Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,838	5	9.5550	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65702	Dos pou sto, or, An answer to Sure footing, so far as Mr. Whitby is concerned in it wherein the rule and guide of faith, the interest of reason, and the authority of the church in matters of faith, are fully handled and vindicated, from the exceptions of Mr. Serjeant, and petty flirts of Fiat lux : together with An answer to five questions propounded by a Roman Catholick / by Daniel Whitby ...	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1666 (1666)	Wing W1725; ESTC R38592	42,147	78

ΔΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΣΤΟ OR AN ANSWER TO Sure Footing So far as Mr. Whitby is concerned in it Wherein the Rule and Guide of Faith the Interest of Reason and the Authority of the Church in Matters of Faith are fully handled and vindicated FROM THE Exceptions of Mr. SERJEANT AND Petty Flirts of FIAT LUX Together with AN ANSWER to Five Questions propounded by a ROMAN CATHOLICK By Daniel Whitby M. A. Coll. Trin. Oxon. Soc. And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall Rom. 11. OXFORD Printed by W. Hall for R. Davis 1666. Imprimatur ROBERTUS SAY VICE-CANCELLARIUS OXON TO THE READER Courteous Reader THe Animadversions of Mr. Serjeant being confused and immethodical would not admit an Answer in that Order in which they lie wherefore I have reduced them to their several heads and as I hope sufficiently discovered the weakness of them in the following Chapters still being careful that I did not actum agere or say any thing which might interfer with his two great Antagonists I have since been assaulted by a second Sampson willing perhaps to shew the world what Execution he could do with the Jaw bone of an Asse He hath three passages in his Epistle which seem guilty of a little reason and shew he has some lucid Intervals which therefore shall receive an Answer But as for his continual falsifications of my words and arguments his Wit and Drollery his Any mad versions and his white Boys that is the residue of his Epistle I shall leave them to be bound up with Asdriasdust Tosoffacan And rest Thy Friend and Servant DANIEL WHITBY CHAP. I. Of the certainty of Faith and the use of Reason in matters of Faith Prop 1. REason is that faculty which God hath given us to discern betwixt true and false good or evil just and unjust For that we do discern betwixt these things is every Mans experience and that we do it by the exercise of Reason is most evident for Judgement must be either brutish or founded upon Reason Coroll If then my reason doth determine what is just or unjust good or evil true or false and consequently what is to be done believed thought or not Reason must be my judge in every case Secondly To judge is to determine from some ground and that is to infer or reason and therefore nothing can be judge in any case but Reason Thirdly The Papist must acknowledge Reason for his Judge in every case for either Reason must assure them that the Church in her Traditions is infallible or else they must believe it they know not why this done what is unquestionably the Tradition of the Church cannot be matter of a doubt and when 't is doubted or disputed what is the voice of holy Church Reason must still become their Judge for sure they must have motives to encline them either way And they are Reasons wherefore in all cases Reason is their Judge and were it not the greatest folly to offer Reasons to convince us of the Roman Faith and at the same time tell us its judgement is not to be taken Object But here you presently throw in p. 187. The existence of the Trinity and then cry out To work now with your Reason and see how you evince it Answ Do you believe the assertion to be true or not if true Why do you then disupte against it if not Why do you not return some Answer to those Arguments wherewith it was confirmed nay why do you acknowledge That in great part of the whole Section and especially at the beginning the Discourse is rightly made p. 180. since that Discourse is visibly a Complex of Arguments professedly evincing this conclusion But Secondly I conclude the existence of a Trinity by rational Inference from such Scriptures which affirm That God is one and that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are truly God and therefore do assert it because my reason judgeth these Inferences to be valid and the Sacinian who rejects the Article doth not reject the Authority of those Scriptures upon which I ground it but onely endeavors to evade the Inferences of my reason from thence Thus then you see that Reason acting on my rule of Faith produceth this assent And tell me Are we not enjoyned to give a reason of our Faith and so of this as well as other Articles and consequently to acquaint the Enquirer why we judge it necessary to believe the Existence of a Trinity You indeed teach me to speak thus That I have reason to believe Authority and Authority to believe the Trinity Answ True but I must still have reason to conclude it from Authority for it is not formally contain'd in Scripture but onely thence inferr'd by reason so that I have here Divine Authority for my Rule and Reason for my Guide to apply the Rule unto the Article and infer it thence Object Belief is as properly relative to Authority as Science is to an act of Reason whence 't is as incongruous to say I must have reason to believe such a Point as to say I know such a Point scientifically by Authority p. 187. Answ As incongruous as it is I hope you do believe the existence of a Diety the Divine Authority of Scriptures and the truth of Christs Miracles and that you have reason so to do and do you not now see the strange and monstrous incongruity of saying You have reason to believe Exerc. 