demonstration. Befides, if demonftrative evidence be an effential property of the rule of faith, as Mr. S. affirms, then this rule cannot, according to Mr. Rushworth, be of any ufe to the greatest part of mankind, because they are not capable of convincing demonftrations. Again, "do but confider (fays he, ibid. § 6.) "how unequal and unjust a condition it is, that the "claim of the prefent church fhall not be heard, unless "fhe can confute all the peradventures that wit may

invent, and folve all the arguments which the infi"nite variety of time, place, and occafions, may have "given way unto; and then you will fee how unreasonable 66 an adverfary he is, who will not be content with any "fatisfaction but fuch as man's nature scarcely af"fords." And is it not equally unjuft in Mr. S. not to let fcripture's claim be heard, unless we can confute every peradventure and Might it not be otherwise that wit may invent? See, then, how unreasonable an adverfary Mr. S. is, who will not be content with any fatisfaction but fuch as, according to Mr. Rushworth, man's nature scarcely affords.

Dr. Holden (I confefs) ftates the matter fomewhat cautiously, when he tells us, /. I. c. I, that "it fhall "fuffice for the prefent to determine, that the wifdom "of the Creator hath afforded us fuch an affurance, "efpecially of truths neceffary to falvation, as is fuita❝ble to our nature, and best fitted for the fafe conduct "of our lives in moral and religious affairs." But if we interpret these general expreffions by the paffages I before cited out of Mr. Rushworth, (as in reafon we may, fince the Doctor is beholden to him for the best part of his book), then nothing can make more against Mr. S.'s principle.

$5. Mr. Creffy, in his Exomologefis, c. 19. § 5. fays, that "fuch teachers as approached nearest to the "fountain of truth, Chrift and his Apoftles, had means "of informing themfelves in apoftolical tradition in"comparably beyond us.' Mr. S. may do well to fhew what thofe means were, which are fo incomparably beyond his infallibility and demonftration. The fame author (c. 32. § 4.) does very much applaud Stapleton's determination of the question concerning the church's infallibility;

66

66

infallibility; which is as follows, "That the church does not expect to be taught by God immediately by new "revelations, but makes ufe of feveral means, &c. as "being governed, not by Apostles, &c. but by ordinary paftors and teachers: That these pastors, in ma66 king ufe of these several means of decifion, proceed, not, as the Apoftles did, with a peculiar infallible di"rection of the Holy Spirit, but with a prudential col"lection not always neceffary: That to the Apoftles, "who were the first masters of evangelical faith, and "founders of the church, fuch an infallible certitude of 66 means was neceffary; not so now to the church, &c." If this be true, that an infallible certitude of means is not now neceffary to the church, and that her paftors do now, in deciding matters of faith, proceed only with a prudent collection not always neceffary; then it fhould feem, that a fearching wit may maintain his ground of fufpence, even against their church alfo, with a "Might "it not be otherwife? Again, Mr. Creffy tells us, (Append. c. 5.), that "truth, and our obligation to

believe it, is in an higher degree in fcripture than in "the decifions of the church, as Bellarmine acknow

66

ledges" which is to fay, that we may have greater affurance of the truth of doctrines contained in the fcriptures, than we can have of any doctrine from the determination of the church. But if we have the greatest affurance that can be of truths delivered to us by the church, as Mr. S. affirms, then I would fain learn of him, what that higher degree of affurance is, which Mr. Bellarmine fpeaks of, and whether it be greater than the greateft? Not to infift upon that, (which yet I cannot but by the way take notice of), that Mr. Creffy, by his approbation of this determination of Bellarmine's, doth advance the fcripture above the church, as to one of the most effential properties of the rule of faith, viz. the certainty of it.

But the most eminent teftimony to my purpofe in Mr. Creffy, is that famous paffage (c. 40. § 3. &c.) which hath given fo much offence to feveral of his own church, wherein he acknowledges "the unfortunatenefs (to him) "of the word infallibility;" and tells us, "that he could find no fuch word in any council; that no neceflity

