pretend to be infallible Fourthly That Mr. S. by his Principles does plainly exclude from salvation the generality of his own Church that is all that do not believe upon his Grounds And this is the necessary consequence of his reasoning in a late Treatise intituled The method to arrive at satisfaction in Religion The principles whereof are these That the Church is a Congregation of Faithfull The Faithfull are those who have true Faith That till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church That which is the true Faith can onely be known by the true Rule of Faith which is Oral Tradition And that the infallibility of this Rule is evident to common sense And from these principles he concludes * Sec. 21. that those who follow not this Rule and so are out of this Church can have no true Faith And that though many of the Points to which they assent are true yet their assent is not Faith for Faith speaking of Christian Faith is an assent which cannot possibly be false So that the Foundation of this Method is the self-evident infallibility of Oral Tradition which hath been sufficiently consider'd in the Answer to Sure footing which yet remains unanswer'd That which I am now concern'd to take notice of is the consequence of this Method which does at one blow excommunicate and un-Christian the far greatest part of his own Church For if all who do not follow Oral Tradition as their onely Rule of Faith are out of the Church and can have no true Faith then all who follow the Council of Trent are ipso facto no Christians For nothing is plainer than that that Council did not make Oral Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith nor rely upon it as such which hath been prov'd at large in the Answer to Sure footing But why is Mr. S. so zealous in this matter of infallibility There is a plain reason for it He finds that confidence how weakly soever it be grounde hath some effect upon the common and ignorant People who are apt to think there is something more than ordinary in a swaggering man that talks of nothing but Principles and Demonstration And so we see it in some other Professions There are a sort of People very well known who find that the most effectual way to cheat the People is always to pretend to infallible Cures I have now done with his Infallibility But I must not forget this Letter of Thanks I shall wholly pass by the passion and ill language of it which a man may plainly see to have proceeded from a gall'd and uneasie mind He would fain put on some pleasantness but was not able to conceal his vexation Nor shall I insist upon his palpable shussling about the explication of the Terms Rule and Faith He was convinc'd that he had explain'd them very untowardly and therefore would gladly come off by saying that he did not intend explication p. 7. but onely to praedicate or affirm something of them And yet the whole design of the first page of Sure-footing is to shew the necessity of beginning with the meaning of those words which express the thing under debate And this method he tells us he will apply to his present purpose and will examine well what is meant by those words which express the thing he was to discuss namely The RVLE of FAITH Now if to examine well what is meant by words be not to go about to explain them I must confess my self to be in a great errour Of the same kind in his Apology for his Testimonies as if they were * P. 105. not intended against the Protestants whereas his Book was writ against the Protestants and when he comes to his Testimonies he †Sure-footing P. 126. declares the design of them to be to second by Authority what he had before establish'd by Reason So that if the Rational part of his Book was intended against the Protestants and the Testimonies were design'd to second it I cannot understand why he should say one was less intended against them than the other But it seems he is so conscious of the weakness of those Testimonies that he does not think them sit to satisfie any but those who believe him already As to his charge of false citations it is but the common artifice of the Roman Controvertists when they have nothing else to say However that the world may see how little he is to be trusted I shall instance in two or three about which he makes the loudest clamour and leave it to the Reader to judge by these of his sincerity in the rest He says P. 62. I notoriously abuse the Preface to Rushworths Dialogues in citing the Author of it to say that such certainty as makes the cause always to work the same effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working otherwise ought absolutely to be reckon'd in the degree of true certainty whereas says Mr. S. he onely tells us there p. 7. that by moral certainty some understood such a certainty as makes the cause c. To vindicate my self in this I shall onely set the Author's words before the Reader 's eyes They are these This term Moral certainty every one explicated not like but some understood by it such a certainty as makes the cause always work the same effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working other ways Others call'd that a moral certainty which proceeds from c. A third explication of this word is c. Of these three the first ought absolutely to be reckon'd in the degree of true certainty