hardly think any one will affirm this of every man whatsoever, that is born and educat­ed in a Communion schismatical. [Tho indeed I believe that this may be truly said of very many (especially the learned), who notwithstanding think themselves very free from it. For, the ne­cessity (which is ordinarily pleaded) of following or not-doing contrary to our conscience freeth not us from being guilty of Schism in doing after it, (no more than it could free a Donatist &c) [Page 2] if there be any defect, from negligence, interest, passion, &c, in the information of it. See Notes of Necessary Faith, §. 6. And see Archbishop Lawd, Conf. 37. sect. 6. n. where he saith; ‘That an er­ror (and that in points Not-fundamental) may be damnable to some men, tho they hold it not against their conscience:—If they neither seek the means to know the truth; nor accept truth, when it is known: especially being men able to judge.’ Now, I conceive, in most learned that abide in a Schismatical com­munion, such a fault there is. Namely, either † much negligence: and this, either in not reading the controversies of religion at all; or in their reading the tenets of their adversaries only in their own writers; or in their taking, and arguing against, the extre­mities of some private mens opinions for the Catholick doctrines of that Church, from which their Ancestors have departed. Or (if they deficient in none of these) 2ly, † much interest, and passi­on, and addiction to worldly conveniences or honors, (therefore S. Paul and S. Jude observe much carnality in Schism, 1 Cor. 3. 3, 4. Jude 19): which passion (unknown to them) restrains the free liberty of their judgments. Hence, the ignorant people in a Schis­matical Church may well be saved, whilst the learned thereof (in their uncharitablenes to, and opposition of, the true Church) pe­rish.] Or 2ly, unless this be true, that where invincible ig­norance is, and no actual breach of charity at all, yet the pure want and privation of external unity or communion with the Church, without any their default, damns such men; tho mean­while they do receive all the benefit of the Sacraments, well know and believe all the necessary Articles belonging to faith and man­ners, and conform in their lives thereunto, even in strict obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors of that Church which they live in, and which they only know. Now this I think as unreasona­ble an assertion as the former. See §. 6, 7, 8.—Now, to consider the quotations in Mr. Cressy, and what may be said in this point, you must give me leave not to shuffle all together; but to distri­bute the matter into many Propositions, that we may see which of them are disputable, which not.

1. Let it be granted for the present, that the Church cannot §. 2. Upon con­fession; 1. that the Ch. Catho­lick. con­tains not in it many op­posit [...] but only one, external Communion. have in it many opposit external communions, but only one: so that he, that enjoys not that one external communion, is rightly said to be out of the communion of the Church, i. e. out of the ex­ternal communion thereof. Only here note; that one may else­where, [Page 3] out of this external communion of this only true Catholick Church, be partaker of the Sacraments, and those the true Sacra­ments: for none deny that the administration of true Sacraments may be in a Church Schismatical, or also Heretical. So S. Austin (de vera Relig. 5. c.) acknowledgeth the Arrians and Photinians, Hereticks, to have had all the same Sacraments with the true Ch. Qui [i. e. Photiniani, Arriani, &c,] paria Sacramenta celebrantes, ta­men, quia sententia dispares, sunt—exclusi a Catholica communione &c. And of the Donatists schismaticks he saith, (Ep. 48. near the end); Nobiscum estis in baptismo; in symbolo; in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis &c. And the Roman Church, which esteemeth the Greek schismatical, denieth not them to have the true Sacraments. And if some of them deny it of the Protestants, tis only from the Protestants not using some forms which they count essential to the Sacraments, (especially the form in the ordaining Priests); not from their being a schismatical Church. See 6, 7, 8, §. Therefore of that place of Fulgentius, de remiss. peccat. 22. c. quoted in Mr. Cress. Motiv. 46. c. 4. sect. [Out of this Church neither doth the title of Chri­stian secure any man; neither doth Baptism confer salvation; neither doth any man offer a sacrifice agreeable to God; neither doth any man receive remission of sins; nor attain life eternal, &c,] the meaning of it is only; That the Sacraments, tho true, do not profit to salva­tion a Schismatick; as they neither do, a drunkard or adulterer &c: because as the drunkard, notwithstanding these, is damned for his drunkennes; so is the Schismatick for his faction, and unchari­tablenes, and pride, in not submitting his judgment to the Church. And many the like sayings concerning the inutility of the Sacra­ments to Schismaticks, before Fulgentius, hath St. Austin, in his writings against the Donatists, who urged, from the true use of the Sacraments, and the belief of the Creed, &c, the security of their salvation. See de Baptismo 1. l. 3. c. Esse baptismum & apud Donatistas nos concedimus, sed apud Donatistas Baptismum non recte accipi &c,—Qui ab aliqua haeresi veniunt ad Communionem Ca­tholicam, incipit illis prodesse, quod inutiliter habebant.—Certus est in ea sola [i. e. Catholica Ecclesia] illi prodesse baptismum Christi, etiam­si alibi acceptum fuerit &c. But then the reason given by him of these Sacraments not profiting &c is, the want of charity in those, who, in such Church, use or receive them: as we may plainly see by his fuller arguing the busines in other places. (Epist. 48. near the end.) Nobiscum estis in baptismo, in symbolo, in caeteris Dominicis Sacramentis; in spiritu unitatis, & vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique catholica Ecclesia, nobiscum non estis: Haec si accipiatis [i. e. [Page 4] vinculum pacis &c] non tunc aderunt, sed tunc proderunt, quae habetis. Here the want of spiritus unitatis & vinculum pacis renders the true Sacraments received, as to their salvation, uneffectual. And (de unitate Ecclesiae 19. c.) Accipiat vinculum pacis quod non habebat, sine quo illi prodesse non poterat baptisma quod habebat. Utrumque enim necessarium est ad regnum Dei adipiscendum, & baptismus, & justitia. Baptismus autem & in eo qui justitiam non habet, potest esse; sed non potest prodesse. Justitia autem haereticis deest, quam sine charitate ac vinculo pacis habere nullus potest: and for this also he quotes 1 Cor. 13. 1. But then take one in a schismatical Church that is void of that fault, which the Father alledgeth here to render the Sacra­ments uneffectual to them, and to expell them from salvation, (as you must grant to me some are, when I name a child to you that is not yet come to the full use of his reason), and such a one, bap­tized, and then dying, is certainly saved. And then I ask; Why not some other? who, tho living longer, yet thro an invinci­ble ignorance may be as free from division, and faction, and breach of charity, in this kind, as when he was an infant; or as any others are, who are educated in the bosom of the true Church. For which purpose see S. Austin de Baptism. contra Donatistas 1. l. 10. c.—Ecclesia Catholica quicquid suum habet, etiam in communionibus diversorum ab unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in iis habet [i. e. per baptismum, of which he is there speaking] ipsa utique generat [i. e. filios Christo, non illae]. Per hoc quod suum in iis habet, therefore the Church hath aliquid suum in other heretical and schismatical Churches. Generat filios, therefore some also in Schismatical Churches thus may be said to have the Church for their Mother. Else if Baptism, when administred by such, were utterly effect­less in it self; how could it profit them to salvation, without any second administration thereof, who afterward return into the bo­som of the true Church?

2. Be it granted: That there is no salvation to any that are out of the communion (i. e.) internal of the Church. (For certainly §. 3. [...]. That there is no salvation to any who are out of the internal communion of the Ch. Catholick. none are saved that are not the members of Christ, the Head; and then, tis impossible, that any should be one of the members of Christ, and not have those of the church for his fellow-members, un­less Christ have two distinct bodies.)—Of this S. Austin against the Donatists, De unitate Ecclesiae 2. c. speaks very fully. Quaestio certe inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesia; utrum apud nos, an apud illos? Quae utique una est; quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt. Haec au­tem Ecclesia corpus Christi est. Unde utique manifestum est, eum, qui [Page 5] non est in membris Christi, Christianam salutem habere non posse. Mem­bra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem capiti suo cohaerent, quod est Jesus Christus. [He continues afterward, cap. 4.] Quicunque de ipso Capite Scripturis sanctis consentiunt, [i. e. are never so orthodox in their belief,] & unitati Ecclesiae non com­municant, non sunt in Ecclesia; quia de Christi corpore (quod est Eccle­sia) dissentiunt ab ipsius Christi testificatione, [i. e. that she is toto orbe diffusa, and shall never perish, &c,] & apertissimis ac notissimis Scrip­turarum testimoniis contradicunt.—Again: Quicunque credunt quod Christus Jesus in carne vener it &c, sed tamen ab ejus corpore, quod est Ecclesia, ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto qua­cunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur; manife­stum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Catholica. In aliqua parte separata, for the reason given by him above; because they want charity: Mem­bra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & capiti suo; and because notissimis Scripturis contradicunt.

3. But, all this being granted, yet 3ly, if any happen to be extra §. 4. 3. Yet that salvation must be al­lowed to same who are out of the Ch. Ca­tholicks ex­ternal com­munion. Ecclesiam, out of the Church's external communion, or also in parte separata; so he be not guilty of that fault which makes such sepa­ration damnable, but still retains the necessary bond of chari­ty; such a one, (once joyned unto it by baptism), tho amongst other Separatists, seems to remain himself still unseparated (tho not from the external, yet) from the internal communion of the Church. And if any be so strict, as, besides this internal (effe­cted by the same Spirit of Christ in all the faithful, and always seen to God) always to exact an external also, such assertion will in many instances prove false, even in S. Austin's concessions; who freely acknowledgeth both many, that are in the external com­munion of the Church, no true members thereof; and many to be true members of the Church, who are out of the external commu­nion thereof. See de unitate Ecclesiae 20. c.—Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum communione cum Ecclesia, & tamen jam non sunt in Ecclesia: Alioquin & tunc quisque praeciditur, cum excommunicatur. Consequens erit, ut tunc rursus inseratur, cum visibiliter communioni restituitur. Quid si ergo sictus accedat, atque adversus veritatem & Ec­clesiam [...]or inimicissimum gerat? Quamvis peragatur in eo illa solem­nitas, nunquid reconciliatur? nunquid inseritur? absit. Sicut ergo, jam denuo communicans nondum insertus est; sic & antequam visibiliter excommunicatur, quisquis contra veritatem, qua convincitur & argui­tur, inimicum gest at animum, jam praecisus est. Again; de Baptisme 1. l. 17. c. Semper ab illius Ecclesiae, quae sine macula & ruga est, unitate [Page 6] divisus est, etiam qui, in carnali obduratione, congregationi Sanctorum miscetur.—Spirituales autem sive ad hoc ipsum pro studio proficientes, non eunt for as [i. e. when they are excommunicated]: quia & quum aliqua vel perversitate, vel necessitate hominum, videntur expelli; ibi magis probantur quam si intus permaneant; cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur, sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur. Add to this the place quoted below, §. 13. and that Discours of his de unit. Eccl. 20. c. of the several degrees of their culpablenes who may live in a Schismatical communion, set down §. 7: Where the Father affirms, God hath some good corn amongst those tares: ubi radice viva herbae vigor atteritur, &c. Se­veral instances therefore there may be given, wherein such asser­tion will prove false. For example: It is granted to be false, in those who are unjustly excommunicated, (as some, tis by all con­ceded, may be); and in Penitents, after a just Excommunication, who are not yet actually reconciled. Of whom Bellarm. de Eccl. 3. l. 6. c. saith; Tales esse in Ecclesia animo sive desiderio, quod sufficit illis ad salutem: bringing in St. Austin's saying, de vera relig. 6. c. of such like; Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns. (See below §.)—Again: false, at least, in those dying after bap­tism, before the use of reason, in a schismatical Church.—Again, false in Catechumeni, that dye before they receive baptism, or are entred into the Church. Of whom Bellarmin (de Eccl. 3. l. 3. c.) saith: Quod dicitur, extra Ecclesiam neminem salvari, intelligi de­bere de iis, qui neque reipsa, neque desiderio, sunt de Ecclesia, (sicut etiam de baptismo communiter loquuntur Theologi); quoniam autem Cate­chumeni, si non re, saltem voto, sunt in Ecclesia; ideo salvari pos­sunt. Neque repugnat similitudo Arcae Noe, extra quam nemo salva­batur, etiamsi voto in ea fuisset: nam similitudines non in omnibus conveniunt. I add, that some of the Catechumeni were such, as, for secular reasons &c, deferred baptism long after they might have bin admitted to, and received, it: and amongst such, I suppose was Valentinian; who dying before baptism received, after baptism willingly deferred, yet S. Ambrose doubted not of his salvation. What then? was there no fault in baptism so deferred? Whether in all, I know not; in many, I believe there was. But we must put some difference, between the committing of a fault (in the want thereof), and the incurring of certain damnation. And doubtles, this fault, as others, was remitted to them upon a gene­ral or a particular repentance, the votum mean-while of what they wanted and purposed, that in convenient time they would receive, and presumed they should, saving their souls. I say therefore, in [Page 7] such cases, the position above, being meant of external commu­nion, is false: and then why may it not also be so in some other cases? As namely in one, whose ill hap it is to be born in a Schis­matical communion, yet where he partakes the true Sacraments; when it is supposed, that such a one may be guiltles of that crime, for which the Schismatical are damned.

