and my Grounds why I then believ'd rest still unchang'd nay are unchangeable But yet Reason acts much differently now then â—ormerly Before I came at Faith she acted about her own Objects Motives or Maxims by which she scand the Authorities we spoke of But in Acts of Faith she hath nothing to do with the Objects of those Acts or Points of Faith She is like a dimsighted man who us'd his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twi-light and then reli'd on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self To make this clearer we may distinguish two sences in the word Reason one as 't is taken for that natural Faculty which constitutes Man which Faculty never deserts or ought to desert us in any action that is Manly or virtuous The other as 't is taken for that Power wrought upon by motives under its own ken in the same sence we call it human Reason by which is not meant the natural Power unactuated or abstractedly for then the word human were a Taâ—tology but Reason as conversant with such objects or inform'd by such knowledges as are commonly found within the sphere of our natural condition as Men such as are those which beget Science And this leaves us when we have once found the Authority now spoken of the Objects of Faith formally speaking being out of her reach nor is she thus understood the motive of our Assent to the verity of the Point of Faith but AVTHORITY onely Wherefore into Authority onely Faith as such is resolvd finally though if you go about to resolve the Rationalness of assenting to the Authority it self it will light into those Evident Reasons which your naturall power of reason as yet uninform'd by Faith but by motives or maxims within its own sphere was capable to wield 5. Reason therefore taken for my natural Power is my Eye or interiour sight as inform'd by common Principles or Maxims antecedent to Faith my Guid to bring me to believe Authority and those motives or Maxims are the Rules to my Reason by attending to which she hath virtue or skill to set her own thoughts right that is to guid me in my way to Faith but when I have once come to beleeve Authority that is come to Faith not Reason but Authority is my Guid for I follow Authority and not my Reason in judging what is Faith what not and though the Light of that naturall power never deserts me yet Reason as rul'd by her own natural maxims is useless to me as a Guid or those Maxims as a Rule for I apply neither of these to the mysteries of Faith to scan their verity or falsity by but purely rely upon Authority and beleeve them Authority then is my Guid and in the Infallibility of that Authority consists the power or virtue it has to guide me right that is to regulate or rule me as one of the Faithfull or as one who must have such Certain Grounds of my Assent as I may securely build my Salvation on This Authority then as it is Inâ—allible is also my Rule in my beleeving or the Rule of my Faith This of my Rule of Faith in Common against Adversaries of Faith in common But with Protestants who grant Christ to be God and consequently his words or doctrine true the onely Rule and Guid we need is to lead us into the Knowledge of what he said and assure it to us We affirm then that the Catholick Church is the Guid we follow and her Infallibility consisting in Tradition our Rule of Faith Hence all Catholicks profess her doctrin uninterruptedly succeeding from the Apostles time and so to continue to the end of the World hence with one voice they lay claim to Christs gracious Assistance to her in defending her from over-growing Errors against Faith or Heresies hence all profess to hear and follow her and pledge undoubtingly even the security of their salvation by relying on the Certainty of her Living Voice for their Tenets and on her Disciplin for the Practice of their Faith And though some Schoolmen make Scripture a partial Rule of Faith yet they can mean onely materially not formally that is that some part of Faith is signifi'd by Scripture's Letter not that Scripture's Letter alone is sufficient securely to signify it to private understandings so as to beget that most strong firm Assent found in Divine Faith as is evident by this that all hold no Scripture is of private Interpretation all hold the living voice of the Church and her constant Practice are the best Interpreters of Scripture Now Faith being Tenets and Sence that must be 〈◊〉 the Rule of Faith which ascertains us of Christs Sence not the materiall Characters which that Certain Interpreter we call the Church works upon and by her Practicall Tradition interprets 6. 