told with so much confidence p. 200. That plainest common sence will teach us and every man who considers it that unless we settle some indisputable method of arriving at Christs sence or faith that is some self-evident and so all obliging Rule of Faith the Protestant Church can never hope for power to reduce their dissenters nor to hold together or govern efficaciously their own subjects that is they can never hope for unity within themselves or union with them that have it Which in effect is thus much That both his sacred Majestie and all his Peers and Prelates Laity and Clergy are profest opposers of what plainest common sence and each mans Reason must suggest unto him as the sole expedient of the Churches welfare for which great charity and worthy thoughts of our whole Nation 't is pitty but it should be ordered by the King and Parliament that due thanks be given to Mr. S. especially seeing he hath been at the vast expence of an ipse dixit to confirm the charge hower contenti sumus hoc Catone nor have we need to add homine imprudenti at que imperito nibil quicquam injustius Cor. 2. This shews what spirit of Divination had possessed my friend when thus he talks Hence we may see confessedly in the Protestant principles the Reason of their present and past distractions and divine of the future for mens fancies being naturally various no power in her to keep them in union they must needs ramble into multitudes of Dissenting Sects which to strive to unite in one were to force both nature and conscience too Nature in striving to unite their understandings in Faith without offering them evidence of Authority conscience in binding them to act as Protestants do whereas they are ready to stake their Salvation upon it that their best reasons working upon the very Rule of Faith Protestants recommend obliges them to the contrary For first in fundamentals in which onely we think it necessary to unite the understandings of our people we have confessedly all the evidence that Scripture and Tradition the Role of Protestants and Papists can afford And secondly in other matters we have power to silence such disputes and prevent the spreading of such opinions as may cause divisions and inflict the Churches censures upon those that do so and consequently have sufficient provisions for that peace and unity which is necessary to the Churches welfare And thirdly either we do not bind the conscience and therefore cannot force it or else we do it upon that pregnant evidence now mentioned and therefore cannot be said to oblige the will against the understanding And lastly we are as ready to protest that our best reason working upon the very rule of Faith which Romanists recommend unto us obligeth us to renounce their faith and that to force us to act with them would be to force our consciences unto sin For a close to cry quit with you this shews the reason of that General Atheism Scepticism and Irreligion which is spread over the face of the whole Roman Church which prevails so much in France and Italy and makes Rome Christian little differ from her self whilst Heathen for having built her Faith upon that infallibility which stands liable to multitude of doubts and is confuted by variety of Arguments and Experiences what remains but that Religion perish in its ruines Once more this shews the reason of the sudden growth of Atheism in this our Nation for Catholicks having by experience found that all their endeavours must be fruitless whilest we have Scripture for our Rule that whilst Christianity stands upon its old foundations their politick profession of it cannot find sure footing in our Nation have at last made it their professed business to draw the night upon her to wipe out Scripture at one dash and pronounce all those arguments which the first Champions of Christianity made use of unsatisfactory and null that being thus benighted even by a fiat lux we might take up with an implicite faith and being first made Atheists be in a nearer disposition to act the Papist And lastly that finding no sure footing in the Scriptures we might run unto Tradition for it An Appendix containing an Answer to those few passages in Fiat Lux which beare some shew of Reason and might possibly deceive the unwary Reader 1. THerefore 't is asserted That the power of appealing to the Bishop of Rome mentioned in the Council of Sardica was ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum and so a personvl priviledge which might cease on the death of Julius p. 59. that is quoth Fiat Lux not to the pope who then was Julius but to Julius who then was Pope p. 55. Whereas he should have said not to him as Pope but as Julius i.e. as one deposed and reviled by the Fastern Bishops against whom this Council did oppose themselves endeavouring to advance him as much as they endeavoured to depress and vilifie him but alas materialiter and formaliter are terms which the poor man is wholly unacquainted with and this answer was grounded upon History which neither his Don Quixot nor Hudibras would afford him and therefore 't was above his shallow capacity T was secondly asserted that the Doctrine stigmatized by Saint Paul as a Doctrine of Divels was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of those in general