4. In the next place; of those who all live in the same Schisma­tical communion there are several sorts: who must be carefully 4. Several sorts of those who live in an external communion Schismatical. distinguished.

1. The first are those, who make a separation, and set up a new §. 5. 1. Those who make such separa­tion, not sal­vable, with­out repent­ance. communion divers from the church Catholick; be it upon any pretence of error, or other thing whatsoever, (for there can never be, to the end of the world, a just cause of so doing). [See Aug. Ep. 48. Si possit (quod fieri non possit) aliquis habere causam justam, qua com­munionem suam separet a communione orbis terrarum, &c. (See this place quoted and approved by Dr. Hammond, (of Schism, 1. c.) on­ly let me add to his words there, visible Church; els no division from the church Catholick can ever be known.—And again: Ibi enim erit [i. e. Ecclesia] ubi primum forsitan factum est [i. e. se­paration] quod postea vos fecistis, si potuit esse ulla justa causa, qua vos a communione omnium gentium separare possetis. Nos autem ideo certi sumus neminem se a communione omnium gentium juste separare potu­isse; quia non quisque nostrum in justitia sua [as the Donatists did, saying no wicked could be of the Church,] sed in Scripturis divinis quaerit Ecclesiam, &, ut promissa est, reddi conspicit, [i. e. toto orbe diffusam, civitatem super montem positam, crescentem in messem &c.] See contra Ep. Parmen. 2. l. Praecidendae unitatis nulla est ju­sta necessitas.] Such men therefore as make this separation dying in this guilt unrepented of, tho this their death should be a mar­tyrdom for the truth, cannot be saved (no more than a drunkard or adulterer impenitent, and continuing in such a sin till his death, that dies for Christianity), for without charity (saith the Apostle) none can be saved. 1 Cor. 13. 1. And this falling out (so causless) with their mother the Church, disobeying her, and violating her peace and unity, accusing her of error, (for no Schism but pre­tends some error in the Church, that it may have a just cause of departing from her), and of error also so intolerable, that none at all ought longer to live in her society. [As, if any should say of her, (what the more moderate Protestants say of the Roman Ch.) ‘That by reason of her superstitions, or her (material) idolatry, or her Antichristian principles, none may safely communicate with [Page 8] her: That, in the division made, not they, but she is the schis­matical Church: That she retaining the expression unchanged, yet hath, in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils, quite changed and lost the sence and meaning of some of the Articles of them: That there is great peril of damnable both Schism, and Heresy, and so of damnation, by living and dying in her faith and perswasion, tainted with many superstitions: That her errors are reductively fundamental, if any pertinaciously adhere to them.’ (See Archbishop Lawd's Conference, 35. §. punct. 5, 6.—and 37. §. 1. numb. 5. numb.)]: Such things, I say, are a very high breach of charity, and that to a person of nearest relation to us, our Spiritual Mother; tho perchance many Schismaticks are so far charitable to her, as not to say, that her errors exclude her from all salvation; or that she is no Church at all: but this spark of charity left in some toward her little excuseth their many other wrongs. Non video (saith Cassander, Consult. 7. Art.) quomodo il­la interna societas consistere possit, si publicam Ecclesiae consuetudinem in observatione tam universalium quam particularium rituum violes, & condemnes, & institutis majorum pertinaciter repugnes; quod certe est contra officium charitatis, qua maxime internam hanc unitatem con­sistere certissimum est. Thus he. Neither doth it excuse them, if any do all this against the Church out of ignorance and not-contrary to their knowledge, as being perswaded, the Church may apostatize from Christ because, as S. Austin saith, (see before 3. §.) notissimis ac apertissimis Scripturarum testimoniis contradicunt &c, and such ignorance must needs be highly faulty, and proceed from a judgment blinded with pride, ambition, or some other self-in­terest. And this desperate condition of the authors, or fautors, of Schism, I think, all sides acknowledge. See what Dr. Hammond saith, (of Schism 1. c.) There is no one vice, which hath fallen under so much of the displeasure, and correption, and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the ancient Church, as this of Schism, and the ingredients and preparatives to it, have done. Where also see the aggravations thereof in many pages.

2. The second sort are those in all after-ages who follow such §. 6. 2. Those who follow such leaders, and conti­nue the di­vision upon the same motives and passions not salvable, without repentance. leaders, and continue the same division (after they know how at first it was made) upon the same motives as the other began it, and blinded with the same passions, and culpable ignorance. And these, being in the same guilt, are in the same condition, for salva­tion, as the former. Only the first of the two, caeteris paribus, the [Page 9] far greater sinners, because the first seducers; if the followers no way outvy them in further prosecuting the principles received from them, and accumulating their uncharitablenes and contu­melies against the Church, and resisting greater light given them, and plainer discoveries made unto them. But note, that by reason of these, as many times the Scholars transcend their Masters, the followers may easily become twice as much the children of hell as their first leaders were. See Matt. 23. 15. And of these two only I suppose are meant all those quotations of the Fathers: the reasons there mentioned being ambition, interest, &c, and (upon these) breach of charity, and of the unity of the Church.

3. The third sort are those, who follow such leaders (being not §. 7. 3. Those who follow such leaders in simplici­ty of heart, and out of (their condi­tion consi­dered) in­vincible ig­norance: such in a salvable state, tho suffering great disad­vantages. schismatici so much, as, schismaticis credentes) in simplicity of heart; and out of, not a faulty, but (considering their condition, or age, &c) an invincible ignorance; perhaps such a one not knowing of any other Christian church save his own, (as some travellers have noted, that the Maronites or Armenians in Persia, ignorant of any division of theirs from the Roman Church, heartily joyned in Divine Service with the Romish Covents there); or, if knowing of another Ch. not knowing whether it departed from his Church, or his from it; or what its different doctrines, or customs, and pra­ctices are, &c. And here, to perswade you that such ignorance may be; consider now an ordinary-Laic-Christian-Greek, what breach of charity or Ecclesiastical unity such a one following his Ancestors and Ecclesiastical governors, who have continued even ever since the Apostles times a visible succession, can be made guilty of, whilst this his Church is mean-while condemned for Schismatical: and if we find him hereof no way guilty, what war­rant have we to deny to him, baptized, and holding all fundamen­tals, salvation? Tis true indeed, in some heresy, i. e. such as denies some fundamental point, (without the belief of which none are saved), that the haereticis credentes are in somewhat the same case with the haeretici; and these blind, tho led by others, likewise (for want of faith necessary to salvation, and for crimes committed a­gainst the light of nature, not extinguished in them,) fall into the ditch. But in Schism it is not so; because it is not necessary, that the follower in the same practices should be guilty of the same breach of charity, or contumacy, as the leader; nor of such irre­gular passions, (which are the causes alledged, why Schismaticks cannot be saved.) And, for other things, Schismaticks have, or may have, all the Sacraments rightly administred, (see 2. §. even [Page 10] the Eucharist, as well as Baptism; as is the common tenet of the Schools: Sacerdotes etiam haeretici, & schismatici, & excommunicati revera conficiunt seu consecrant hoc Sacramentum; dummodo neque ex parte verborum, quibus ad consecrandum utuntur, [i. e. if they use the words of Institution,] neque ex parte intentionis, ullum sit impedi­mentum. Estius 4. sect. 13. d. 3. sect.) may have all necessary points of faith rightly taught and believed, as all confess: and there­fore how can such a man, yeilding obedience accordingly, fol­lowing only the good directions of his Schismatical Superiors, but not knowing them to be such, miss or come short of salvation? [...]. Nazianz. or at. 21. In the Scriptures quoted by Mr. C. (which are Matt. 18. 7. Rom. 16. 17. Phil. 2. 1. Jo. 14. 27.—13. 35.) those only are by texts of the Apostle con­demned, who make, or by whom come, Schisms and Scandals; to which I may add Tit. 3. 11. where S. Paul pleads autocatacrisy; and (in the rest) love and unity is recommended: but such a man, as we here speak of, is free from the first; and possessed of the se­cond. And if, as the position, so the reasons, which the Fathers give for it, had bin set down by Mr. C. you would have seen (I am confident) such a man cleared from any such censure. How doth that saying of S. Austin touch such a one? Schismatici sunt, qui di­scissionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate discedunt: quapropter Schisma­ticus non pertinet ad Ecclesiam, quia Ecclesia diligit proximum. See be­fore 2. §. &c. But if any say; That, in Schism, not any actual breach of charity, but the bare want of unity, excludes him from heaven, (as pure want of some knowledge is supposed to do, in Infidelity, or in some kinds of fundamental Heresy): what unity, I would know, doth he mean? Internal? But that, I hope, is con­ferred in Baptism rightly celebrated to all that do not ponere obi­cem; as tis supposed some here in Schismatical communions do not. External therefore? But why not Votum, for this, serve the turn for these, as it doth for some others? (4. §.) Which votum in general of being every way united to his fellow-members in the Church (which is the body of Christ) every good man hath; tho every one discerneth not in particular this true Church from all other Sectarists; of which, without his own fault, some may be ignorant. And the Father's so great aggravation of the crime of Schism, That such men divide and rend the body of Christ &c, shews, that they speak not of all (haply) livers in, but the makers of, Schisms; or the continuers thereof upon the same grounds and motives, and with the like passions, as did the Authors. There­fore see S. Austin making much difference amongst the followers [Page 11] of the Donatist-Schism in Affrick, and not denying that some of God's wheat might remain amongst those tares. De unit. Eccl. 20. c. Itaque illis relictis [i. e. when discovering them enemies to the Church] mox ad Catholicam pacem multi & Episcopi, & Clerici, & populi redierunt: quod & antequam facerent, in tritico deputaban­tur. Tunc enim non faciebant, cum adversus homines [i. e. Caecilianus, who was falsly accused] non adversus Ecclesiam Dei illa eorum con­tradictio tenebatur.—Nonnulli etiam bonae voluntatis per carnalem caliginem etiam post confirmatum malignorum [i. e. the Donatists] fu­rorem in illa dissensione diutius erraverunt, (tanquam si adhuc mollia conculcarentur frumenta, & radice viva herbae vigor attereretur) etiam ipsa tamen frumenta sua noverat Deus; quamvis, ut reviviscerent, ar­guenda & increpanda. (Non enim eo modo dictum est Petro; Redi post me Satana, quomodo dictum est de Juda, Unus ex vobis Diabolus est.)—Quidam quoque & apertissimae veritati malo studio contradi­xerunt: Illi vero eradicati, vel praecisi erant. Tunc enim quisque,—cum pro ipsis operibus etiam veritati apertissime (qua redarguitur) resistere coeperit, praeciditur. And—Multi tales sunt in Sacramentorum com­munione cum Ecclesia, & tamen jam non sunt in Ecclesia &c.—So in answer to the Donatists Query, Utrum generet filios baptismus in parte Donati? (that if he granted this, they might collect that they had a true Church,) the Father answers, (de baptism. 1. l. 10. c.) Una est Ecclesia, quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum ha­bet in communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, ipsa utique ge­nerat, non illae. Therefore it may have aliquid suum in such com­munions. And (Ep. 162. directed to some followers of the he­resies of the Donatists) he saith thus to them in the beginning thereof. Dixit quidem Apostolus Paulus haereticum hominem post u­nam correptionem devita &c. sed qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendant, praesertim qui non audacia praesumptionis suae pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in erro­rem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veri­tatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Tales ergo vos nisi esse crederem &c. Nor may any ex­tend those texts Matt. 15. 14. Rom. 14. 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. to all any way misled by others. For, in the first, the follower falls into the ditch together with his leader, because blind in the same manner as his leader, i. e. wilfully, not inevitably, (which is here supposed): for which compare Matt. 15. 14. with Matt. 23, 15, 16. where such blind followers, as our Saviour there speaks of, become many times also worse than their leaders, (tho they become so first by occasion of the example of such guides), and so fall much [Page 12] deeper also into the ditch than they. In the second, (Rom 14. &c.) tis to be noted, that this brother, weak in knowledge, who upon oc­casion of another's act (who, by reason of his right-informed judg­ment, sinneth not) doth amiss, perisheth not for that wherein he is weak, or for the error of his judgment; but for doing a thing contrary to his judgment or conscience, tho erroneous, drawn on thereunto by seeing another do the like. But no such thing hap­pens in this case. Tho I here deny not, that, in such a communion, the truly innocent of the guilt of Schism may be in great hazard of their salvation, upon other reasons: namely, by such looser di­scipline as may be exercised in it, or by such erroneous doctrines taught in it, as are prejudicial, or such omitted to be taught, as are some way beneficial, to a holy life. See Trial of Doctr. §. 42. &c.