and the Authors consider'd as mistaken in undervaluing it Is this onely to tell us that by moral certainty some understood c. Does not the Prefacer also expresly affirm that what these some understood by moral certainty ought absolutely to be reckon'd in the degree of true certainty which is the very thing I cited him for Another heavy charge is P. 65. that according to my usual sincerity I quote Rushworth's Nephew to say that a few good words are to be cast in concerning Scripture for the satisfaction of indifferent men who have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scripture whereas says Mr. S. in the place you cite he onely expresses it would be a satisfaction to indifferent men to see the positions one would induce them to embrace maintainable by Scripture Does he onely say so let the Reader judge The words in Mr. Rushworth are these Yet this I must tell ye that it were a great satisfaction for indifferent men that have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scripture to see that the Positions you would induce them unto can be and are maintain'd by Scripture and that they are grounded therein Certainly one would think that either this man has no eyes or no forehead But the greatest
to any thing as reveal'd by God cannot be deceiv'd upon supposition that it is so reveal'd or else absolutely that whoever assents to any thing as reveal'd by God cannot be deceiv'd Now although I do not in the Passage forecited speak one syllable concerning Doctrines reveal'd by God yet I affirm and so will any man else that an assent to any Doctrine as revealed by God if it be reveal'd by him is impossible to be false But this is onely an infallibility upon supposition which amounts to no more than this That if a thing be true it is impossible to be false And yet the principal design of Mr. S's Book is to prove this which I believe no man in the world was ever so senseless as to deny But if he mean absolutely that whoever assents to any Doctrine as reveal'd by God cannot be deceiv'd that is that no man can be mistaken about matters of Faith as he must mean if he pretend to have any adversary and do not fight onely with his own shadow this I confess is a very comfortable assertion but I am much afraid it is not true Or else lastly By Faith he understands the Means and Motives of Faith And then the plain state of the controversie between us is this Whether it be necessary to a Christian belief to be infallibly secur'd of the means whereby the Christian Doctrine is convey'd to us and of the firmness of the Motives upon which our belief of it is grounded This indeed is something to the purpose for though in the passage before-cited I say not one word concerning the Motives of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine yet my discourse there was intended to be apply'd to the means whereby the knowledge of this Doctrine is convey'd to us However I am contented to joyn issue with Mr. S. upon both these Points 1. That it is not necessary to the true nature of Faith that the Motives upon which any man believes the Christian Doctrine should be absolutely conclusive and impossible to be false That it is necessary Mr. S. several times affirms in his Book but how unreasonably appears from certain and daily experience Very many Christians such as St. Austin speaks of as sav'd not by the quickness of their understandings but the simplicity of their belief do believe the Christian Doctrine upon incompetent grounds and their belief is true though the argument upon which they ground it be not as Mr. S. says absolutely conclusive of the thing And he that thus believes the Christian Doctrine if he adhere to it and live accordingly shall undoubtedly be sav'd and yet I hope Mr. S. will not say that any man shall be saved without true Faith I might add that in this Assertion Mr. S. is plainly contradicted by those of his own Church For they generally grant that General Councils though they be infallible in their Definitions and Conclusions yet are not always so in their Arguments and reasonings about them And the Guide of Controversies * P. 35. expresly says that it is not necessary that a Divine Faith should always have an external rationally infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church Authority or any other on his part that so believes Here is a man of their own Church avowing this Position that Faith is possible to be false I desire Mr. S. who is the very Rule of Controversie to do justice upon this false Guide I must acknowledge that Mr. S. attempts to prove this Assertion and that by a very pleasant and surprizing Argument which is this The profound Mysteries oâ— Faith he tells us †Faith vind p. 9â— must needs seem to some viz. those who have no light but their pure natural Reason †P. 89. as he said before impossible to be true which therefore notâ—ing but a Motive of its own nature seemingly impossible to be false can conquer so as to make them conceit them really true What Mr. S. here means by a Motive of its own nature seeming impossible to be false I cannot divine unless he means a real seeming impossibility But be that as it will does Mr. S. in good earnest believe that a Motive of its own nature seeming impossible to be false is sufficient to convince any man that has and uses the