that forbid marriage not condemn it upon such and such particular accounts And therefore though the Encratite Montanist were deeper yet they also did participate in the guilt p. 210. To convince this answer of folly falsehood it is thus rejoyned That if so 't would follow that the Church of England must be guilty of the Doctrine of Divels by prohibiting marriage in the times of Lent and Advent p. 182. A. as if it were all one to forbid the thing and to restrain the doing of it at times unseasonable and S. Paul had been as great a criminal for advising abstinence from due Benevolence at times of extraordinary prayer and fasting as they who alwaies thought it necessary to do so and lastly to forbid flesh in general and to forbid it upon daies of fasting and humiliation were things equivalent t is I confess the same to forbid it at times unfit and unto persons to whom it is so but never will it be evinced that that marriage which is honourable in all be undecent in the Clergy 3. But do you not acknowledge their fundamentals to be so perspicuous as what is written with a Sun beam and therefore such as none but fools can possibly mistake in and is it not then justly wondred by Fiat Lux that any Protestant writers should affirm that general Councils who have Authority from Christ of deciding controversies greater assistance in and means of finding out the truth then others should lye under a possibility of erring in what is so perspicuous and cleare Ans 1. This objection doth as much concern the Catholick as us who albeit he pretends infallible and so the greatest evidence for matters of his Faith yet cannot but acknowledge that they are contradicted not only by the Eastern but a confiderable part of the Western Church Doth not my Friend and all his brother Catholicks assert That the authority of their Church is such a motive to beliefe that only irrational vicious and willfully blind persons can recede from it by disbelief S.F.p. 197. yet have not its definitions been solemnly condemned by Arriau Councils as great as any they stile general And by the Provincial Councils of the Reformed Churches are not these condemnations subscribed propugned and adjusted by far greater multitudes of learned men then ever did convene in General Councils and what is incident to them diffused why may it not be incident to a far less number when convened Nay secondly was not the law of Nature were not the Notions of a Deity so manifest and obvious as to render the offender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemned of his own conscience And yet were not the greater part of men such fools for many hundreds of years together to act in contradiction to them Was not the Doctrine of our Saviour confirmed by such Miracles such Prophecies and other signal evidenes as rendred it unquestionably true and the rejectors of it inexcusable and did not yet the Sanhedrim and Jew reject it and Blaspheme it though convinced of its truth nay is not the generality of the learned world much more the giddy and unruly muititude so inconsiderate as to run headlong to that ruine which dayly lays before their eyes and no wonder that it should be so since the Church story shews too plainly that interest pride and faction prejudice false principles and a mistaken Rule of Faith have but too often acted in the Rulers of the Church yea even Reason and Experience informs us that such persons have most subtilty to elude the plainest arguments and most concluding Reasons to find out contrary pretences to oppose against them and many other artifices to bind their Faith unto their interests FINIS
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
perfection and remove the contrary he being therefore incomprehensible because infinite in perfection whence albeit I do not comprehend his nature yet can I rationally conclude him not corporeal because that necessarily subjects him to varietie of imperfections 6. This doth not prejudice the use of Reason in other matters any more then the Asymptoticks of the Mathematicks the cruces logicorum the Insolubilia of other sciences do prejudice our getting knowledge in these matters by the use of Reason Corol. Hence evident it is That Scripture must not alwaies be interpreted according to the Letter or Grammatical importance of the words because that often is contradictory both to reason tradition and the Analogie of Faith this cannot be disputed by any person who is not professedly industrious to render Scripture odious and ridiculous there being nothing more abhorrent from humane nature then some Scriptures are in their Grammaticall importance but you object Ob. If Reason must guide you sometimes so as to denie the clear letter of Scripture or to deny the Spouse of Christ is properly whatever she is stiled in the Canticles by what principles must Reason be regulated in this enquiry Whether God hath hands and feet c. pag. 193. Ans 1. By Principles of Faith or those perspicuous Scriptures which dogmatically aver that he is a Spirit invisible and without all shape lastly attribute unto him many things repugnant to a body this you see is done antecedently to the known sence of some Scriptures though not of all And 2. by Reason assuring me that corporeity is incompatible with