4. A 4th sort are those, who educated in a Church Schismati­cal, §. 8. n. 1. and afterward fully convinced that it is so, yet neglect, or think not necessary at all, their return to the external com­munion of the church Catholick; mean-while agree­ing 4. Those, who convinced of schism in such a Church, yet rejoyn not themselves to the external communion of the Ch. Catholick, tho consent­ing in all things with her. with her in faith; preserving perfect charity and internal communion with her &c. And these are ei­ther such as only forbear the external communion of the church Catholick, yet absent themselves also from all other; or such as continue in their former external com­munion. Again; both these are either such as are, 1. hindred Hindered, 1. either by somerespects meerly tem­poral. Such faulty, but how highly, I cannot pronounce. from professing the Church Catholicks external communion, and deserting another's, for some considerations meerly temporal: and these doubtles are blameable in the same kind as those Jo. 12. 42, 43. Jo. 7. 13.—5. 44. Matt. 10. 27, 28, 33, 37, &c. Jo. 12. 25, 26. Gal. 6. 12, 14. For as it is our duty to confess Christ, so to confess him to the uttermost; as in himself, so in every truth of his; as in himself, so in his members, and in all things that belong unto him; especially in his Body, and Spouse, the Church. And as he that is ashamed of him before men may be peccant in such a de­gree of shame, as that he shall not be acknowledged by him be­fore his Father, as a member of his body; so he that is ashamed of his Church may be peccant in such a degree of shame, as that he shall not at that day be acknowledged by it as a fellow­member of the same body. But yet I cannot say that all such are blameable in the same degree; or that all such (whether less, or more, deniers of Christ) shall at the great day be denied of him, and certainly incur eternal damnation: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and others, being, to some degree, guilty of this; (and [Page 13] perhaps I may add to them Naaman the Syrian,) yet not excluded from all mercy: nay, to some degree, who is not so? Yet, who thus deny him in some kind, may be such as confess him in many other; as also Joseph and Nicodemus did. (See Jo. 19. 38, 39. Jo 7. 50, 51. 2 Kin, 5. 17.) Neither may I make the return of such a one as lives in a communion less Christian, yet where Christ is professed, and the true Sacraments received, to the Church, as ne­cessary, and his staying out as desperate, as of one relinquishing heathenism, suppose Victorinus, or the like. Austin. Confess. 8. l. 2. c. But doubtles such a one, convinced, and, for motives meerly tempo­ral, staying out, must needs be in a very great fault; and how great, we know not; and, on the other side, he oversees an oppor­tunity put into his hands of honouring and serving Christ through difficulties and crosses; the action of his reconciliation being so much more worthy and heroical, by how much the obstacles are greater.

Or 2ly, such as are hindred &c for some consideration and design §. 8. n. 2. Or by some consid­ra­tion and de­sign m [...]e [...]y Spi [...]itual. Such less fau [...]ty than the other, yet [...]em [...] wholly ju­stifiable. meerly Spiritual; as for the procuring a reunion (upon a better understanding of the Church's tenets) of Churches divided from It; as also some reformation of some manners in the Church Ca­tholick, by which others were scandalized; the best mediators of such busines being thought to be such persons, as are not openly engaged on the contrary side. [Such seems to have bin the project of Grotius, Militier, if the design were not rather to reduce all Christian Churches to some union and middle complexion, by every Church's relinquishing their several errors and faults i. e. such as seemed to these men to be so in every one) upon some Council of them all to be assembled to compound differences. In which project they seem to suppose either no Church truly Ca­tholick, and the only orthodox communion, distinct from the rest, as Schismatical; or, that they see truth clearer than she that is the Catholick; and that she is not sufficiently able from time to time (assisted by the Holy Ghost) to correct what may be amiss; within her self, without the directions of others who stand with­out. Now this to me tasts of too much arrogance and self-conceit of their own judgments, in comparison of hers; and also sup­poseth the Church Catholick fallen into deeper corruptions than can well stand with God's providence and care over her, and his; promises to her.] Or, for the gaining at least from amongst Schismaticks of many more [particular] souls; with whom, in such disguise, they may converse and act more freely &c, mean­while [Page 14] being real factors for the Church; and themselves forbear­ing, in some way, to confess Christ, only to procure a further con­fession of him; and staying themselves without the Church-door, only that they may invite the more to come in. In which thing they seem to have much encouragement from the Apostle, who also caught men with [an innocent] guil; who upon occasion used ceremonies of Legal vows, shaving the head; purifying; offering sa­crifices for the persons purified, (Act. 21. 23.) Circumcision it self, Act. 16. 3. (tho it, in some cases, and for some ends, unlawful and mis­chievous) becoming all things to all men, even himself as it were with­out law, yet under the law to Christ, that he might gain the more. 1 Cor. 9. 19, 20, 21. Now for such, tho I much less dare damn them, than the former, (8. §. 1. n.) for their want of the external communion of the Church; yet can I no way justifie such their doing. For charity must be so wise as to begin at home, and we ought not any way to neglect our own souls, to gain other mens.

Now such a one is supposed either to continue still in the external communion of a Schismatical Church, or else to commu­nicate §. 9. n. 1. Whether they conti­nue still in a commu­nion schis­matical. with no Church at all. If he continue still in the commu­nion of a Church Schismatical: First 1. it may be such perhaps, as hath not the right use of the Sacraments in it; or also is defe­ctive in some of them, and in many other doctrines and comforts, wholsom discipline and strict orders; of the administration of which almost no Soul is so perfect but that it will have much need. 2. But 2ly, Suppose no want of any such thing in it; yet, what if all such communion be utterly, absolutely, forbidden? For if so, then this is undoubted of; that we may not do the least thing that is absolutely prohibited or unlawful, that all the good in the world may come thereof. Now such a communion seems for­bidden both by many passages of Scriptures, and by commands of the Church. 1. First, for the Scriptures; See 2 Thess. 3. 14. Which communion seems for­bidden them. 1. Both by the Scrip­tures, 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 22.—1 Cor. 5. 9, 11. com­pared with 6. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 17, &c. 2 Jo. 10, 11. Matt. 18. 17. Tit. 3. 10. Eph. 5. 7, 11.—some of which texts contain a strict in­junction for not keeping company, or conversing with wicked livers, and more especially with the infidel, heretical, schismatical (more pernicious than wicked livers) even in things indifferent, as eating with them, &c. Which injunction of the Apostle seems to be made in imitation of the former law of the Jews forbearing eat­ing or companying with the idolatrous Gentile. According to which we read, that S. Austin's mother forbare sitting at table, [Page 15] or eating, with her Son, when addicted to Manichean opinions. (S. August. Confess. 3. l. 11. c.) [Which Apostolical injunction, con­cerning converse in things indifferent, I conceive always in force: 1. first, where it may probably serve to do some good to those we separate from; as, to make them ashamed &c. and that is most likely, where the heretical or debauched &c are few in number, in comparison of the orthodox and pious. Or 2ly, to do some good to our selves by separating from them; as, when we are in danger, of infection from them, or also of partaking God's judg­ments with them. But other cases I grant there may be, where such Separation is not obligatory. As 1. first; when probably more good may come to them by our converse, (if there be no pro­hibition thereof by the Church); as, where the accompanying of them is used by the more confirmed in virtuous habits, some way to help those who are not found yet altogether incorrigible. See for this Matt. 9. 12. 2. Again, when such Separation may bring more hurt to our selves, to the Church, &c, than the benefit is, we can reasonably hope from it. As, where the most are perverted, the upright few in number; where much hindrance, or sometimes also mischief, may come to the one by it, and no shame or amend­ment to the other. Quando plus perturbat infirmos bonos, quam corri­git animosos malos. 3ly. When such Separation may offend a­gainst some duty; to which we are obliged, either by the Divine, or Civil, laws. As, the children may not abandon their parents, or the wife her husband, on such pretence: neither is it required, where necessary commerce, or natural, or religious relations, will not permit it. This is clear from the Apostle's permission of the Christians commerce with the heathen and idolaters: 1 Cor. 5. 10. [yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world,—with idolaters, &c. for then must ye needs go out of the world.] So likewise, when we cannot communicate in the publick, or also private, worship of God, in the Sacraments &c with the orthodox and godly, with whom we ought, without such a mixture of the impious and profane, as is not in our power to prevent: here no necessity of Se­paration from those impious and profane lies upon us; for so must we needs go out of the Church; or relinquish those, from whom we receive much benefit. The same it is for relinquishing near relations; for so we must abandon our habitations. But note always, that at such times, when such necessities, theirs or ours, do not force or exact from us such converse; tis a far better pra­ctice, if not a necessary duty, to separate, even for diet, cohabi­tation, discours, &c, from the Schismatical in opinions, or notori­ously [Page 16] wicked in manners; tho by their great numbers we are con­fined to much solitude.]