light of natural Reason of the truth of a thing which must needs seem to him impossible to be true In my opinion these two seeming impossibilities are so equally matched that it must needs be a drawn Battle between them Suppose the thing to be believed be Transubstantiation this indeed is a very profound Mystery and is to speak in Mr. S's phrase of its own nature so seemingly impossible that I know no argument in the world strong enough to cope with it And I challenge Mr. S. to instance in any Motive of Faith which is both to our understanding and our senses more plainly impossible to be false than their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is evidently impossible to be true And if he cannot how can he reasonably expect that any man in the World should believe it 2. That it is not necessary to the true nature of Faith that we should be infallibly secur'd of the means whereby the Christian Doctrine is convey'd to us particularly of the Antiquity and Authority of the Books of Scripture and that the expressions in it cannot possibly bear any other sense And these are the very things I instance in in the passage so often mention'd And to these Mr. S. ought to have spoken if he intended to have confuted that passage But he was resolv'd not to speak distinctly knowing his best play to be in the dark and that all his safety lay in the confusion and obscurity of his talk Now that to have an infallible security in these particulars is not necessary to the true nature of Faith is evident upon these two accounts because Faith may be without this infallible security and because in the particulars mention'd it is impossible to be had 1. Because Faith may be without this infallible security He that is so assur'd of the Antiquity and Authority of the Books of Scripture and of the sense of those Texts wherein the Doctrines of Christianity are plainly delivered as to see no just cause to doubt thereof may really assent to those Doctrines trines though he have no infallible security And an assent so grounded I affirm to have the true nature of Faith For what degree of assent and what security of the Means which convey to us the knowledge of Christianity are necessary to the true nature of Faith is to be estimated from the end of Faith which is the salvation of mens souls And whoever is so assur'd of the authority and sense of Scripture as to believe the Doctrine of it and to live accordingly shall be saved And surely such a belief as will save a man hath the true nature of Faith though it be not infallible And if God have sufficiently
here Reader presented thee with a Discourse which if we may believe Mr. S. is more than Mathematically demonstrative A rare Sight indeed And is not this a pleasant Man and of good assurance I now find it true which he * Letter of Thanks P. 1. says elsewhere that Principles are of an inflexible genius and self-confident too and that they love naturally to express themselves with an assuredness But certainly the sacred names of Principles and Demonstration were never so profan'd by any Man before Might not any one write a Book of such Jargon and call it Demonstration And would it not equally serve to prove or confute If he intended this stuff for the satisfaction of the People he might as well have writ in the Coptick or Sclavonian Language yet I cannot deny but that it is very suitable to the Principles of the Roman Church for why should not their Science as well as their Service be in an unknown Tongue that the one may be as sit to improve their knowledge as the other is to raise their devotion But if he designed this for the Learned nothing could be more improper for they are far less apt to admire non-sense than the common People And I desire that no man how learned soever he may think himself would be over-confident that this is sense I do verily believe that neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius nor the profound Mother Juliana have any thing in their writings more senseless and obscure than this Discourse of his which he affirms to be more than Mathematically Demonstrative So that if I were worthy to advise Mr. S. he should give over this pretence to Science for whatever he may think his Talent certainly does not lie that way but he seems to be as well made for a Mystical Divine as any man I know and methinks his Superiours should be sensible of this and employ him to write about the Deiform fund of the Soul the super-essential life the method of self-annihilation and the passive unions of nothing with nothing These are profound Subjects and he hath a Style peculiarly fitted for them For even in this parcel of stuff which I have now cited there are five or six words such as may-not-bees potentiality actuality actuation determinative supervene and subsume which if they were but well mingled and discreetly ordered and brought in now and then with a that is to explain one another would half set up a man in that way and enable him to write as Mystical a Discourse as a man would wish But enough of this And I have trespass'd not a little upon mine own disposition in saying thus much though out of a just indignation as confident Non-sense It is time now to draw toward a conclusion of this debate I shall onely leave with the Reader a few observations concerning this Book