that power which is every where infinite That it is an imperfection and so not incident to this all-perfect Being that it interferes with his simplicity and independance degrades him beneath the ranke of Angels and humane Souls which Scriptures represent as incorporeal that to ascribe such Phrases properly unto him must represent him the worst of Monsters as having wings and seaven eyes and putting on more shapes then ever Proteus did and render his reproofs of Heathen Images irrational and absurd Ob. But is not this to flie back for refuge to the old rule Humane Reason which you seemingly renounced when you had found your new Rule of Faith Ans It s power to pass judgement of the truth of what is revealed in Scripture I did and do renounce its assistance in finding out the sence of Scripture I cannot renounce without the sorfeiture of Reason Corol. 2. Hence it must follow that to be expresly contained in Scripture is not to be the mind of God contained in Scripture for that God is a Shepheard and a Roaring Lyon a Lanthorn and a wall of fire that he begat Israel and doth continue to beget Believers That the Messiah is a Lamb a Lyon and a Stag a Worm Plant Fagle Root and Cedar this and much more is expressly told us from Scriptures letter but to infer hence that Reason guided by Scripture cannot otherwise interpret them but it must Violently wrest the Scripture and be so absolutely the Rule of Faith as to controle and baffle Scripture though clearly revealing p. 192. is to make Christ the worst of Monsters to out do all the Fables of the Poets and represent the God of Heaven more ridiculous then an Heathen Jupiter Secondly I defire to know whether the Church of Rome doth own and sence these places according to the letter or contradict and wrest baffle and controul the clearest revelations of the word of God by doing otherwise Qu. But if to be in express terms in Scripture be not to be clearly revealed there what is it to be thus revealed Ans T is manifestly to be the mind of God contained in Scripture Which being so if you continue to imagine that every thing contained in Scriptures letters is clearly manifested to be the mind of God in Scripture then must you either contradict what is clearly manifested so to be or cut off hands and feet and pluck out eyes that you may be Christs Disciple if you enquire farther amidst all the varietie of Tropes and Figurative Expressions used in Scripture how any thing can be manifested to be the mind of God revealed I Answer by the very same means and circumstances by which we know the mind of one another notwihstanding all the variety of Tropes and Figures which we use in ordinary Discourse or Writing how often doth the Divine the Poet the Historian and especially the Orator flourish in all the arts of Rhetorick and Grace his subject with the chiosest flowers of Eloquence and yet presents it in a dress as clear as it is pleasant and were not men wilfully perverse they would have less reason to complain of the obscurity of the Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation upon this account When therefore you thus Argue That God hath Hands Feet Nostrils is plainly writ in your Rule of Faith p. 121. and therefore is revealed in it the inference must be weak the Foundations of it are already overturned And yet however you suppose it all along I peremptorily deny that it is possitively asserted in any Scripture that God hath Hands Feet Nostrils True we are told the Heavens are the Workmanship of his hands c. But to infer it from such places would force you to acknowledge that the Word of God is Milk and that Milk is Rational because Saint Paul hath stiled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here therefore is no need to captivate my Reason much less to Answer as you would have me That the contrary is plain in Scripture too pag. 191. and so that Scripture holds forth plainly contradictions this Answer so dishonourable to God and Scripture so repugnant unto Faith Reason and Tradition I permit to be your own CHAP. III. Of the Rule of Faith Prop 1. SEeing Divine Faith in the proper import of the words is an assent to Divine Authority revealed whatever I assent to as an Article of Faith I must assent to as being the revealed will of God whence evident it is That the mind or will of God revealed and nothing else must be my Rule of Faith Again What is the proper office of a Rule but to examine what is to be ruled by it Must we not pass a Judgement on our Weights and Measures by bringing them to the Rule and Standard In like manner Do we not examine each Theological conclusion by this Enquiry Whether it be the minde of God revealed or not and from the Answer made unto it pass Judgement on the thing in Question This therefore is the Rule of every Theological conclusion And so of Faith Corol. 1. Hence it will follow That not Tradition but the minde of God revealed in Scripture or Tradition is the Rule of Faith And indeed Tradition where it as certain as Mr. S. supposeth it would be the formal Object but not the Rule of Faith which two things are miserably confounded through the whole Series of my Friends Discourse
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
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