'T is high time now to look back upon Dr. Pierce and his party how justly they deal with us and how mistakingly they discourse when they come to the Grounds of their Faith 7. First by the tenour of his discourse he would seem to obtrude upon us a Tenet which none but perfect mad-men could hold namely that we profess we have no reason why we believe the Church which devolves to this that we must profess we have as much reason to believe an old wife's dream as our Faith since there can be no less reason than none at all And hence he will needs assure the Reader that therefore the Enthusiastick Sectaries are in part Romish Proselytes c. And indeed upon so gross a calumny layd down for his principle and a sober Truth what might he not conclude with equal reason he might have inferr'd that all Bedlam were Catholicks and that to turn mad were to turn a Romanist But his carriage to put this upon Mr. S. C. is strangely unjust since he knows and hints it that he writ a Book upon his declaring himself Catholick entitled Motives of his Conversion does he think the word Motives does not signify Reasons or that to write an whole Book of Reasons why he adhea'd to the Catholick Church signifies that he renounc't all reason why he believ'd her 8. Next as for his own tenet he layes this for his Ground that Reason alone is Iudge in all cases I will propose him one case and 't is the Existence of a Trinity To work now with your Reason about this object and see how you evince it I doubt your best reasons will crack ere you make all ends meet But you mean you must have Reason to believe it I conceive speaking properly you should rather say you must have Reason to believe the Authority and Authority to believe It for Belief is as properly relative to Authority as Science is to an Act of true Reason or Evidence 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
SURE-FOOTING In Christianity Or Rational Discourses On The Rule of FAITH With Short Animadversions on Dr Pierce's Sermon Also on some passages in Mr Whitby and M Stillingfleet which concern That RULE Ecce nos ex Patribus ad Patres per manus traditam fuisse hanc sententiam demonstravimus Athanasius By I. S. LONDON Printed in the Year 1665. To the QUEEN Madam THough the Faith I write for be far more firmly establish't then Heaven and Earth themselves as the Worlds great Master has by his own word assur'd us and so needs no Support but its own Invincible Strength Yet I am told by my reason that nothing so clears and recommends Religion to the Generality as the vertuous Life and eminent Devotion of Them that profess it But where shall I seek those happiest Effects and noblest Arguments of Truth If I consider them in their abstracted Idea's they are Invisible as Angels too subtle and delicate for vulgar eyes Where then may I hope to meet those excellent Forms vested with Bodies if I consult the common Judgment I expect to be sent to some Hermit's Cell or the private Oratory of some holy Votaress where I may find them indeed embody'd but withal half-bury'd Incomparable Lights but shut up in a kind of dark Lanthorn where they burn safely I confess but shine to few while Those I seek must be high and conspicuous to send forth their Beams and Influences over all the VVorld and in that regard Courts are the properest Firmament for such Illustrious Stars and Courts are easily seen but where 's the Star In this perplexity Madam it pleas'd the Goodness of Heaven to relieve me for as the mention of Courts brought immediately into my memory the happiness our Nation is blest with by Your Majesty's Residence among us so the Contemplation of Your Exemplar Life fill'd my soul with joy to have found at last those sublime and heroick Virtues whose perfect Conformity to the Rules of Catholick Religion is alone capable to convince the Certainty of its Truth Such an unwearied Constancy in Devotion such a degree of Fervor in that Constancy cannot possibly proceed from a luke-warm Probability in Faith such frequent Retirements to intimate Conversations with Heaven such Mortifications and contempt of Court-Entertainments and which is yet harder such Innocence and Purity amidst the necessary Admittances of them as they all conspire to speak Your Soul Angelical so they clearly prove the vigorous Activity of the Faith that breeds them far beyond the drowsy Indifferency of a probable Opinion Thus Madam while Schollars but discourse YOV live Demonstrations Permit me then to use not Your bare Name but Your Vertues as a Patronage to my Endeavours since the Motive of this my Dedicatory meant These for its Substance and Your Temporal Supremeness onely for a Circumstance Others Complement while they dedicate I Argue all the while nor intend I this for a farther Display of Your Excellent Vertues which already are sufficiently manifest to all the VVorld but to breed a more serious reflexion on Them in the minds of those against whom I write and other well-meaning but mis-led persons This advantage Your Majesty and the Practical Provers of Catholick Faith have above us Speculaters that