of Mr. S's and his Doctrine of Infallibility First That the main drift of his Book being to prove that what is true is impossible to be false he opposes no body that I know of in this matter Secondly That in asserting Infallibility to be necessary to the true nature of Faith he hath the generality of his own Church his professed Adversaries The Church of Rome never arrogated to her self any other Infallibility but what she pretends to be sounded upon Christ's promise to secure his Church always from Errour by a supernatural assistance which is widely different from Mâ— S's rational infallibility of Oral Tradition Mr. S. surely cannot be ignorant that the Divines of their Church till Mr. Rushworth and Mr. White found out this new way did generally resolve Faith into the infallible Testimony of the Church and the infallibility of their Church into our Saviour's Promise and the evidence of the true Church into the Markes of the Church or the Motives of credibility which Motives are acknowledg'd to be only prudential and not demonstrative * I. 4. de Eccles Bellarmine says that the Marks of the Church do not make it evidently true which is the true Church but onely evidently credible and that says he is said to be evidently credible which is neither seen in it self nor in its principles but yet hath so many and so weighty Testimonies that every wise man hath reason to believe it Becanus * Sum. Tom. 2. partic de tide c. 1. to the same purpose that the Motives of credibility are onely the foundation of a prudent but not of an infallible assent I know very well that Mr. Knott and some others would fain perswade us that an assent in some sort infallible may be built upon prudential Motives which is as absurd as it 's possible but if it were true yet Mr. S. would not accept of this sort of infallibility nothing less will serve him than demonstrative Motives and such as are absolutely conclusive of the thing Stapleton as Mr. Cressy tells us expresly says that such an infallible certitude of Means is not now necessary to the Pastors of the Church as was necessary to the Apostles who were the first founders of the Church So that according to these Authors there may be true Faith where neither the means nor the Motives of it are such as to raise our assent to the degree of infallibility And this is as much to the full as any Protestant that I know of ever said Nay even his Friends of the Tradition Mr. Rushworth Mr. White and Mr. Cressy are guilty of the same damnable and fundamental Errour as Mr. S. calls it †Letter to his Answerer p. 5. For they grant less assurance than that which is infallible to be sufficient to Christian Faith and that we are justly condemn'd if we refuse to believe upon such evidence as does ordinarily satisfie prudent men in humane affairs And particularly Mr. Wh. makes a question whether humane nature be capable of infallibility as I have shewn at large by clear and full Testimonies out of each of these Authors in the Answer to Sure-footing †Pâ—â—â—c c. Of which Testimonies though Mr. S. hath not though fit to take the least notice throughout his Book yet I cannot but think it a reasonable request to desire him to vindicate the Divines of his own Church especially those of his own way from these things before he charge us any farther with them Thirdly That Mr. S. by this Principle that infallibility is necessary to the true nature of Faith makes every true believer infallible in matters of Faith which is such a Paradox as I doubt whether ever it enter'd into any other man's mind But if it be true what need then of any infallibility in Pope or Council And if this infallibility be grounded upon the nature of Oral Tradition what need of supernatural assistance I doubt Mr. S. would be loth to preach this Doctrine at Rome I have often heard that there is an old teasty Gentleman lives there who would take it very ill that any one besides himself should
provided for the salvation of men of all capacities it is no such reflection upon the goodness and wisedom of providence as Mr. S. imagines that he hath not taken care that every man's Faith should arrive to the degree of infallibility nor does our blessed Saviour for not having made this provision deserve to be esteem'd by all the world not a wise Lawgiver but a mere Ignoramus and Impostor as * Labyvinthus Cantuariensis P. 77. one of his fellow Controvertists speaks with reverence Besides this assertion that infallibility is necessary to the true nature of that assent which we call Faith is plainly false upon another account also because Faith admits of degrees But Infallibility has none The Scripture speaks of a weak and a strong Faith and of the increase of Faith but I never heard of a weak and strong Infallibility Infallibility is the highest perfection of the knowing faculty and consequently the firmest degree of assent upon the firmest grounds and which are known to be so But will Mr. S. say that the highest degree of assent admits of degrees and is capable of increase Infallibility is an absolute impossibility of being deceived now I desire Mr. S. to shew me the degrees of absolute impossibility and if he could doe that and consequently there might be degrees of Infallibility yet I cannot believe that Mr. S. would think fit to call any degree of Infallibility