3. Art 3. Sect. 6. Baronius his hand maid to Divinity will teach you to distinguish betwixt Faith strictly taken for an assent built upon the Testimony of another in which sense it is relative to Authority or more generally and so in Scripture and approved Authors it denotes any manner of assent thus we are said to believe our eyes and Heathens without a Revelation to believe a Diety And lastly this or that to be the sense of Scripture Prop 2. It is confess'd on both sides and in it self most certain That the foundation of all our Faith depends on Reason and is ultimately resolved into it the Protestant hath his internal and external Arguments to induce him to believe the Divine Authority of Scripture the Papist for his upstart Tradition pretends no less then a Demonstration and for his Churches Authority he hath his motives of credibility to produce And certain it is that all our Faith and Religion depends upon the Being of a God and that assurance which we have That his veracity is such as will not suffer him to deceive us His goodness such as will not suffer us to be invincibly deceived to our souls destruction nor let his providence be wanting in providing for and preserving to us that rule of Faith without which salvation cannot be attained unless we are assured of these things how know we but that God may have deceived the World with false Miracles yea that he hath not Imprinted in us such dispositions as may continually incline us unto Error That he hath not

assisted the Apostles and first Promoters of Christianity in delivering to us a false Scripture and false Traditions And certain Secondly it is we have no evidence of these things but that of Reason and consequently that the whole certainty of Faith depends upon it and this is freely acknowledged by Mr. Serjeant in his fourth Section where he tells us That our assent unto Authority is at last resolved into Reason and clearly follows from his grand Assertion p. 181. That no Authority viz. whether of Church Scripture or Tradition deserves assent farther then true reason gives it to deserve and consequently it must be beholding to true reason for the assent we yield unto it And yet I am confidently rebuked for saying That if S.C. believes his church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility p. 96. as if her infallibility could be believ'd on this very account deserve assent upon no other and the rationalness of assenting to it could be resolved into reason and she not be beholding to the confessed yea the only cause of this assent for the belief of that infallibility which is the effect thereof and all this forsooth Because I therefore come to have that Judgment of her infallibility because she as an object wrought upon my apprehension and imprinted a conceit of her there as she was in her self and so obliged my Reason to conclude and my judgement to hold her such as she is pag. 182. A very deep discourse and able to evince that no man is beholding to his Reason for any thing he assents unto but contrarily his Reason is beholding to the Object for causing that assent Seing that object works upon his apprehension and imprints a conceit of it self there as in it self and so obligeth our Reason to conclude and our Judgment to hold it such as it is but Sir is your assent rational or not If not 't is Bruitish and Absurd it may he false nor have you any reason to believe it true If so then must you be beholding to your Reason for it Coroll Hence I infer That Reason cannot be rejected as unsure and unsufficient to ground an Article of Faith upon for the certainty of our whole Faith depending upon that of Reason it must fall together with it So that to quarel with the use of Reason upon that account as Papists usually do is in effect to quarrel with Religion and Christianity Prop. 3. The certainty of Faith cannot be greater then that of Science or Mathematical Demonstration for that supposing only as the fundation of all certitude that my faculties are true and not supernaturally enclined to falsehood is absolutely certain and such as takes away all matter of a doubt for who can question the truth of these assertions that nothing can produce it self and that from equals if you take only equals the remainder will be equal both which are conclusions arising with the clearest evidence from that first principle of Science 't is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be Now seeing certainty consists in the removal of what is or might be matter of a doubt for whilest this matter of doubt remains we are not and when 't is once removed eo ipso we arrive at real certainty and seeing nothing can take off more then all no certainty can be greater then that which cuts of all matter of a doubt Nay secondly I ask whether this principle viz. it is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be can possibly be doubted whether some Conclusions Scientifical be not immediately and unavoidably derivative from it for since all Truths are ultimately resolved into it some most immediately conclude from it and whether hence it will not follow That Scientifical Conclusions