Your whole Life is a Continual Argument for It while we are bound to expect Seasons and wait Opportunities Nor should I at this time have offer'd to appear had not the Multitude of Books lately Printed against Catholick Religion made it my plain and necessary Duty with all my little power to defend It VVhat I have endeavour'd I most humbly lay at Your Majesties feet and remain MADAM Your Majesties most dutiful Subject and most obedient Servant I. S. PREFACE To the Intelligent READER 1. He is little acquainted with the paths which lead to Science who knows not that the settling the First Principle in any Affair is of mainest Import towards Satisfaction in that particular because if such a Principle be not first settled the whole Discourse as relying on that Principle for its Certainty must needs waver and stagger Reflecting on this plainest Truth and withal on the manner how very many I wish I might not say most Controversies are manag'd that is by debating much about diverse Conclusions but very little about the first Principle in Controversie I cannot wonder if Disputes come slowly to an End when few of them were ever rightly begun Another mischief and even despair of entire Satisfaction springs from hence that seeing all Dispute Supposes an Agreement between the Disputers in some acknowledg'd Principle I much fear while things are carry'd on this fashion this Requisit is wanting to the Catholick and Protestant Controvertists For neither doth the Protestant from his heart hold witness the Books of their most extold Champions and even the 39. Articles to the contrary the Testimonies of Fathers and Councils Certain and Convictive nor even Scripture alwayes as to its Letter and the Sence they give it for they pretend Infallible Certainty of none of these much less does the Catholick agree that private Interpretations of Scripture or Citations from Fathers not speaking as Witnesses of the Churches Belief are of sufficient Authority to settle the True or overthrow a False or pretended Faith Yet notwithstanding all this each Antagonist permits the other to frame his Discourses upon these Grounds as if he held the Method were good and allowable which not being heartily granted by either what satisfaction can we expect but endless and fruitless contests for want of Agreement in some acknowledg'd Principle while this Method is follow'd Nay more were it suppos'd that both sides had agreed not to reject in their Disputes such a Principle yet still however one side might happen to foil the other so far as to make him contradict himself yet never so as to convince his Tenet of falshood unless the process were grounded upon some First that is Self-evident Principle by virtue of whose undoubtable Certainty the Discourse built on it might gain an establishment Whence also the result of this way of Discourse can be onely the Credit or Discredit of the Authours and touches not at all the Thing Which without some Evident Principle to establish or overthrow it hovers in its pure neutral condition of being as to Assent or Dissent just a bare saying and no more 2. The reason why the First Principle of Controversie is not more lookt into and clear'd appears to me evidently this that our modern Dissenters from the Church and her Faith seeing which is common to Them with all other maintainers of Errours that to begin with First or self-Evident Principles is the direct road to Science and therefore absolutely destructive of their Interest avoid as much as in them lies the laying any such Principles and instead of this apply their whole endeavours to aiery Descants upon Words by such means and Arts as are never likely to give them any determinate Sence by which craft the way
multitudes of Knowers if no possible consideration can awaken in our reason a doubt that they conspire to deceive us Now in the way of Tradition all deliverers or immediate Forefathers are Knowers as appears in those who immediately heard the Apostles all the Knowledge requisit being of what they were taught and practic 't accordingly all their lives of which 't is impossible the rudest person should be ignorant who ever had any Effect of such a Teaching wrought upon him Nor can any unless their brains rove wildly or be unsettled even to the degree of madness suspect deceit where such multitudes unanimously agree in a matter of fact look seriously when they speak act themselves and practice accordingly and show in the whole course of their carriage that they hope to be sav'd themselves and to save others whom they thus instruct by relying on this Truth that their Forefathers thus taught them which amounts to this that Nature or common Reason at unawares steals into them a solid apprehension that Tradition is of a certain kind of Nature and so that while Fathers thus taught Children it was ever such