a weak Faith or assent 2. Because an infallible security in the particulars mention'd is impossible to be had I mean in an ordinary way and without miracle and particular revelation because the nature of the thing is incapable of it The utmost security we have of the antiquity of any Book is humane Testimony and all humane Testimony is fallible for this plain reason because all men are fallible And though Mr. S. in defence of his beloved Tradition is pleas'd to say that humane Testimony in some cases is infallible yet I think no man before him was ever so hardy as to maintain that the Testimony of fallible men is infallible I grant it to be in many cases certain that is such as a considerate man may prudently rely and proceed upon and hath no just cause to doubt of and such as none but an obstinate man or a fool can deny And that thus the learned men of his own Church desine certainty Mr. S. if he would but vouchsafe to read such Books might have learnt from * De lo. Theol. lib. 11. c. 4. Certa apud homines ea sunt quae negari sine pervicacia stultitia non possunt Melchior Canus who speaking of the firmness of humane Testimony in some cases which yet he did not believe to be infallible defines it thus those things are certain among men which cannot be deny'd without obstinacy and folly I know Mr. S. is pleas'd to say that certainty and infallibility are all one And he is the first man that I know of that ever said it And yet perhaps some body may have been before him in it for I remember Tully says that there is nothing so foolish but some Philosopher or other has said it I am sure Mr. S's own Philosopher Mr. Wh. contradicts him in this most clearly in his Preface to Rushworth's Dialogues where explicating the term Moral certainty he tells us that some understood by it such a certainty as makes the cause always work the same effect though it take not away the absolute possibility of working other ways and this presently after he tells us ought absolutely to be reckon'd in the degree of true certainty and the Authors consider'd as mistaken in undervaluing it So that accordiâ—g to Mr. Wh. true certainty may consist with a possibility of the contrary and consequently Mr. S. is mistaken in thinking certainty and infallibility to be all one Nay I do not sind any two of them agreeing among themselves about the notions of infallibility and certainty Mr. Wh. says that what some call moral certainty is true certainty though it do not take away a possibility of the contrary Mr. S. asserts the direct contrary that Moral certainty is only probability because it does not take away the possibility of the contrary The Guide in Controversies * P. 135. differs from them both and makes moral certain and infallible all one I desire that they would agree these matters among themselves before they quarrel with us about them In brief then though moral certainty be sometimes taken for a high degree of probability which can onely produce a doubt full assent yet it is also frequently us'd for a firm and undoubted assent to a thing upon such grounds as are fit fully to satisfie a prudent man and in this sense I have always us'd this Term. But now insallibility is an absolute security of the understanding from all possibility of mistake in what it believes And there are but two ways for the understanding to be thus secur'd either by the perfection of its own nature or by supernatural assistance But no humane understanding being absolutely secur'd from possibility of mistake by the perfection of its own nature which I think all mankind except Mr. S. have hitherto granted it follows that no man can be infallible in any thing but by supernatural assistance Nor did ever the Church of Rome pretend to infallibility upon any other account as every one knows that hath been conversant in the Writings of their Learned men And Mr. Cressy in his * P. 88 89. Answer to Dr. Pierce hath not the face to contend for any other infallibility but this that the immutable God can actually preserve a mutable creature from actual mutation But I can by no means agrâ—e with him in what immediately follows concerning the Omniscience of a creature that God who is absolutely omniscient can teach a rational Creature all truths necessary or expedient to be known so that though a man may have much ignorance yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate sphere Omniscient within a determinate sphere is an infinite within a finite sphere and is not that a very pretty sort of knowing all things which may consist with a ignorance of many things Of all the Controvertists I have met with except Mr. S. Mr. Cressy is the happiest at these smart and ingenious kind of reasonings As to the other Particular of the sense of Books it is likewise plainly impossible that any thing should be deliver'd in such clear and certain words as are absolutely incapable of any other sense and yet notwithstanding this the meaning of them may be so plain as that any unprejudic'd and reasonable man may certainly understand them How many Definitions and Axioms c. are there in Euclid in the sense of which men are universally agreed and think themselves undoubtedly certain of it and yet the words in which they are express'd may possibly bear another sense The same may be said concerning the