may remove all possibility of doubting Thirdly all Articles of Faith are ultimately founded upon Reason by Prop. 2d And so our assent unto them must terminate thereupon no reason can be of greater certainty then a Scientifical Conclusion as being wholy derived from and resoluble into that first Principle of Science impossibile est idem esse non esse Fourthly That any Article of Faith is true or not true is a Scientifical Conclusion from that of Logick one part of contradictories must needs be true nor can the truth of any article be greater then the truth of this since 't is impossible to be true but eo ipso it must be true or not true When therefore you pretend p. 181. to cleave more heartily and firmly to a point of Faith then to any conclusion of Science whatsoever your adherence must outgoe your Reason for what if Faith depend upon divine veracity and that be closely applyed by the Church unto you Seeing it depends also on your assurance of these two Assertions 1. That the Divine power could not be engaged to deceive the Church or attest a falsehood Which you owe to Reason And Secondly That the divine veracity is engaged for that which you esteem an Article of Faith which you must owe unto the Eyes and Eares and the Fidelity of other men since then each Article of Faith attested by Divine Veracity is nevertheless known to be so partly by reason which cannot rise beyond a Demonstration partly by the evidence of sence and the fidelity of other men which is not capable of demonstration it is not possible that your assent which bottoms on them should exceed its certainty But secondly I affirm that all our certitude of Faith is less then that of Science for notwithstanding all your motives unto Faith are there not many real Atheists and secret rejecters of Christianity Many that are still enquirers many that labour under continual doubts and scruples and have Faith only as a grain of Musterdseed Yea may we not all cry out with the Disciples Lord increase our Faith Produce your motives manage them with your utmost care and you will find the Sceptick will still make exceptions put in his scruples and ask might it not be otherwise Whereas Science compels assent puts the intellect beyond a feare and will not suffer us to scruple or demur upon her Theorems or labour under the least uncertainty Whether one part of contradictories be true or the three Angles of a Triangle be equal to two right ones Sith then 't is nothing but the clearness of the truth which expels fears and doubts and 't is the want of such convictive evidence which is the cause of their continuance that certitude must needs be greatest which is most effectual to this end but 't is superfluous to insist farther upon that which is so admirably confirmed by Mr Chillingworth p. 291. Ed. ult Yea thirdly I affirm that the certainty of Faith is not so great as that of sence for all its certainty depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by

as will appear from the distinctive Characters of them both as they are excellently given us in the Learned Baron Apoll p. 34. S. 6. First then A Rule is that Exemplar by which the minde is regulated and to which it ought to be conformable and so the Rule of Faith is that Exemplar which we ought to follow and conform unto in Matters of Faith Now such apparently is the mind of God revealed in general nor is the voice of Christ or of Tradition such but on presumption that they are the minde of God revealed Secondly The Rule doth limit and determine what is ruled by it even so the Rule of Faith must fix the Bounds of Faith instructing us what and how many are the material Objects of it Thirdly The effect of the Rule of Faith is that knowledge which preceeds the act of Faith for it informs the Intellect by proposing to it what is requisite to be believed but not evincing it to be such Fourthly The Rule of Faith is onely a comprehensive Systeme of all the Articles of Faith as the Rules of Grammer are a comprehensive Systeme of such things as are to be observed in composing Latine Greek c. Now all these things do visibly agree unto the minde of God revealed but are as visibly inconsistent with Tradition as it imports a delivery down from hand to hand of the sence and Faith of Fathers to their Children Sure footing p. 41. for not the Tradition but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditum or Faith delivered is the minde of God revealed and consequently the Rule of Faith But now the formal Object is that which causeth us to believe the Rule of Faith and in my Friends expression applys with certainty Divine Authority to my understanding p. 181. which sure is the pretended business of Tradition and the whole intendment of sure footing Cor 2. Hence evident it is That Scriptures Letter as abstracted from the sense included cannot possibly be the Rule of Faith because as such it cannot be the minde of God revealed and when my Friend concludes p. 13. We cannot own the sense or things contained in Scripture for the Rule of Faith because they are the very Points of Faith of which the Rule of Faith is to ascertain us He gives a pregnant Instance of that ignorance of the term I charge him with for evident it is from what we have discoursed That the Rule of Faith is onely a Collection of the Points of Faith and that its business is not to ascertain but propound what is ascertain'd by the formal Object nay may I not conclude with parity of Reason that the Churches