that is that Tradition is a certain Rule of conveying down Faith which is all we study to evince at present I may add that Nature telling them by their own experiences that Parents generally would be apt to teach their Children what themselves had been taught and believ'd to be good and true needfull to their eternal Salvation their natural thoughts would lead them by a downright procedure to judge that Tradition was ever in some considerable Body of Deliverers who stuck to it and own'd it and that those had true Faith or truly that doctrin which Christ and the first Planters of Christianity taught But of this point more hereafter 10. If it be objected that this multitude of plain honest-meaning Souls are as much justify'd for believing Scripture I answer that if you mean their Faith conceiv'd to be found in Scripture or a determinate Sence of Scripture's Letter it cannot with any show of reason be pretended that they are as much justifiable for believing any setting aside Tradition's help for without this it totally depends on the inward Judgments Fancies or Skills of men which they are unqualify'd to judge of not on open verdict of Senses to wield the Certainty or Uncertainty of which lies clearly within the reach of their common reason And as for Scripture's Letter they cannot possibly be justify'd in reason for believing even the Substantial Truth of it without Tradition's assisting hand and preserving care And the reason is the same because the common course of human Experience tells them that Judgments or Opinions often disagree but their plain Sensations especially if frequently repeated never Whence a Jury of the plainest High-shoes would upon the Evidence of the sight of six Witnesses without more ado condemn a Malefactor but not upon the Judgments of a thousand men if a Testimony grounded on Sense were not brought Now take away Tradition and all ground from Certain Sence fails us either for the meaning or even Letter of Scripture and all is left to men's Judgments built on latent Skills or Fancy or at least on Sense liable to great and numerous mistakes as hath been shown Disc. 4. § 3. Again seeing every one apprehends the most vulgar have reason enough to believe there was such a one as K. Iames and Q. Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertain'd but by Tradition why are not they as much or more justify'd for believing points of Faith received down by the same tenour whereas if you go about to pump their common Reason about the Authority of the Statute-Book or the Truth of its Letter you shall find them blunder and at a â—oss being pos'd beyond their sphere of 〈◊〉 Nature by a question entrenching upon skill to which they can never answer with a steady assuredness inwardly and if they do so outwardly 't is manifest that some Passion and not their Reason breeds that irrational Profession The third Condition then of the Rule of Faith which was to be apt to settle and justify unreflecting and undoubting vulgar is manifestly found agreeing to Tradition 11. I put next the 6th Condition because the proof of it evidently proves the fourth fifth and seventh For what is built on immovable Grounds or Certain in its self has in it wherewith to settle and satisfy the most piercing Witâ— convince the most obstinate Adversaries and to ascertain us absolutely To prove that Tradition has Certain and Infallible Grounds it may suffiâ—â— to note that Disc. 1. § 13 14 15. it being evidently proved Faith must be Infallible to us anâ— no less evident that it cannot be such without having Infallibly-câ—â—tain Grounds since nothinâ— can be firmer to us than the ground it stands on now the Rule of Faith is its Ground It follow evidently that This must likewise be Infallibâ—â— certain There being then onely two Ground or Rules of Faith owned namely Deliver of it down by Writing and by Words anâ— Practice which we call Oral and Practical Tradition 't is left unavoydably out of the imposibility that Scripture should be Infallible as Rule that Tradition must be such 12. Though this Conclusion supposing thâ— Truth of the Propositions I assume as alreadâ— prov'd be sufficiently consequent to those Adversaries against whom I contest at present thâ— Certainty of Tradition in regard they do 〈◊〉 stick to grant that either Scripture or Tradition must be the Rule of Faith Yet I foresee more will be expected from a pretender to demonstrate its Certainty and that he should frame his Discourse from intrinsecal Mediums Reflecting then on the nature of Tradition as before explicated we shall observe that it hath for its Basis the best Nature in the Universe that is Man's the Flower and End of all the rest and this not according to his Moral part defectible by reason of Original Corruption nor yet his Intellectuals darkly groping in the pursuit of Science by reflected