Now, to come closer to our matter in hand; tho in some pre­tences, which may be made here, (as, of our selves being suffici­ently §. 9. 11. 2. grounded in truth, and out of danger of seducement or infe­ction, and of our good purpose in our association with the Schis­matical, only for converting some of them, (for which our Saviour allows converse with publicans), some of the reasons for separa­tion, contained in these Scriptures, seem to be removed: as, that of avoiding infection, and partaking of their sin; (tho give me leave to interpose here, that, in such conversation, tis very hard to be so innocent, that some compliances must not be made (by one who would by no means be discovered what he is) both in discours and actions, some way prejudicial to the truth; neither can there scarce be any Schismatical Church, wherein some of their public practices, prayers, discipline, will not be contrary to the consci­ence of one that is orthodox): Tho thus, I say, some of the rea­sons for Separation be removed; yet are there some other of those reasons remaining still of force. As; that we may not seem to countenance them in evil; and that, by our deserting them, some of them at least may be ashamed; when (especially if it be in such a conjuncture of time, wherein the foundations of a Schism are shaken) our open profession of truth may startle those, whom our discours cannot work on; and our example, in going before them, perhaps be more effectual than our reasons, in only directing them the way. But, in our continuing still in their Society, tho our private instructions and reproofs may manifest to some that we countenance them not: yet to most these cannot do so; nor to any perhaps so much as we ought. For whilst we pretend our fellow­ship with them to be only to reprove them; how can we do this so fully, and so far as duty obligeth, when we are to reprove them chiefly in that also, wherein we continue fellowship with them; namely in their separated communion from the Church? In which separation yet we bid, or seem to bid, them God speed, so long as we also abide with them in it. But, besides these reasons of Separa­tion; the preserving our selves from infection from their judg­ments, the discouraging of the offenders, &c, touched in some of these texts; yet some other of those Scriptures (as 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. 1 Cor. 5. 5, 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 17.) seem to lay yet a more special injunction upon us, especially not to communicate with them in their Sacraments, and publick Divine worship; and this upon [Page 17] some other yet higher reasons, namely the duty of the publick owning and professing our religion, and the keeping it pure, and unmixed with any unbelieving, schismatical, or heretical assem­blies. For the Sacrament being instituted, as, for a sacred instru­ment of our communion with the Deity, so also, for a publick te­stimony and mark of a strict league and amity between all those, who together partake it: neither will the honor we owe to God the Father, who dwelleth in us, and adopts us for his children, (2 Cor. 6. 16, 18.) nor, to God the Son, whose members we are, (1 Cor. 6. 15, 16.) nor, to the Holy Spirit, whose Temples we are, (1 Cor. 3. 16, 17.) suffer us, by such a sacred and solemn ty, to link and unite our selves to any congregations that are estranged from him, or disclaimed by him. This is making fellowship between righteousnes and unrighteousnes, mingling light and darknes, [2 Cor. 6. 14.] joyn­ing the members of Christ to a Spiritual harlot; by which they two be­come one body. [1 Cor. 6. 15, 16.] For the Sacrament hath this vertue, that those become one body amongst themselves that par­take it; (See 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17.) and by touching the unclean, we also become unclean [Lev. 5. 2, 3.]: and all those separations, under the law, of the corporally unclean from the congregation of the Lord, because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord, and holy as he is holy, (see Lev. 11. 43, 44.) were only types of the Separa­tion, which ought to be from notorious sinners, which we here speak of; to which the Apostle makes application of them, 2 Cor. 6. 17. [Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, saith the Lord] taken out of Esai. 52. 11. And hence also taketh he strict order for the sudden separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church, (especially from communicating the Sacraments thereof,) as of Leaven from a lump unleavened, that the Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange, (see 1 Cor. 5. 2, 5, 7, 13): eje­ction, or casting them out, where the Church hath the power; or her going out from them, (2 Cor. 6. 17.) where they have the power: but still a separation there must be. Else in consorting with them we provoke the Lord to jealousie, [1 Cor. 10. 22.] as if we are not true and loyal to him, and entirely his. Now tho some of the texts urged by us speak only concerning non-commu­nicating with idolaters; who worship not the same God with us, nor use the same Sacraments; which I grant is a much greater crime in any: Yet 1. first, they may be enlarged upon the same grounds, (namely the publick signification of the Sacraments, that the partakers thereof are co-united in the same faith and charity) to those congregations, who worship the same God, but not in that [Page 18] way he requires; and who are any way opposite, by a division of themselves from it, to that one Society, which only hath its union with the head. But 2ly, are there not some other of the texts, that speak as plainly of the avoiding of the heretical and schisma­tical, as these do of the unbeliever, or idolater? See Matt. 18. 17. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him [i. e. thy brother in Christia­nity] be unto thee as an heathen, [i. e. an idolater.]—Rom. 16. 17. Those that cause divisions, contrary to the doctrine which ye have re­ceived, mark, and avoid.—Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an heretick re­ject.—2 Thess. 3. 14. If any man obey not our word &c, note that man, and have no company with him.—2 Jo. 10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say [...] to him: which is not spoken of plain idolaters, but some half-chri­stians, of whom other Christians might be less aware. But if you say, that some of these Scriptures forbid only private familiar converse with those who are factious, tho such perhaps as are not yet excommunicated by the Church; then how much more oblig­ing must they be, for our not communicating with whole congre­gations, and separating-assemblies of them, in holy things? This last then, or also more than this, is prohibited in them. And indeed were such conformity in the publick Service, and the Sacra­ments, allowed with Sectaries, what a confusion would it cause in religion? there being no sign now left, whereby the orthodox professors may be distinguished from the schismatical. And if we may be thus far dispensed with, to consort with divided communi­ons, only upon design of doing the Church thereby the more ser­vice; how many are there, who, engaged only in secular ends, may make use of such dispensation upon holy pretences!

To conclude this matter, about the restraint found in Scripture: 1. We are not obliged (for any thing I know) as to speak, so nei­ther §. 9. n. 3. in any other action to profess, all that is truth at all times; (tho in matter of religion, especially even where it is lawful to conceal something of our profession, it is more honourable and more glorifying of God, upon all occasions, to confess him to the uttermost): We are not obliged, I say, to do all acts amongst he­reticks, which may shew us Catholicks; no more than amongst Turks, which may shew us Christians. 2. Not obliged to for­bear absolutely the company, converse, eating, negotiating, nor perhaps private praying in the same place with hereticks, &c: for (as is said before §. 9. n. 1.) many worldly accounts may in a sort necessitate us to such things: and then the Apostle's dispensation [Page 19] [1 Cor. 5. 10.] will be applicable unto us, (I mean, supposing no express injunction of the Church, concerning the forbearing of any such communication; in which (I must add) if she at any time should think fit to restrain us, then would such forbearance become, upon another account, obligatory to us): much more are we not debarred any entercours with them, whereby we may the better confute, or instruct, them. Again; 3. Perhaps we are not obliged (especially where probably we, not they, shall suffer some detriment thereby, and that in regard of our Spiritual af­fairs; as where a country is orespread with such an infection) to expell schismaticks from our communions, if such not by name excommunicated: for who knows whether some such, having never personally affronted our religion, may not at last also be gained thereby?—Time and place do alter much in all these matters. See S. Aug. Ep. 50.—Ubi per graves dissensionum scissuras, non hujus aut illius hominis est periculum, sed populorum strages jacent, detrahendum est aliquid severitati, ut majoribus malis sanandis charitas sincera subveniat. 4ly. We are by no means obliged to forbear every thing, whereby de facto we may be mistaken by others to favor or profess some heresie or schism: provided, that we give no just, and commonly received, grounds of such mistake. But to do that thing in conjuction with hereticks and schismaticks, which either is, or there is none at all, the ordinary test and token to the world of such a profession, [such as is our communicating with them in publick prayer, and the worship of God, and in the Sacraments,] this I conceive, by the places above, utterly prohibited.

Lastly; I would not have this discours above so mis-under­stood, as if none could have union with the head, who are out of §. 9. n. 4. the external communion of that body which belongs to him: or also are in the external communion and participation of the Sacra­ments of the Lord with another sect factiously divided from it; but only, that those have it not, who, knowing them schismatical, yet in their Sacraments dare to joyn with them. But, where is not such knowledge, nor affected and culpable ignorance; to the integrity and simplicity of such people the true Sacraments, where­ever received, are still effectual. (Which makes a great difference of those persons who live in, and communicate with, a Church schismatical, from those who communicate with infidels; in which see what danger there is even to the weak, 1 Cor. 8. 11. com­pared with 10. c. 20, 21. v. because such weaknes can never be blameles.) Are still effectual, because here no guilt in the person [Page 20] factiously disposed, or practising against conscience and known commands, hinders the benefit thereof unto him. (See Levit. 5. 3. If he touch the uncleannes &c, when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guil­ty, and bound to make expiation for it.) Neither doth here the par­ticipation of the same Sacrament by both render one guilty of the impious schism of his fellow-communicants; no more than when, in the true Church it is received in the company perhaps of some abominable livers, it doth render the rest partakers with these in their crimes; or no more, than a good Christian, who, by the fraud of others, without any his own fault, is joined to an harlot in stead of his wife, may be said to make Christ's members the members of an harlot. Tho such, who knowingly join in their external Sa­craments with any separated worship, shall thereby be partakers of their guilt. See 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. which I conceive was spoken by the Apostle, not only to the erroneous, who with some consci­ence of the idol, as if it were something, did eat of the sacrifices, (see 1 Cor. 8. 7.) but to the orthodoxly-minded, who, counting the idol nothing, thought such external compliance lawful and no prejudice to their Christian profession.

2. Now, in the 2d. place, to come to the commands of the Church; which are justly obligatory, even in such things as by §. 10. 2. And by the injun­ctions of the Ch. Catho­lick. the Scriptures are left indifferent, and not prohibited unto us. And therefore we are as well to examin what liberty the Church per­mits us, as what the Scriptures: or also, what our Spiritual Supe­riors, according to the obedience which we owe to them (Heb. 13. 17.) think fit to allow us; and not to transgress it. Now if the Church hath in a lawful Council excommunicated and anathema­tized such congregations; surely this is a sufficient prohibition to all those, who will retain any relation to her, to have no fellow­ship, at least as to the publick prayers and sacraments, with them. For Excommunication, being an expelling of such from being members any longer of the Church's communion, a fortiori is a prohibiting any, who pretends to be a son of the Church, from becomming a member of their communion. If we may not give the holy Sacrament to them, where they submit to us; much less may we receive it from them, where we submit to them. If she will not suffer us to be mingled with them in her society; much less, in theirs: If when they happen to come single to us, we must avoid them; much more may we not, where they are ga­thered in a body, repair to them. If we may not joyn with them, where there is also other good and orthodox society; much less, [Page 21] where we have none but theirs. Now, not to examin here, what later Excommunications of any particular hereticks or schismaticks have bin, (of which every one, that professeth himself a son of the Church, is carefully to inform himself), I wil set down some ancient Canons &c, (for any thing I know still in force,) expresly prohibiting such society. Concil. Laodicenum held by the orthodox in the times of the reigning of Arrianism before the 2d. General Council, approved by the 6th Constantinopolitan Council, Conc. in Trullo; where, as it is decreed, Non oportet cum Paganis festa cele­brare, [39. Can.]—and, Non oportet a Judaeis azyma accipere, [38. Can.]: so; Non oportet cum haereticis vel schismaticis orare, [Can. 33.] and, Non oportet haereticorum benedictiones accipere. [Can. 32.]—Conc. Carthag. 4tum. (Anno D. 436. a little after S. Austin's death) Can. 72.—Cum haereticis nec orandum, nec psallendum.—Can. 73. Qui communicaverit vel oraverit cum excommunicato, sive Cleri­cus, sive Laicus, excommunicetur. Here may be considered also, * the cautious and scrupulous practice of the primitive times, in their letters commendatory, called Epistolae formatae; which, because of the Church's careful avoiding of all mixture with sectaries, were procured by those who had occasion to travel from one Church to another; without which testimony they could not be admitted to their prayers, &c. And also, * the strict separation of the Catho­licks that was made from that potent division of the Arrian sect; who, tho in many of their Councils they required subscription of no positive heresy; but only omission, in the Creed, of some truth, the word [...], (see what is said hereof in Church-government 2d. part §. 40. &c.): yet were the orthodox (tho much persecuted by the secular powers, and tho, by the banishment of their Pastors in some places destitute of the Sacraments) strictly prohibited to come at the Arrian assemblies, tho these having the same Sacraments with them, and possession of the Cathedrals, and other Churches: and chose rather to relinquish their Temples; to pray at home; to live without the Sacraments; nay, to be without these in their sicknes, and at their death; than to receive them from the Arrians. See Athanas. Epist. Synodica in Alexand. Concil.—Ep. ad ubique ortho­xos.—Hilarii lib. contra Arrian.—Basil. Ep. 293. to some Egyptian Bishops.—Thus much of the Church's injunctions.