voice abstracted from the signification or import of it is to the Catholick the Rule of Faith because the matters signified by that voice are the very Points of Faith of which the Churches voice is to ascertain us Corol 3. Hence we may rectifie these loose conceptions of the Rule of Faith so frequent in the Animadversions of Mr. S. thus when he asks p. 188. Is not that speaking formally and properly the Rule of Faith which gives us Christs sense Answ That is indeed the Rule of Faith which gives Christs sense subjectively so as to contain and be the minde of Christ revealed in Scripture not that which gives it onely by declaring the importance of the words in which this sence is cloathed for then each Pamphlet of this nature must be a Rule of Faith unto the Reader each Mass Priest to the illiterate Papist each Nomenclator Postiller and Comment to the Mass-Priest as oft as they explain unto him the sence and meaning of his Rule of Faith Thus when again we are intreated to consider That a Rule to such an effect is the immediate knowledge to the power as conversant about the effect p. 190. From what hath been delivered we conclude such knowledge cannot be the rule but the effect thereof even as my skil in making syllogisms is the effect of logick rules V.G. I doubt of such a truth put case the Divinity of Christ the effect is conviction the mind of God revealed in Scripture is my rule this rule informs my knowledge that knowledge produceth the assent Cor. 4. Hence evident it is that neither Reason nor skill in Arts or Sciences is made our Rule of Faith because we do not look upon them as the mind of God revealed or any part thereof 'T is true my Friend endeavours to fasten this upon us but by such mediums as shew too evidently he was not well acquainted with the terms he used And first That Reason and its Maxims are our Rule of Faith he thus endeavours to conclude p. 190. He that judgeth must have some principles in his head by which he is regulated in making such a judgement those principles then must be his Rule in that action and if that judgement be an adhaesion to the point of Faith that is if the cause be the effect for no man adhers to any point of Faith till he hath judg'd it to be such these principles are his Rule of Faith now do not Protestants oft conclude the sence of Scripture from maxims of their Humane Reason Ans Besides the blunder which my Parenthesis takes notice of we have a greater weakness in this Argument For it supposeth all by which my Judgment is assisted in determining of what is Faith or finding out the sence of any Scripture to be my Rule of Faith and therefore is as effectual to perswade the Gallenist his skill in Greek is his Rule for Practise as inabling him to finde out certainly the rules of Galen whereas to be the Rule of Faith is a thing proper to these Principles which contain the material Objects of Faith Secondly I desire to know whether your continual Disputes managed by Maxims of your private Reason touching the sence of almost every Canon of the Trent and other Councels whose definitions you embrace as the Churches voice do not plainly manifest the Maxims of Reason to be as much your Rule as ours And thirdly Whether what was sufficient to produce Faith in me and upon which its certainty depends entirely may not sufficiently assure me of one particular Object of it Secondly That skill in Arts and Sciences Language and History are made our Rules of Faith is concluded from a double Argument Obj 1. That in Disputes against them we prove and defend our Faith by such skills as Language History and other Knowledge got by humane Learning and consequently hold it upon the Tenure of these Skills which therefore are our Rule of Faith p. 190. Answ This is a very formidable Argument and must force you to confess That in proving and defending of your Faith against us Protestants you never shew your skill in History or any other part of humane Learning or to acknowledge what you abhor so much p. 188. that these also are your Rules of Faith Should a Jew Socinian or Pagan use this

be possible for many handreds of Lateran or Basil Nice or Constantinople to pretend Tradition falsly because in contradiction to each other and shall it not be possible for 52 Bishops met at Trent to do so But what if she hath actually deceived us Is it infallibly evident that she cannot do what she hath done already and that as sure as History can make it For in the sixteenth Century we have several Translations of the Bible set forth with special Prefaces before them such were that of Santes Pagrinus the Dominician at Lyons that of Antonius Braciolus in Italy every one delivering and declaring the distinction that we make and was then commonly receiv'd between the Canonical Books of Scripture and Apocryphal may in that famous Edition of the compleat Bibles set forth by Ximenius the Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo in Spain and published by the Authority of People Leo we are told that Tobit Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the Macchabes with the additions to Hester and Daniel are no Canonical Scripture but such as the Church read rather for edification of the people then confirmation of her Faith Yea the vulgar Bible printed at Basil with Lyra's Commentary and the ordinary Gloss do not onely number her Books Canonical and un Canonical as we do putting that difference between them is be ween what is dubious and what is certain but