thoughts or Speculation amidst the misty vapours exhal'd by his Passion predominant over his rational Will but according to those faculties in him perfectly and necessarily subject to the operations and stroaks of Nature that is his Eyes Ears handling and the direct Impressions of Knowledge as naturally and necessarily issuing from the affecting those Senses as it is to feel heâ—â— cold Pain Pleasure or any other material Quality Again those Impressions upon the Sense are not made once but frequently and in most many times every day Moreover to make these more express and apt to be taken notice of their lives are to be fram'd by the Precepts they hear and conformable Examples they see so that Faith I mean the substance of it or that solid plain Knowledge as far as 't is apt to cause downright Christian 〈◊〉 comes clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living cannot possibly be ignorant of it
of Gods Nature as if I mistake not Iacob Bemen does and then secundum hanc partum of illam will do the work and gives a true sence to both sides of the contradiction You should do any thing which could by any means make it seem possible rather than question a plain Divine Revelation Nay perhaps you do not think you can demonstrate the contrary to the solution I have helpt you out with at least that your Demonstration is but a seeming one and then I challenge your candour to own your sayings and demand why you are not bound to use this shift and a thousand others rather than violate your avow'd Rule of Faith and deny and hold against the clear Letter of Scripture If you alledge you have perfect Science of the contrary by Metaphysicks then though I expect not this from you your Science rules your Rule of Faith glossing or rather violently wresting the plain Letter and so is so absolutely your Rule of Faith that it controls and even baffles the other though clearly revealing Or if to be in express terms in Scripture be not to be clearly revealed I would fain know what those words clearly revealed in Scripture signifie 12. Perhaps you I say that notwithstanding your new Rule Reason must be your GVID still even in Faith though not your Rule But I ask if your Reason must guide you sometimes so as to deny the clear Letter of Scripture since a Guid in any thing must be regulated by some Knowledges in that Affair by what Principles or Knowledges Reason is to regulate it self while it guides you in that particular now in question By Principles of Faith How can that be in your Grounds antecedently to the known Sence of the Scripture By Principles of Human Science Then those Principles of Human Science give you the certain Sence of the Written Word when it self is insufficient and therefore are still truly your Rule of Faith and so you are forc't to fly back for refuge to the old Rule Human Reason which you seemingly renounc't when you had found your new Rule of the Scripture 'T is Evident then that some Maxims of your Reason are your Rule and not Scripture's Letter And this is what we reprehend in the Socinian and you too that chusing a wrong Rule of Faith so to avoid the Church you both gloss it as seems best to your Reason regulating her self by her own and those fallible Maxims They by certain acute and ingenious Sophistries proper to themselves you by the more school-boy way of Grammar and Dictionary Learning and so both of you make your Rule the thing Ruled Nor think to retort any part of this Discourse upon our Rule of Faith For this being the living voice of the Church delivers us a Determinate Sence of the Points we are to profess whereas Yours needs skils and helps of studious Reason to tell you what it would say Ours is alive and in the Breast and Actions of the Faithful yours is dead characters waxen-natur'd and pliable to the Dedalean fancies of the ingenious molders of new Opinions and so alone can satisfie no man as you handle it 13. No wonder now if having no certainer a Ground or Rule of Faith for her self your Church is shamefast of obliging others to believe her Man's nature could scarce own or permit so irrational a tyrannie Yet whether she does or does not we must not know from your words which run so backwards and forwards that none can tell which is the true face of the Ianus First p. 99. you seem to deny it stoutly from the carriage of your Convocations and Bishops and from your own Tenets Yet afterwards you seem to grant they do require a positive assent somtimes and justifie them as not doing it upon pretence of any Infallibility but because the thing determin'd is so Evident in Scripture that all denying it must be wilful A rare Discourse and worthy a deep consideration Pray who must be Judge it is so Evident in Scripture as to render the Dissenters guilty of flat Wilfulness The Bishops or your Church Nothing less In the beginning