Now such a one, as intends to have any relation and interest in §. II. To which such owe o­bedience. her, must know; that, besides our agreement in the faith, and our being in full charity with the Church Catholick, as being a body consisting of our fellow-members and brethren in Christ, there [Page 22] is also a duty of obedience to be yeilded to all the injunctions and commands of the governors thereof, as of our Spiritual Fathers in Christ: which none that hopes to enjoy the priviledges of a son, unless so far as he is by these dispensed with, may, without sin and great danger to himself, on his own head disown and omit. For what is this, but, as if a son should come and say to his tempo­ral Father, from whom he hath formerly run away, that he em­braceth him with all inward affection, is sorry for any fault for­merly committed, will love and honour, and do all the good he can for, him; but that he must excuse him, if that (for some rea­sons) he doth not submit to, or practise, his commands: except only, that this our disobedience to spiritual Superiors is so much the more inexcusable; for that all their commands are directed to the benefit of their children: so that by omitting them, out of this pretence of benefiting others, such a one forgoes very much profit to himself. None then can be a Son to the Church, unless he render himself subject to her laws, as well as affectionate to her practices. Now of her laws (the yoke of which, if he reverence and bend to in some things, he must not shake off in others) non-communicating with Sectarists seems to be one, and very consi­derable. In which, if some dispensations for good ends may be given by her, (yet none can be given by her for so far, as the Scrip­tures have restrained us,) yet, till such grant obtained from her, he stands obliged to her commands. Which grant from her, if there were no other motive, this is enough to obstruct; that it is liable to be made use of (instead of zeal to convert souls) to many unworthy ends, of serving our temporal interests, and protecting a spiritual cowardise, an avoiding of the cross, and a not confessing of our Saviour before men; contrary to Matt. 10. 27, 32, 37, 38, 39. See before §. 8. n. 1. But, laying aside this command of separat­ing himself from schismaticks; if he will be counted a Son, he is to live conformably to all her other injunctions. Now some, and not a few of these are such, as involve an outward communion with the Church. And also many other of her injunctions (see be­low §. 14. which do not involve it,) if strictly observed by him, wil quickly render him uncapable of any disguise to what party he belongs, and bring the same jealousies and temporal inconve­niences upon him, which follow a publick reconciliation; and, which to avoid, he yet stays out of the Church: only with this difference; that he shall incur likewise the odious aspersion of hy­pycrisie and dissimulation, with which an open professor cannot be reproached.

[Page 23] And indeed, setting aside any Church-command of such sepa­ration; yet-a dissimulation or compliance (tho it proceed not to §. 12. the practising any thing in the matter of God's worship against our conscience, yet) that ventures so far, as to use that sacred ce­remony (which is taken to be the greatest tessera and symbol of communion, and by which all the world publish and distinguish their religions) with those, from whom he so much dissenteth and disalloweth; I say, a dissimulation that proceedeth so far, seems to be much against the simplicity and ready vindication of our Christian profession. In the times of persecution before the days of Constantine, it was not only held unlawful (tho this required upon pain of death) for Christians to cast a little incense into the fire before an Idol or the Emperor's image, (a thing which a Chri­stian might externally have done, with the greatest vilifying of the same idol in his heart) but also to procure with money a Li­bel or testimony from the officer (tho most false) to be shewed by them upon occasion that they had done any such thing; or to pro­cure the officer to recite or return their names that they had done such a thing, or to subscribe that they would do it. See the Epi­stle of the Roman Clergy to S. Cyprian, (inter Cyprian. Ep. 31.)—Non est alienus a crimine, cujus consensu, licet non a se admissune orimen tamen publice legitur.—Et qui vult videri propositis adversus Evangelium vel edictis vel legibus satisfecisse, hoc ipso jam paruit, quod videri paruisse se voluit. See Cyprian de Lapsis. Professio de­negantis [i. e. se esse Christianum] contestatio est Christiani quod fu­erat abnuentis; fecisse se dixit, quicquid alius faciendo commisit. Tho see how plausible the same Father draws up such a ones excuse, Ep. 52. Ad magistratum mandavi Christianum me esse, sacrificare mihi non licere.—Dare me ob hoc praemium, ne quod non licet faciam. But note: that the magistrates freeing him for this reward, was by bringing in his name, as if he had sacrificed, which the Christian ought by no means either to have procured, or admitted. As for that which is urged concerning S. Paul: that he became as a Jew, to the Jews; as without law, to those without law, &c. practising some things whereby he seemed (at the first) to his converts of an­other opinion than indeed he was, that he might, out of this mi­stake, produce their greater good: yet note; that, for this good, he practised nothing absolutely unlawful or prohibited, either by Divine, or Ecclesiastical, injunction; but some things, which, tho they were no longer necessary to any ones salvation, and some ways also inconvenient, and troublesom, yet were things indiffe­rent, at least as yet to those infant-times of the Gospel, before [Page 24] Christ was perfectly understood to be the end of the Law; and to that nation, and in some respects very beneficial, to the propa­gation of the Gospel, that they should be used. The Apostle there­fore, in some places and times, used them for very good ends: as namely thereby to enjoy still the freedom amongst the Jews of preaching the Gospel, and the benevolence of his auditors; so to gain them that were born under the law (as himself saith 1 Cor. 9. 20.). Again; to preserve the new Jew-converts, converted by o­thers observant of the law, from apostatizing from the faith, upon such a scandal of his neglecting the commands of God by Moses: as likewise (as tis probably collected from Act. 21. 21.) to undeceive the new Christian Jews, in that sinister opinion they had of him; as if that he not only licenced the Gentile-converts from any use of these Legal ceremonies, (at which they took no offence,) but also perswaded the Jews converted by him, not only that such ce­remonies were no more absolutely necessary to salvation; but that they might by no means use any of them, nor walk after the for­mer customs. Therefore he practised these himself sometimes for this reason also, (saith S. Austin, Ep. 19.) ne Judaeis &c viderentur, qui ex gentibus in Christum crediderant, sic detestari Circumcisionem, sicut idololatria detestanda est; cum illam Deus fieri praecepit, hanc Sa­tanas persuaserit; or discindi a Prophetis Christi, tanquam Mosis do­ctrinam detestantes, atque damnantes. Again; used them only, when more evil than good was not probable to ensue thereof; by his giving more dangerous scandal to more, by his avoiding the giving thereof to some few, (for, in case of double scandal, that of less dangerous consequence, and of less extent in the offence, is to be chosen), therefore he used such compliance with the Jews on­ly in such places (as in Jerusalem, (Act. 21.) or in other quarters where many Jews abode, Act. 16. 3.) where no offence could be taken by the Convert-gentiles. But he never, when both were present to observe his behaviour, so corresponded and sided with the weaker brethren, the Jew; as to desert, or shame, or weaken, the strong, the Gentile. But, we may see how tender he was of using such things, where any prejudice thereby might possibly come to the truth: in that tho elsewhere, out of charity to the weak, he circumcised Timothy, being to assist him in his preach­ing to the Jews; yet he, when he was amongst false brethren, (tho at Jerusalem) would not do the same to Titus a preacher, lest, from such condescension, their malice, who came only for Spies, might, by their false comments upon it, raise some prejudice to the liberty of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 4, 5.—See (Gal. 6. 12, 14,) his detest­ing [Page 25] such compliance, to avoid the cross.) And again; in that he so sharply and publickly reproved S. Peter, tho in some sort his su­perior, (Gal. 2. 14.) for his dissimulation, in forbearing the com­pany of the Gentiles, and complying with the former fashions of the Jews, in a place (namely in the Church of Antioch) which chiefly consisted of Gentiles, or Jews also much more moderate than those at Jerusalem; where much more scandal must come of such an action, (which, by his withdrawing from them, did bear the shew of a repentance of the freedom he had formerly used to­ward them, in making those believe that they ought to conform to the Jewish laws) then good, in not offending some few that came from Jerusalem, and perhaps were such false brethren as those S. Paul (there) opposed. Whereby it appears, that dissimulation many times, even in things in their own nature indifferent, is not free from guilt: how much more, if it be in things, which we have shewed, by several strict prohibitions of them, that they are not to be reckoned of such a nature. Something like this case of ours perhaps it would have bin; if the Apostle had complied the least with those false brethren and leaders of faction in Jerusalem, that he might have gained some from amongst them, (but he saw there the defence of the truth against the opposers more necessary, than was the gaining of a disciple to that truth, with a publick shew of deserting it); or had he (or S. Peter) so become a Jew to the Jew, that he had concealed his Christianity; or not professed always every where, publickly, privately, that after the way which they called heresy, so he worshipped God, [Act. 24. 14.]—which he did before all the people of Jerusalem, [Act. 22. 4, 8. &c.]—before Felix, [Act. 24. 14.]—before Agrippa, [Act. 26. 22, 23.]—before Nero; for, the same witness to the name of Jesus he bare at Jeru­salem, the same did he bear at Rome, (Act. 23. 11.—2 Tim. 4. 17. [that all the Gentiles might hear,]) and that with great success even upon some of the Courtiers themselves; Phil. 1. 13. compa­red with 4. 22. For which boldnes, in professing his religion at Rome, we find him desiring mens prayers, Eph. 6. 19, 20. and in which we find his example encouraging many others. Phil. 1. 14, 20. Therefore also that speech of his, Act. 23. 6. mentioning the re­surrection, was no mincing or dissembling his Christian profession, which he had made so publickly and particularly before them all but the very day before; but the shewing only, how in a main point thereof the most considerable persons amongst themselves concurred with him. Which thing appears, both by the answer of his Auditors and Judges, ver. 9. which answer referreth to the [Page 26] story of what (he told them) hapned to him in the way to Damas­cus; of which they say, [If a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God]: and from our Saviour's testimony of his worthy behaviour; ver. 11. and from the like expressions made by him, Act. 24. 15. yet joyned with the free confession of his dissent in other things, ver. 14. His legal observances there­fore, upon some occasions, were only, joining some things besides with his Christian profession; not a covering it over with them, or hiding it under them: and, in this compliance, not any obser­vance, of those Jews that were out of the true Church, (who, not­withstanding his conformity, were still his persecuters for Christia­nity, Act. 21. 27.); but only of those weaker brethren within it, Act. 21. 20. of whom we read not, that they any way molested him, the tumult proceeding from the unbelieving Jews of Asia, v. 27.—What I have said of the manner, of his becoming a Jew to the Jew, I may also of his becoming as a Gentile to the Gentile; which was only in the laying aside some of the Jewish ceremonies, not in the least conformity to any of their heathen Sacraments: concerning which see his judgment 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21.