farther tells us That she did it for the Information of them who being not much used to Scripture did not know how to put a difference betwixt them and so became ridiculous to the Learned Picus Mirandula assured us Admitto igitur Hieronymum in ea fuisse opinione Bellar de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. That the Testimony of St. Jerome in this matter which punctually accords with us even our Adversaries being Judges was esteemed most sacred by the Church And Cardinal Caietan that common Oracle of the days he lived in saith as expresly What he received into the Canon that do we what he rejected we also do reject Nay That the Latine Church was very much obliged to S. Jerome who by making this distinction had freed us from the reproaches of the Jews left them no ground to say of her what now they may of the Latine Church That she had forged a new Canon of her own with which the Jews had no acquaintance 'T is true Catharinus opposed this Sentence as being contrary to what one or two Popes had held before him but he was presently derided for it by one of his Brother Monks as an unlearned fellow And to conclude Johannes Ferus in his Book called An Examination of Persons to be Ordained See this and much more in Dr. Cosens's Canon of Scripture Cent 16. informs them of nine Apocryphal Books the same which are so called by our Church which were not anciently used in the Church and whose Authority was not pressing To him you may adde Faber Stapulensis Jodochus Clictovaeus Ludovicus Vives Fr Georgius Erasmus and Driedo all in this sixteenth Century This being so Can any man imagine that the Canonical Authority of these Books was look'd upon in this Century as an Apostollick Tradition by the Church of Rome and a thing necessary to be taught Posterity and yet they are pronounced Canonical by a few Men at Trent in the same Century and a Tradition is pretended for it in defiance to their own and other Churches If then we cannot be infallibly assured that the Church of Rome kept to Tradition when she most pretended it yea are abundantly certain That in her first Decree she contradicted the prevailing Doctrine of that very age What assurance can we reasonably expect that she always did so Obj The Attestation of One thousand Men of good repute touching a matter pretended to be seen by them and confirmed by their Oath obligeth to belief And must not then the Attestation of the Church of Rome incomparably more ample render the matter so indubitable c as that onely irrational vicious and wilfully blinde persons can recede from it by unbelief p. 196 197. Answ 1. I desire to know Whether it were absolutely impossible that One thousand hypocritical Pharisees should have procured the repute of honest men it being Proverbial amongst the Jews That if Heaven were designed but for two persons the one would be a Scribe the other a Pharisee or whether it were absolutely impossible for One thousand of such persons who were confessedly guilty of greater sins and frequently accustomed to swear a lye by any thing but the name Jehovah to attest falshood with an Oath and if not Why should it be impossible to our Modern Pharisee who can equivocate as well as he Whether the Priests of Apolio were not many Thousands in the World Whether they might not be reputed honest Men and whether it were impossible for them to consent in an Attestation of such a falshood which might gain reputation to that Idol especially considering that the Frauds and Artifices of the Priests were the usual ways of keeping up the credit of their Idol-worship Secondly In some cases such a Testimony will oblige unto Belief But what if these Witnesses should be confronted by the Testimony of Two thousand equally Judicious and Pious Men What if these Witnesses should very in their Testimonies and when met in Councels contradict each other What if Scripture and History delivered to us from the unquestionable Tradition of many Millions of which this Thousand were a part should manifestly condemn them of a lye What if the thing they undertook to testifie depended not entirely on their Attestation but required also the Testimony of the next Age and so up to the Apostles days What if the Attestation were visibly for their own Interest or they were partly ignorant of what they did Attest Would not all or any of these things sufficiently null their evidence and vet this is manifestly the case of your Churches Testimony Fifthly It is no sufficient prejudice against the reasonableness or certainty of Faith to confess it to be built upon foundations not absolutely infallible This is the natural result of what hath been already proved but 1. That it is no prejudice unto the prudence and reasonableness of our Faith is sufficiently concluded hence That the most weighty Affairs of Life are built upon Foundations not absolutely such No Childe hath an infallible assurance of his Parents no Subject of his Prince and would it not be madness hereupon to deny Obedience and Homage to them our Title to our Estates derived from Ancestors our assurance of the Laws of the Land we live in is but moral nevertheless to doubt or question them upon this account would be extreamly foolish moreover Reason and Prudence oblige us to believe what is highly credible and exceedingly more probably then it 's contrary And sure it is That Christian Religion is upon various accounts more credible and built on grounds incomparably more rational then either