of this Discourse p. 93. you plainly deny'd them to be Judges of Faith Now in your sence to be clearly reveal'd or evident in Scripture and to be of Faith is all one so that they must not be Judges of what is evident in Scripture lest by necessary consequence they become Judges of Faith and yet without having power to judge what is evident in Scripture they must have power to require assent to Points as evident in Scripture nay and punish the dissenters too For 't is a madness for Governours to require any thing of their Subjects without having Rewards and Punishments in their hands to make what they require to be duely observâ—d Nay p. 93. you absolutely refus'd to admit them as Guides of your Faith A moderate word and less than to be a Iudge Which signifies they may have power to require our Assents in matters in which they have no power to guide us that is they may have power to require us to go wrong for any thing we or they know An excellent honour for the Church of England that her Champions profess in Print her Supreme Pastors have no power at all to guide their Flock in their Faith or to it when they are out of it Again I would ask whether the Trinity be not Evident in Scripture and the Socinians wilful for denying it Why are they then so kindly dealt with Or what could be reply'd to a Socinian answering when his Assent to the Trinity were required that he humbly submitted to Scripture that he us'd all the means he could but discover'd it not so evident there and thereupon complain'd that you obtruded upon his equally-learned party your own conceit or opinion for Scripture-Evidences What therefore you alledge here as in your Churches behalf that she requires not a positive assent upon pretence of any Infallibility more condemns Her seeing t is most absurd and irrational that one should require any man to assent to any point or proposition whatever as evident in Scripture without Infallible Certainty at least imagin'd and pretended that it is thus evident there for should it happen to be otherwise how ridiculous were his Authority how damnable and diabolical his Tyrannie to oblige men to the hazard of falshoods in matters of Faith that is in matters belonging to his eternal Salvation and in the mean time profess himself Ignorant whether they be false or no. 14. Now our Church goes another way which ere I declare I would let your party see that Interiour Assent may be required by Governours lawfully and rationally which your Principles can never make sence of Suppose a thousand witnesses from several places each of them held alwayes men of good consciences should swear in open Court that they had seen such and such actions done by such a man or that they had seen spoken or converst
to Demonstrations for the Ground of our Faith Not to note the unconsonancy of this carriage I shall yeild him the honour of professing he has no Demonstration but onely Probability for the Ground of his and to make this serious protestation for my self that I should esteem my self very dishonest did I assert and press on others any Argument for the Ground of my Faith which I judge not Evident that is Demonstrative This I hope will secure the Honesty of my Intentions however my Weakness may permit me to fail in my performance After this he endeavours to forestal my Reason for the Point in these words They have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it Impossible that men should not think themselves oblig'd to believe and do all just as their Predecessours did Which words I desire the Reader to review and note for thence my Discourse takes its rise 13. What is it then that we affirm the later Ages oblig'd to hold and act as their Forefathers held and acted Wearing their clothes or building their houses No For both those matters of their own nature are of trivial concern and the fashion of both depend on Fancy which is too sleight a Principle to oblige to a Constancy What is it then To manage their Estates thus or thus no for the Inconvenience or Convenience of the different wayes were perhaps held not very material and the judging which was best depended upon Prudential Principles which are of their own nature variable and accommodable to circumstances and therefore not obliging them to think and Act as their Forefathers did Let us proceed Was it some piece of Skill or a Speculative Opinion depending on the Goodness or Badness of the Ancestors knowledge No For experience teaching that men differ in such Judgments and are errable it could never oblige posterity to believe Unalterably as They did Is it then some Historical passage or matter of Fact of great note and as such apt to strike their Fancy strongly yet still such as the succeeding Age was not highly concern'd whether it were true or no for example that of Alexander's Conquest of Asia to the