Thus much from §. 8. upon the supposition, that one orthodox­ly perswaded continues still in the communion of a Schismatical §. 13. Or, whether they com­municate with no Church at all; who seem of the two the less unjustifia­ble. Church. But, in the next place, suppose he presently withdraws himself from that, but only (for the same good ends) forbears com­munion with the orthodox; yet neither so, can I find a way to excuse him. Indeed the living in no external communion at all seems the less faulty of the two, and this condition (as coming a step nearer to the Church of Christ) to be preferred before the for­mer. This seems to appear in those, who, either by the oppressi­on of the civil power hindered, or by the Church's authority (whether with, or without, just cause) expelled, cannot enjoy her external communion: who yet are not therefore licensed either to set up a new external communion of their own, or to repair to one that stands severed from the Catholick; tho there they may enjoy the Sacraments no way differing from those celebrated by the orthodox: but are advised rather patiently to want them, till they are restored to the participation of them in the bosom of the Church. Such was the practice of the orthodox, where their Clergy was expelled, in the prevalent Arrian times. Certe ista indignitas in causa est (saith Athanasius) quod populi, sacerdotesque se­orsim sine synaxibus vivant &c.—And, Praeoptant potius ita aegrota­re, ac periclitari, quam ut Arrianorum manus capititibus suis imponi [Page 27] sustineant. See Athan. Ep. Synod. in Alexand. Conc. and Ep. ad ubi (que) orthodoxos. Yet did the Arrians (according to S. Austin's testimo­ny de vera relig. 5. c.) paria sacramenta celebrare with the Catho­licks. And S. Austin, of good men happening to suffer sometimes an unjust Excommunication, (de vera relig. 6. e.) saith thus: Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tule­rint; neque ullas novitates vel schismatis, vel haeresis, moliti fuerint &c—sine ulla Conventiculorum segregatione, usque ad mortem de­fendentes, & testimonio juvantes eam fidem, quam in Ecclesia Catholica praedicari sciunt; hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns. And (de Baptism. 1. l. 17, e.) Ibi magis probantur, quam si intus permaneant, cum adversus Ecclesiam nullatenus eriguntur; sed in solida unitatis petra fortissimo charitatis robore radicantur. From which I gather, that for whatever cause or reason a man happens to want the Ca­tholick communion; tis better, than to enter into any other, to have none at all. In which sequestration he may justly more hope for God's blessing, upon that means of his salvation, which, in such a condition, he is yet capable to make use of; and upon that service, which alone he may still offer unto God, according to the customs and rites of the Church; than, upon that he shall offer, tho it be, for the matter of it, faultless, in conjunction with a society divided from the members of Christ: and if the ortho­dox, in the time of the Arrians, thought their condition safer in the want of the Sacraments, than in the enjoying and partaking them with any Sectaries, so may he.

For these reasons, I conceive to live out of all communion a less fault, than to join with a Schismatical one; but yet a fault §. 14. Yet are not wholly ex­cusable. also it will be, and that for many of the former, Scriptures, and other reasons. See §. 9. where the Scriptures enjoining separation from Sectaries, seem also to imply uniting with the orthodox. Neither indeed can we have any reason to desert one Church, but we must have the same to join with some other; since we must, from the article in the Creed, ever acknowledge one true, as well as others false; and that whatsoever outward dislike and abhor­rence we are bound to express toward these assemblies of adulte­resses to Christ, (as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose calls them), the same outward affection, and love, and duty in all things we are obliged to give to the true Spouse and Body of Christ. See §. 8. where those texts requiring the glorifying of God, and the confessing of Christ before men; confession of him with the mouth, as well as believing on him with the heart (Rom. 10. 9, 10.) of all,; with [Page 28] one mouth, as well as with one mind, (Rom. 15. 6.) seem in a spe­cial manner to imply that confession which is made in the publick assemblies of the Church, which therefore were never intermitted in those greatest persecutions, when the Civil magistrate was a professed enemy to the Church. Again; see those many precepts of unity and charity enjoyned amongst all the fellow-members of Christ; Eph. 4. 3, 11, 12. 1 Cor. 10. Phil. 1. 27, 28. Jo. 10. 4, 5. which seem to extend, and oblige, to all the external, as well as internal, acts thereof; especially for what concerns the publick and solemn worship of God. Consider the Article of our Creed, (of which Creed we pretend a constant and publick confession), that we believe one Church Catholick and Apostolical; i. e. one ex­ternal, visible communion upon earth, that always is, and shall be, such: but how is this sufficiently attested, and professed by any, who forbears to joyn himself openly unto it? Such denying of the body of Christ before men seems to be next to the crime of denying before men the Head himself. But chiefly there, where this Church, the Spouse of Christ, happens to be under any dis­grace or persecution, our taking up the cross with her may be much more acceptable to God, than the conversion of souls; and the doxology of confessing him and her, beyond our other best service. See particularly that command of the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. Now if it be said, that some of these texts fore-named are not to be understood as strict precepts always for avoiding sin; but counsels only for attaining perfection: yet thus also every ge­nerous Christian will think them prescribed for his practice. A­gain, consider, that as both many Divine and Ecclesiastical com­mands (from which I see no just authority any one hath to exempt himself at pleasure) cannot be observed in our adherences to ano­ther communion; so neither can they in our absence from the true Church. For how (then) do we observe the publick intercessions commanded, 1 Tim. 2. 1. publick teaching and exhortations &c, recommended by the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 14. 23, 24. Col. 3. 16.—frequenting of the Sacraments, 1 Cor. 11. 17, 24.—Confession and Absolution, as need requires: For the necessity of which Christ hath substituted some officers to be made use of from time to time, for heinous sins committed after Baptism, in his stead; Jo. 20. 21, 23. as likewise to guide and govern in all Spi­ritual matters those, who pretend to be his sheep; to withdraw our selves from whom, is to withdraw our selves from Christ; in a subordination to whom all must live: Eph. 4. 5, 11, 12. Heb. 13. 17. and God tolerates no Anarchical persons in religion. Add to this, [Page 29] the benefits of the publick prayers and intercessions, and oblations of the Church, which such a one, acknowledging himself a mem­ber thereof, seems, to his great loss, to be deprived of. As for that internal communion with the Church, which some, excluded from the external, may nevertheless enjoy; or the security, in the actu­al want of participation of the Sacraments, that such may have; they seem no way appliable to such a person as this, who is not by force hindred of her communion, but, invited to it, voluntarily depriveth himself; tho the reasons he hath in the doing thereof seem to himself never so plausible. To partake the Sacraments in voto signifies nothing, where de facto we may have them, and de facto refuse them: and where (in case of necessity) votum signifies something; yet tis probable, that to such a one necessitated the a­ctual reception of them would have bin more beneficial, could he have obtained it. There seems to be no small danger in a silly sheep's staying out of the fold, (when invited and offered to be taken in), and that without leave of the shepheard; tho upon a to-himself seeming good design.

But yet, supposing such leave indulged to any; I see not at last §. 15. what advantage can be made thereof: but that all the scandals, all the jealousies, all the secular inconveniences, or also disappoint­ments of Spiritual designs, that can happen to one actually recon­ciled to the orthodox communion, will happen to one after ab­senting himself wholly from a false. From which sequestring himself the ordinary jealousie, that useth to be in religion, will con­clude, that he who is not with them (especially where many se­cular advantages accompany it) is against them. And whereas our conjunction with the true Church may be done with much privacy, this desertion of theirs is the thing most liable to disco­very. Lastly since he, that now is of no external communion at all, was before a member of an unlawful one; and perhaps there not only seduced, but also a seducer of others, or at least culpable of many misbehaviors toward the Church: so much the more cause he hath, with what speed he can, to fly into the bosom there­of; both, because so he may, procure his own safety and pardon; and, by an open subscription to truth and unity, make an amends for his former error, and division, (if he have bin any way con­senting thereto;) and also, because the truth &c will receive a greater testimony and honour from one that publickly converts to it, after educated first in error; than from many, that, from the benefit of their first institution and breeding, continue in it: to [Page 30] some of whom a right opinion may be rather their good fortune, than their choice. The summe of all is; The case of one's stay, after such full conviction, in the external communion where he is, or of his staying out of the other, who stretcheth forth her arms to receive him, tho upon never so pious pretences, is doubt­ful; his reconciliation safe; therefore this rather to be chosen: and, as for the good he hoped to produce, God is able, and either will otherwise by lawful means effect it; or is not willing it should be effected; and mean-while will rather accept of our obedience, than of much sacrifice.

Note, that in this discours I speak of a Church certainly Schis­matical, and of men (after all convenient means of information §. 16. diligently used) fully convinced thereof, and, amongst these, chief­ly of such as, in purposing some good ends to themselves, intend to continue always, or for any long space of time, either in their former communion, or out of the orthodox; not of such as, con­victed, are removing all impediments as fast as they can, to unite themselves to the Church. But 1. first, concerning Churches schismatical; I apprehend not Schism to be of such a latitude, as that there cannot be any difference (especially between Churches wherein are divers Apostolical Successions (suppose the Eastern and Western, the Grecian and Asian, and the Roman, Church) be­fore a General Council hath decided it) without such a crime of Schism and violated unity of the Church on one side, that all good men therein are presently obliged to render themselves of the op­posit communion. And 2ly, concerning conviction; I think men ought to take heed of being any way hasty (which may proceed from a natural ficklenes of mind, and over-valuation of things not tried) to desert that Church wherein God's providence hath given them their education, and which hath taught them the word of God, and first made them Christian, and which (as tis said in the Law concerning possession) Quia prior est tempore, potior est jure, (i. e. caeteris paribus): to desert the Church, I say, without much conference with the learned, much weighing of reasons, much study of Theological controversy (even tho their condition be not that of a Scholar) delayed and mature considerations, long prayer, lest if, in such change, they should happen to light on what is worse, and to forsake truth and embrace error; they should, besides the hurt which may come to their soul otherwise, be in a far worse condition than any others of the same erroneous communion are; by reason, of the disobedience they have shewed [Page 31] to their mother, from whom they sucked the true milk of the Gos­pel; and of the ungratitude to God, by whose providence they were placed in such a light. Especially men ought to have a greater jealousy of their mistaking, if they perhaps find them­selves invited to the change of their Religion from any worldly advantages, or contentments of the flesh, profits, honour, pleasure; for our affections ordinarily (yet very insensibly) corrupt our judg­ments. But for what is said here by me, that it ought to be done after full conviction of a communion Schismatical; I think all men (as taking every one their own to be the orthodox, and others to be sectaries) are but too ready to maintain this point, That all factious communions, once discovered, are to be forsaken; and the true, [understanding by it their own,] once found out, to be adhered to, not only by internal affection, but external profession. And this coun­sel constantly shall a tottering Romanist receive from a Protestant; and so è contra.