"neceffity appeared to him, that either he, or any o"ther Proteftant, should ever have heard that word na"med, and much less preffed with so much earneftness, "as of late it has generally been in difputations and "books of controverfy: and that Mr. Chillingworth "combats this word with too great fuccefs; infomuch "that if this word were once forgotten, or but laid by, "Mr. Chillingworth's arguments would lofe the greatest 66 part of their ftrength; and that if this word were "confined to the fchools, where it was bred, there "would be still no inconvenience: and that, fince by "manifeft experience the English Proteftants think "themselves fo fecure, when they have leave to ftand 66 or fall by that word, and in very deed have fo much 66 to fay for themselves when they are preffed unneceffa"rily with it; fince likewife it is a word capable of fo "high a fenfe, that we cannot devife one more full "and proper to attribute to God himself, &c.:" fince all this is fo, he thinks he cannot be "blamed, if fuch "reafons move him to wifh, that the Proteftants may 66 never be invited to combat the authority of the church "under that notion." A very ingenuous acknowledgment, and as crofs to Mr.S.'s principle as any thing can be. But the word infallibility was not fo unfortunate to Mr. Creffy, as his untoward explication of the forecited paffage in his Appendix; which he afterwards. published, chiefly by way of vindication of himself, against the learned author of the preface to my Lord Falkland's Difcourfe of infallibility. There (Append. §2.3.) he tells us, that "there are feveral degrees "of infallibility." And that we may know what degrees of infallibility he thinks neceffary to be attributed to the church, this following paffage will inform us : "Methinks (he fays) if God have furnished his divine "and fupernatural truth with evidence equal to this, that "the fun will fhine to-morrow, or that there will be a "fpring and harvest next year, we are infinitely obli"ged to blefs his providence; and juftly condemned, "if we refufe to believe the leaft of fuch truths, as "fhewing lefs affection to fave our fouls, than the dull plowmen to fow their corn, who certainly have far "lefs evidence for their harveft, than Catholicks for their VOL. III. * faith;

D d

Part 2. “faith; and yet they infift not peevishly upon every "capricious objection, nor exact an infallible fecurity of a plentiful reaping next fummer, but, notwithstanding "all difficulties and contingencies, proceed chearfully in “their painful husbandry." So that, according to this difcourfe, whatever degree of assurance the church hath, or can give to those who rely upon her, it is plain, that no further degree is neceffary, than what the husbandman, when he fows, hath of a plentiful harvest; and that men are juftly condemned, if they refufe to believe the leaft truth upon fuch fecurity, which yet, by his own ́acknowledgment, is liable to contingencies: nay farther, that men are not reasonable, but peevish, in exacting infallible fecurity, and infifting upon every "capricious objection," fuch as is Mr. S.'s "Might it not be otherwife?" Now, as to this degree of assurance, or (as he calls it) infallibility, I cannot but grant what he fays of it to be most true; viz. that

in a fevere acceptation of the word, it is not rigo"roufly infallible;" that is, (as he explains it), it is not abfolutely impoffible, nor does it imply a flat contradiction, that the thing whereof we are so affured may be otherwife: but then I utterly deny, that according to any true acceptation of this word, fuch a degree of affurance as he fpeaks of, can be called infallibility; and withal I affirm, that none of those several degrees of infallibility which he mentions, excepting that only which imports an abfolute impoffibility, can with any tolerable propriety of fpeech, or regard to the true meaning and ufe of the word, have the name of infallibility given to them. For infallibility can fignify nothing elfe, but an utter impoffibility that one fhould be deceived in that matter as to which he is fuppofed to be infallible; and to fay fuch a thing is impoffible, is to fay, that the exiflence of it implies a flat contradition: fo that, whofoever afferts degrees of infallibility, is obliged to fhew, that there are degrees of abfolute impoffibilities, and of perfect contradictions; and he had need of a very fharp and piercing wit, that is to find cut degrees, where there neither are nor can be any. Indeed, in refpect of the objects of knowledge, it is eafy to conceive how infallibility may be extended to more objects

objects or fewer; but in refpect of the degree of affurance, (of which Mr. Creffy fpeaks), it is altogether unimaginable how any one can be more or lefs out of all poffibility of being deceived in those things wherein he is fuppofed to be infallible: for no one can be more removed from the poffibility of being deceived, than he that is out of all poffibility of being deceived; and whofoever is lefs than this, is not infallible; because he only is fo, who is out of all poffibility of being deceived in those matters wherein he is fuppofed to be infallible. So that Mr. Creffy's lower degrees of infallibility are no degrees of that affurance which may properly be called infallible, (for that can have no degrees), but of that affurance which is lefs than infallible. And he needed not have raised all this duft about the degrees of infallibility, had it not been, that, by the means of fuch a cloud, he might make the more convenient escape out of that strait he was in between the clamours of his own church, and the advantage which his adverfaries made of his free and open difcourfe against infallibility. For any one that carefully reads his book, will find, that he understands nothing by the infallibility of the church, but "an au66 thority of obliging all Chriftians to fubmit to her de"cifions;" which is no more, but what every fupreme civil judge hath in matters, viz. a power to determine thofe controverfies that lie before him as well as he can or will; and when that is done, every one is bound to fubmit to fuch determinations: but yet for all this, no man ever dreamed a fupreme civil judge to be infallible more than another man. I do not now difpute the extent of the church's authority but if the have no other infallibility, but what a full authority of decifion does fuppofe, I am fure fhe hath none at all.

Before I leave Mr. Creffy, I cannot but take notice . how unfortunate and difingenuous he is in explaining the meaning of these words of his own, viz. "Against this "word infallibility Mr. Chillingworth's book efpecially "combats, and this with too too great fuccefs; which in his Appendix, c. 5. § 6. he interprets thus: ❝cefs, I mean, not against the church, but against his own foul, and the fouls of his fellow English Pro"teftants, &c." As if one that had wifhed well to Dd 2 66 Cæfar,

"Suc