Asian and Grecian off-spring of the next age after No Yet Experience tells us the memory of this is fresh and lively even amongst Us who are not the immediate descendents of those where he conquer'd though some thousands of years since 14. Before we go any further let 's examin how this History comes to obtain so firm and unshaken a Beleef from the whole World to this very day And first he must be a very weak Speculater that can think the universal and strong Perswasion of this matter of Fact was caus'd by Books Curtius his History for Example For since all Mankind knows naturally that Falshoods may as easily be charactered in Letters as Truths 't is evidently the continu'd Beleef of the Thing or Sence in mens hearts of it's Truth that is Human Tradition which gives that Book all its Authority and secures its strange Contents from being held Romanical which the very being-writ could never have done Let 's see next whence this Human Tradition had its force to continue hitherto so settled and unalterable a Persuasion of Alexanders Conquests And looking into the Thing for Proper Causes that is the best demonstrative mediums we shall find the Object it self was very Universall strange notorious and held of concern to the then livers which made their Hearts and Fancies full of it and so oblig'd them to burst out into Expressions of it and relate it to their Off-spring of the next Age. I but what oblig'd the Off-spring to beleeve their Forefathers telling it and to act or talk of it again to their Children as the Fathers did without which obligation it could not have descended to us Regarding once more the Thing we shall discover that it was imprinted into the Off-spring by the Forefathers Testifying what their senses had told them which put Common Sense inform'd them the thing was Infallibly-true and as Certain as if they had seen it with their own eyes For no reach of Reason but onely Extravagance of Madness could have furnish't them with any imaginable motive why the whole world should conspire to deceive them or be decievable in their Sensations By this means the Conceit of the Thing or matter of Fact as to the main for circumstantial Considerations were not so evident to all at first and so could not be universally deliver'd as ascertain'd by Sence was in the same degree of firmness and Certainty rivetted into the Hearts of next Age and so there being necessarily in the Rational part of the World some curious persons whom Nature her self could not but incline to an Inquisitiveness of what was done formerly and others too naturally inclin'd to tell it Children who were capable of it and delighted with hearing such strange-true Stories It went down continuing by the way of Tradition to our very dayes 15. But we have over-shot our mark The question is of the Obligation not to believe contrary to Forefathers from Age to Age. And t is already evident that the second Age after Alexander was oblig'd to beleeve the First because They saw with their eyes what was done But how could those in the Third Age be oblig'd to beleeve the Second who saw it not To answer this we must ask whether the third Age could be Certain that the second could not be deceiv'd in what the first Age told them and the notoriousness of the Thing being no speculation but a plain matter of Fact secures that or conspire to bely the second Ages Authority and common reason satisfying them by the circumstances of the honesty of the persons their Consent and the disinteressedness of the position that they could not thus conspire even the rudest have a Demonstration the second Age truly testifi'd what the First said and so those of the third Age have the first Ages Authority certainly apply'd to them and by means of its Authority its Sensations too and perfect knowledge of the Thing springing from that Experimential Perception which therefore must needs work the same Effect upon the third Age as it did upon the second And by virtue of the same Argument upon the the fourth fifth and five hundredth while it is known to have come down by the way of Testification and this is known by its being receiv'd in the five-hundredth Age as testify'd For if the second Age could not tell the third it was testify'd by the first unless it had been so testify'd the same reason I have assign'd for the Impossibility of that will hold for each Age to the End of the world that is 't will follow no Age could say a former Age testifyd so unless they did so whence nothing can come in as Testify'd by a former Age unless thus Testifyd If therefore the five-hundredth Age receiv'd a thing as testify'd supposing the notoreity of it secur'd the thing