5. The 5th sort are those, who, being educated in a Church Schismatical, and prejudiced with many formerly received opini­ons, §. 17. 5. Those who 1. much doubting the Church, they live in, to be schis­matical, yet are not fully convinced thereof: or, 2. who, con­vinced, yet deser their intended re­concilement till an ex­pected op­portunity. are not yet fully convinced that it is so; but yet are already in a great jealousie thereof, and in a serious quest of a further dis­covery of truth &c: Or again; who, being fully convinced of, and being in perfect charity with, the Church; and having also al­ready in voto the external communion thereof; yet whilst wanting, and rationally expecting, a better opportunity for their reconcilia­tion to the Church Catholick, defer it for some time till this may happen. [As, many cases for such delation may be supposed.—As, if one have reasonable hopes shortly of a Toleration; and, upon a present reconcilement, is likely to be plundered &c.—Or, if one have some treatment with kindred or friends about the same matter, and is in hopes by a further discours to carry them with him; which intercourse, by his sudden separation, he probably foresees will be stopped, and his admonitions rendred fruitless.—Or, if one happen to be in a Service, and cannot, till such a time, leave his Master; or in an imployment, which such a de­claring of himself requires that he should, and yet which he can­not, but with much temporal inconvenience, immediatly quit, (as that of S. Austen's was, Conf. 9. l. 2. c.) Or, if one be in a place where, declaring presently, his restraint or life is endangered; and therefore he stays till he may remove himself to a place of more: security, (as doubtles tis lawful to seek our safety by flight.).—Or, if he have a design of publishing something tending to the ad­vancement [Page 32] of Truth, which opportunity (in appearance) will be for ever lost in such a place, if he suddenly discovers his intenti­ons. Many such cases may be put, and if none of these be reason­able to produce any delay, yet it follows not, but that there may be some others that are so.] Now, for such men as these, That, several circumstan­ces consi­dered, both these may, or may not, be culpable. 1. First, those seem not to sin, in suspending their reconcilement, and in continuing their former communion, who are not as yet fully convinced. [But yet concerning full conviction, note, that after such diligence, delay, inquisition used, as is mentioned be­fore §. 16. it seems not necessary to it, that every objection and difficulty, that can be made against any practice or tenet of the Church we conform to, be first fully satisfied (which perhaps will never be, and so neither will be any ones deserting his native Sect, however erroneous); but only that, for the most part of things in contest, full satisfaction is received. For, if in all other things we are swayed by the over-ballancing of reason any way, notwithstanding that some weight also remain still on the other side; why should we neglect it in this? Since tis as much (nay more) ordinary to be born in a wrong, than in a right, religion, we may justly, I conceive, relinquish our former profession for that; which, if we were of no profession, we should sooner make choice of: especially since we may be more confident of our reason rightly used in such a matter, if our new perswasions procure to us no secular honor or advantage, but rather (the contrary) loss and disgrace; as also if the principles thereof produce in us any sin­gular reformation of life. See Trial of Doct. §. 45.] 2ly, For the fully convinced, tho it seems prohibited by God's word, that such any longer abide in their former communion, (see 9. §. 1. n.) yet 1. first, they seem not to sin or do ill, in not reconciling them­selves outwardly to the Church upon the very first possibility they have to do it, if that they have a reasonable cause of delay; and especially if some Spiritual advantage be considered in it, and if that they have probability of health, and likelihood to attain to the time and opportunity they wait for. I do not say; that they may not do better sometimes in a suddenner return, but that they sin not always in the delay. Which if they did, the same will hold for Baptism, and for many other Christian duties, which often are deferred (and we think not unlawfully) for some time after possi­bility of doing them, for the want of some conveniency. Yet I can­not conceive, that there can be a reasonable cause, to the fully con­vinced, of any long delay, (see before §. 8. &c.) no more than there can be such of long delaying Baptism; because initiation, or [Page 33] reconciliation to the Church, are things of the highest concern­ment. But 2ly—, Suppose they sin in such dilation, and procra­stination; yet I see no ground why any one should affirm (tho we grant none dying a Schismatick in the sence §. 5. can be saved) that such, dying without, or before, actual reconciliation, are cer­tainly damned; which since it cannot be justly said of such others, tho remaining perpetually within a Schismatical Church, as are named §. 7. much less can it of these, that are in their way and progress homewards. Again; by the same reason must all those be damned named in the 2d. §. (if they had any possibility of sooner performing that, of which they are by death prevented): because also these, as well as those, have a votum of what they want, and heartily repent of their delay, if it were any way offen­sive to God.

As for the motives of delay mentioned above; 1. First, if this once be granted, That, upon a full conviction, we are presently to aban­don §. 18. such schismatical communion, many of them seem to be voided: because such a retreat from our former communion cannot be concealed; or if it can, then may also our conjunction to a new society; nay, this much more easie to be hid than the other. So that I suppose few cases will happen, for which, after the one done, the other should be deferred. 2ly. If such cases should be put for a heathens deferring Christianity, I think many of them cannot justly be allowed. (See 1 Cor. 7. 20, 21. many converts professing Christianity when servants, and probably some of them having infidel masters.) And I think every one is obliged to a more speedy return, as the defection, wherein he lives, is more impious and perillous, and opposit to true religion, tho he must pass thro many temporal misfortunes, to make this escape. They (saith the Apostle, of the teachers complying out of fear of suffering from the Jews, Gal. 6. 12, 14.) constrain you to be circumcised, only lest they (i. e. if they did not observe the Jewish customs) should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. But God forbid, that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom I am crucified unto the world. And happy he, who embraceth and rejoiceth in all oc­casions given him, of bearing this cross, and suffering chearfully the loss of means, friends, good name, employments, and whatso­ever is here gain unto us, for Christ's sake, and the profession of a good conscience: My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, Jam. 1. 2. because if we here suffer with him, we shall [Page 34] also hereafter reign with him. And, that here we might suffer with him, he came not to send peace, but a sword; and that a man's enemies should be those of his own houshold, even father and mo­ther; and he that loveth any of these more than him, is not worthy of him; and he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth after him, is not worthy of him; and he that confesseth him not before men, him will he deny before his Father, and his holy Angels in heaven.

In this discours it hath bin (all along) supposed; That the Church is ready to entertain, and invites, this person convicted §. 19. A Query: What is to be done, if the Ch. ca­tholick re­quire some conformity to doctrines, or practices, against his conscience or particu­lar judg­ment, who seeks her communi­on. of Schism, to return into her bosom: So that all the aversnes hath bin on his side. But now, what if such Church admits en­trance to none, but upon their subscription to all her doctrines, and engaging conformity to all her discipline, and publick practices? And then, for some points of her publick doctrines or practice, what if it be against the conscience of such a one to subscribe or conform to them? Ought he not then to continue still in his for­mer communion, tho thought by him Schismatical? or at least to be content to live out of her communion, whom he thinks to be the Church Catholick?

To this, having many Queries involved in it, I have many things to say. 1. No man may do any thing at any time against §. 20. Several pro­positions tending to the solution of this Que­ [...]. his conscience, or which he is perswaded (without doubting) he ought not to do: therefore if it be absolutely against his consci­ence to subscribe any thing; whether truth it be, or whether it be error; he ought not to do it. But let none please himself too much in this liberty: for tho he shall thus (in refusing to subscribe) escape the sin of lying and hypocrisie; yet, if his conscience happen not to be rightly informed, he may remain nevertheless guilty of schism and heresy. See Dr. Ham. of Schism 2. c. 8. §. where he saith, ‘That if the doctrines proposed, as a condition of her communi­on, by the Church, be indeed agreeable to truth, but yet be really apprehended by him, to whom they are proposed, to be false and disagreeable, tho it be in this case hard to affirm, that a man may lawfully thus subscribe contrary to his present perswasion; yet it being certain, that he, who thus errs is obliged to use all proba­ble means to reform and deposit [such] his error; as long as he remains in it, he is so far guilty of sin, as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance; and, being obliged to charity and peace, as far as it is possible and in him lies, he cannot be freed from of­fending [Page 35] against that obligation [to preserving peace and charity], if he do not communicate with those, the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful: and therefore such a man [tho acting according to his present perswasion] is or may be, in several respects, criminous. And afterward he saith.—Which way soever such man turns, he is sure to sin, (the worst and most unhappy kind of strait); he remains in error and schism on the one side, [i. e. in not subscribing]; and by flying from that, he advanceth to lying and hypocrisie on the other.’ So then one following his present perswasion may be notwithstanding guilty of Schism, in refusing the Church's communion. 2. Subscrip­tion to the contradictory of what I am infallibly certain is truth; or conformity to any thing, which I am infallibly certain is un­lawful, may not be made: for this must needs be contrary to ones conscience. 3ly. Upon exclusion out of the Church, in these or any other cases, one may not therefore anew joyn himself to, or longer continue in, any communion he grants schismatical; but is rather to forego the external administration of the Word and Sa­craments, and enjoy no external communion at all. See 13. §. 4ly. No Church there is, tho pretending never so much indul­gence, but that requires subscription, from some persons at least, to her publick Constitutions and Articles; even tho such Church confesseth her self in these liable to error. And the Church of England in particular, in her 5th Canon, excommunicates any, who shall say that any of her Constitutions are contrary to the word of God; and that is, who shall say, that any of them, con­cerning divine matters, is false or erroneous, or not true: See more of this in Submission of Judgment 5. §.) higher than which no Church can easily go. And therefore, if such subscription should be strictly required; one revolted from the Roman Church, and coming to render himself of her communion, shall find as difficult an entrance thereinto, as, we complain, is into theirs. 5ly. It is considerable; That such Subscriptions in the Church Catholick, are only required to the Decrees of her General Councils, not to the tenets of private Doctors. 6ly. The Church Catholick (as we imagin this Convert supposeth that Church, in whose commu­nion he desires to be) in these her decrees, for all points necessary to salvation, is granted (see in Ancient Church-gov. 2. part. §. and Infallibility §. 3.) to be infallible; and so in these can require Subscription to no error. 7ly. For as much as respects other points meerly speculative, and not of like necessity to be believed or [Page 36] known, if Subscription be required of us, only for acquiescing to and not gain-saying, them, (as certainly to many of her proposals and that under pain of anathema, she requires no more, the disturb­ers of her peace, in smaller matters, deserving her anathema's, as well as the dissenters from her faith, in greater; whilst she determins some matters for settling peace, as well as others for necessary faith:) (See Notes of Infallibil. §. 29.) I think none will deny this lawful enough; and what communion is there, which doth not require it? 8ly. But if she requires, to them also, a Subscription not only of non-contradiction, but of assent, and of submission of our private reason or judgment to hers; yet I see not, considering that she, in such a collective body, is much wiser, and more seen both in the holy Scriptures, and writings of the Ancients, than we; and the duty we owe to her, as being our appointed Guide in such things; our Guide, I dare say, as much as those under the Law were: Deut. 17. 8. &c. to the 14th: I see not, I say, but that in things where we are not infallibly certain, but only have some private reasons or opinion that is short of assurance, that such things are untrue or unlawful, we may thus subscribe her decrees, or practise her commands. See what Dr. Hammond saith, Schism 2. c. 10. §. ‘A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sa­crifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, i. e. of enjoy­ing the Church's communion; and when the fundamentals of the faith, and superstructures of Christian practice [I suppose he means such as are immediately built upon the fundamentals.] are not concern­ed in the concessions, [one would think, in these points especially, that a person to be safe should rather trust to the Church's judgment, than his own,] he will chearfully express his readines to submit or de­posit his own judgment in reference and deference to his Superi­rors in the Church, where his lot is fallen.’ [Methinks he might bet­ter have said, where his obedience is due; for the Church, where his lot is fallen, may by heresy or schism stand divided from the Church Catholick.] (See this point discoursed at large in Obligation of our judgment or conscience §. 2. and in Infallibility §. 35..) Now a sub­scribing, professing, or acting, in this manner, I conceive will ne­ver be construed a going against our conscience or judgment con­sidered in general, (tho it should be against some private reasons of ours): because this preferring of hers, before our own, judgment, is also an act of our judgment. For there being such a weighty authority on the one side, and such reasons of my own, but short of certainty, on the other; my judgment here sits upon, and exa­mins [Page 37] both; and at length gives sentence, that here it is more safe for me to submit to the first, than to rely on the second. Here therefore I shall only go against my conscience, if I go against this my judgment, in adhering to the 2d, and forsaking the first. But indeed, if the Church should require me to subscribe, not, that I believe her authority more than my private reasons; but, that I have no private reasons nor scruples in my mind for the contrary of her tenet when indeed I have so; the subscribing thus would be going against my conscience, and must at no hand be done. [But I am confident, no Church will exact such a confession; nor would ever reject, I say not from bearing any office in her, (wherein perhaps she may be more strict), but from her communion, such a submission as this. Wherein one first acknowledgeth her infal­libility, or actual unfailance, in all doctrines necessary to salva­tion: and 2ly, promiseth in no other point publickly to gainsay her Conciliary doctrines: and 3ly, in these points to endeavour, as far as is in his power, to submit his private reason and judg­ment to hers; tho perhaps the repugnances of some verisimilities of the contrary may hinder his yeilding so plenary an act of be­lief to the truth of some of them, as some others do.] Or again; if any one is perswaded in his judgment or conscience, that, when the judgment of the Church is contrary to this his private reason or judgment, so often he ought to adhere to his own, not to hers; such an outward submitting or subscribing to her judgment, when this is against his own private reason in that matter, would be go­ing against his conscience, and he ought at no hand to do it. But yet, in the not doing it, he may be guilty of great crimes, heresy, schism, &c. But 9ly, such subscription of a firm belief of all her doctrines, or of exact conformity to all her publick rites, I think is by no Church required from all that either are born in, or are afterward converted to, her communion; but only from those, whom she prefers to be the Spiritual guides of others, and admits into Ecclesiastical revenues. For those of the Roman communion (of the strictnes of whose profession of faith I find our men much complain) the Council of Trent requires a profession of their faith to be made, or her decrees (of which Pius 4tus hath compacted a form, particularly expressing the chief of them) to be subscribed, or sworn to, only by Bishops, and by others who undertake curam animarum. (See 24. Sess. 1. c. and 12. c. de Reformat.) Neither doth Pius the 4ths Bull, so much accused, require it of more, unless it be of Regulars: [In which Bull observe, that the Oath or Sub­scription [Page 38] of such persons, having curam animarum &c, is required, not only to some Articles or Canons of the Council, namely to those expressed in the Bull, (for the naming of which, being about some twelve Heads, the Council of Trent is said to have added twelve new Articles to the Apostles Creed, to be believed under peril of losing salvation) but to all the rest of the decrees of that Council whatever, as well as those; and likewise to all things tradita, definita, declarata, by any other Council, which by the Ro­man Church is reckoned Oecumenical, as well as those delivered by that of Trent. See the words, Caetera item omnia a sacris Canoni­bus [that is yet something more too] & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipuera sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita, ac declarata indubitanter recipio, atque profiteor &c. After which it follows: Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest,—sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo. From which words (if we will say, the Roman Church hath added new Articles of Faith to the Apostles Creed, to be explicitly professed and believed under pain of dam­nation) we must argue, not only those 12. points to be added by her, but also all the rest; not only whatever the Tridentine, but any other of those she calls General Councils, hath delivered or declared. But indeed, from this large reception of, and subscrip­tion to, not only some, but all, points determined by such Coun­cils, we may gather 1. That it is only a subscription and profes­sion in such a manner to, and of, them, as the Councils have pro­posed to be received and professed; and that it is not such, that the same degree of belief or assent must necessarily be given to all. For no Romanist will say, that nothing is stated or defined in General Councils, or in that of Trent, but only points de fide ex­tra quam (see Notes of Infallibility, §. 9.) nor yet will say this of those 12. heads mentioned in the Bull, of which this is a part, Baptismum sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse: but if this be an articulus fidei, extra quam nemo salvus; then is Cyprian, whom they acknowledge a Saint, damned. And some Anathema's may be shewed in latter Councils against such other points, as were affirm­ed by some of the Fathers. See Conc. Trid. 24. Sess. 7. c. the con­trary whereof was held by S. Ambrose: and 21. Sess. 4. c. com­pared with S. Austin's known opinion. But if it be said, that, after the determination of a Council, tis fides extra quam &c, not before; then is the matter sufficiently explained, that the damnation lies not in the great moment of our erring in such a point, or in the matter of the tenet; but in our opposition of, and division from, [Page 39] the Church's judgment, to whom we are commanded obedience and submission, after we know that she hath determined it. See Dr. Hammond, (Of Fundamentals, 9, and 10. c.) of our obligation to the additionals to the Apostles Creed, made in the Nicene and Athanasian Creed, very appliable, as I conceive, to the additions of other General Councils. And again, 2ly, from hence it will follow, that the clause [Catholica fides, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest] must not be distributively applied to all that is mentioned before it; for no Romanist will affirm this of all the decrees of Councils whatever, nor yet of these twelve, and the several branches of them, which are before expressed; nor perhaps of all the Articles whatever of the Apostles Creed. But * must 1. ei­ther be understood collectively: not, that every thing, that is con­tained in such decrees, is absolutely sides Catholica, extra quam nemo salvus; but that all the fides, extra quam &c, is involved and con­tained in, or amongst, those decrees; whilst mean-while this phrase [extra quam] chiefly referreth to the ancient Creed, placed in the beginning of this Bull. To which see a like phrase applied in the 3d. Session of the Council Tridentine: Principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac funda­mentum firmum & unicum, contra quod portae inferi &c. Where ob­serve, that this word [unicum] seems contrary to the [extra quam] here, if taken distributively. So, if it were said of the Scriptures, or of the will of God declared in them; These are the Holy Scrip­tures, or, This is the will of God; without the knowledge of which Scrip­tures, or Will, there is no salvation: Yet would it not follow, that without the knowledge of every part and particle of such Will or Scripture, no salvation could be attained; but that, without the knowledg of some part at least thereof. For, if only some part thereof be necessary to salvation, it verifies sufficiently the ex­pression, extra quam there is no salvation. Or else; * by extra quam, must be meant only this; That, in opposing of such faith, and sacred decrees of General Councils, or of the Church, when made known to them to be such, none can be saved; because such men must needs be guilty of Schism and Heresie, and do remain out of the Church's communion. But whatever the meaning thereof be; this it cannot be, even in the sence of the Roman Doctors; That all the decrees of General Councils, or of that of Trent, or that per­haps any at all of that, beyond the Apostles Creed, (much less all the branches of those twelve points named in the Bull, to all which the Bishop subscribes), or perhaps, that all the Apostles Creed [Page 40] is necessary explicitly to be known or professed; or else that such person cannot attain salvation. See more of this Church-gov. 4. part. §. [...].) Thus much concerning what Subscription is required in the Roman Church of those who have curam animarum, (by which perhaps it will appear, not to bear such a rigid sence, as many construe it in.)] And as for all others, the Council hath only these words. (25. Sess.) Sup [...]rest nunc, ut Principes omnes in Domino moncat ad operam suam it a praestandam, ut quae ab ea [i. e. Ecclesia] de­creta sunt, ab haereticis depravari aut violari non permittant, sed ab his & omnibus devote recipiantur, & fideliter observentur. To these I will set you down what F. a S. Clara saith in his system. Fidei 24. c. 6. §. Addo, quod in modo reducendi errores, expedit aliquando nonex­igere ejurationem haereseos, ad hoc ut in Ecclesiasticam communionem ad­mittantur Sectarii, ut olim Johannes Antiochenus fecit cum Nestorii fautoribus; eo scil. animo, ut melius Ecclesiarum paci consuleret, ut nota­runt aliqui posteriores scriptores. Et certe non solemus ad erroris eju­rationem noviter conversos cogere; sed displicentiam ejus & reliquorum peccatorum concomitantium, cum proposito de futuro persistendi in fide & communione Ecclesiae, ut juris sacramentalis est, exigimus. Alia, quae potius forum fori, quam poli, spectant, de industria utplurimum o­mittemus: ne, ut facile fit, absterreantur. And perhaps an orthodox Church may use such gentlenes towards novices with very good effect, for those considerations of S. Austin's, mentioned before this discours; because, Cum docilis factus fuerit, tum demum disces quant a ratione &c.—and, nos falsis rumoribus &c. therefore it seems they entred, before they knew certainly all such rumors to be false.

But here perhaps this scruple may be urged: That tho a new convert be admitted into such a Church and communion, without §. 21. any universal subscription to all the doctrines thereof; yet is he, by such communicating with her, reasonably supposed to acknow­ledge these, and so the untruths (if any be) thereof; especially those, the belief of which is strictly enjoyned under Anathema, and so gives the same scandal as if he had subscribed them: which scandal ought to be avoided by the simplicity and sincerity of a Christian. To which I answer: That from this commun cating with a Church, wherein are some errors, one cannot therefore ra­tionally be supposed to hold all the errors thereof; tho the hold­ing of them be enjoyned under Anathema's. Neither is any just scandal given by him, as that he should rationally seem to do so: for communion neither makes me accessary to the sins, nor errors, [Page 41] nor unjust censures of all those I communicate with; especially where I have no power to redress them. Neither can I, from my submittance in things (wherein I think I ought) to those whom I account by Christ appointed my Spiritual Fathers, be justly supposed by any therefore to justifie all their Acts, Laws, Injunctions, or Censures whatsoever; no more, than from my peaceable obedience to my temporal Prince, will any such thing be collected. Suppose the Church pronounceth an Anathema on all those who do not believe her decrees; yet can none hence justly conclude, That every one, that is in her communion, believes them: unless we are certain, that every one doth what another requires, who doth not quit all relation to him who requires it. Neither have her Anathema's, being universally pronounced, more force upon, nor are they more to be feared by, one, when he is now within, than when he was before without, her communion; or than they are to be feared by all those, who continue still with­out; the further any one runs from the Church, he the more just­ly incurring her censures. Neither reasonably may those thro the Kingdom of France, after the conclusion of the Tridentine Council, who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church; or Father Paul the Venetian, who writ the history of that Council, dying also in the same communion; be therefore pre­sumed to have assented, or subscribed to all the decrees thereof. Doth the 5th. Canon of the Church of England bind all, tho Non-Subscribers, to forsake, or not to enter her communion, who think some one thing she saith not agreeable with the Scriptures, for fear of their giving scandal, by being thought to believe such points? Did the many false doctrines of those, who sat in Moses's chair, and ruled in the true Church of God, therefore warrant the Samaritan discession from the Church? (Consider well Jo. 4. 22. Matt. 10. 5.) We may not, being in her communion, openly gain­say the errors of a Church, such as are not fundamental; as all, I think, grant: how much less may we quit her communion for them? And if one may not leave that which he imagines the true Church for such faults or defects; neither may he forbear to return to it. And if a member of a Church may not disturb her peace in an open speaking against some things he supposeth to be errors in her, but not fundamental, (now for erring in funda­mentals, the true Church of Christ is secure; and, in the Prote­stants opinion, the Roman Church doth not err in any such,) upon this pretence, because else some may be scandalized, as if himself [Page 42] also held such errors: why may not one likewise enter into the Church's communion, without an obligation of declaring against her supposed errors, for fear of giving such scandal? And indeed upon such terms, i. e. of fear of giving scandal, no man may be of any communion, wherein he thinks any one untruth is held: and then, by being of none, shall he not give more scandal? as if he denied there to be on earth a Catholick and Apostolick Church, to which he may securely joyn himself? He that may not pass over to another Church, because she hath some (in his opinion) errors, may not stay in his own, if he imagines the same of her. But mean-while he that takes such offence, may perhaps too ma­gisterially accuse a Church of errors; who 1. first, ought not ha­stily to conclude, especially the decrees of Councils to be untruths, unless he be infallibly certain thereof. And if he be so, yet 2ly. ought he not to be offended at anothers submission to the Church that holds them; unless he knows also that the other is infallibly certain of their being errors. But yet 3ly, from the others sub­mitting he cannot indeed gather so much, as that such a ones private opinion in all things is the same as the Church's doctrine is: but only this; that such a man's judgment is; that he ought to submit (as much as is in his power) his contrary reasons or opi­nion to her wiser and more universal judgment.

To conclude. No man may neglect a duty, for fear of giving some scandal, or of having his actions by some weak men miscon­strued. (For tis only in the doing and forbearing of things indif­ferent that we are to have an eye to scandal). Now our com­munion with that which we suppose to be the Church Catholick must needs be a duty, and that a high one. Of which S. Austin saith so often, (see 5. §.) That there can be no just cause of depart­ing from her. Therefore either she errs not at all in her decrees; or else we may not desert her communion, because therein are main­tained some errors; tho some, upon these, be scandalized, that we still abide in it. I add, as no just cause of departing from her, notwithstanding such errors; so no just cause of not returning to her when she is willing and ready to receive him. By Him, I mean here, as likewise in the rest of this discourse, such a one, as, tho he scruples at some of her (in his conceit) errors, yet is per­swaded, that that Church, to which he desires to joyn himself, is the truly Catholick.

Luk. 9. 59, &c.—And he said unto another; Follow me. But he [Page 43] said; Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my Father. Jesus said unto him; Let the dead bury their dead, &c. Another also said; Lord, I will follow Thee, but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him; No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.