First Principle in Controversy being so supremely important I have attempted it Putting this Dilemma to the Protestant Either Controversy or the skill which enables us to conclude certainly what 's Faith is a Science or not if not why do we meddle with it since without Science or Knowledge all is meer beating the ayr and empty ignorant talking If it be common seuse tells us it must be grounded on some first and self-evident Principle Let 's to work then and settle this Principle that so we may have something to agree in and proceed upon that is be able to discourse together I have endeavoured to show the First Principle we Catholicks proceed on establisht on rational Grounds and self-evident Let the Protestant either agree with us in it or settle some other able to render his Citations certain without which they ought alledge nothing Nor is it enough for them to catch at single words or little parcels of my Discourse as their way is but it being connected they must overthrow the main of it nor that but they must lay some First Principle of their own else they ought affirm nothing nor speak for why should any one say what he knows not or how can he know without Principles Especially the Protestant is oblig'd to do this who cannot stand on Possession but on his Reasons why he mov'd what he found settled This Principle then they are ty'd by all honest Considerations to produce and till they do so I must frankly declare what reason tells ever intelligent man that those many flashy books of late against Catholicks by whomsoever written deserve not a word in Answer FIRST DISCOURSE Showing from the nature of Rule and Faith what Properties belong to the Rule of Faith 1. As common Reason gives it evident that no satisfaction at all can be had in any point whatever without knowing first the Meaning of those Words which express the Thing under debate since without this the discoursers must talk of they know not what so the Art of Logick assures us that the Meaning of those Words exactly known a ready way is open'd to a clear decision of the most perplexing difficulties For seeing the Meaning of a Word includes in it self the Nature of the Thing as signified by that Word in regard it could not mean That Thing unless it also meant it of such a Nature which constitutes that Thing so t is plain that the Meaning of the Word once known perfectly the Nature of the Thing as signify'd by that word must be known likewise Wherefore since the Nature of the Thing bears along with it all those Considerations and Attributes which intrinsecally belong to such a Nature and excludes all those which are incompetent to the same Nature it acquaints us with what can be both said and deny'd of the Thing as far as exprest by that word The perfect knowledge then of the Meaning of the Words affords us the certain solution of all questions whether Affirmative or Negative and is the most compendious way to settle all Controversies Let us therefore apply this method to our present purpose and examin well what is meant by those Words which express the thing we are discussing namely THE RULE OF FAITH and we may with good grounds expect a solid clear and brief satisfaction both of what is not that Rule and what is It. 2. To begin then with what is most evident Seeing a Rule signifies a thing which is able to regulate or guide him who uses it it must consequently have in it all those Qualities by which it is able to do that it 's proper Effect otherwise 't is no Rule that is 't is not apt or able to do what a Rule should do 3. It must then in the first place be Evident as to its Existence unto the Sense if it be to guide it or to the Vnderstanding if it be an Intellectual Rule For how should either of these be guided by what they neither see nor know 4. Whence follows that it must be Evident to all those who are to be regulated by it that there is such a Thing otherwise it can be to them no Rule since being unknown it reaches not or affects not those persons who are to be ruled by it that is reaches not those things upon which it is to do its Effect and so cannot rule them or be a Rule to them 5. Moreover to those who can raise doubts or can have doubts raisd in them that is in a manner all Mankind even the Rudest Vulgar it must be knowable that the Intellectual Rule they are to be regulated by has in it self a virtue to rule or guid their understandings right That is they must be capable to know that it deserves to be reli'd on as a Rule Wherefore this must either be evident by its own light or at least easily evidenceable by other knowledges or skills presupposed in those users of Reason who are to be guided by that Rule Otherwise 't is against Sense and Reason to yield over ones understanding to be guided by that which he can never come to understand that it has in it any ability or power to guide him 6. And because nothing can be evident to be what in reality it is not it follows that this Thing pretending to be a Rule must also be certain in it's self or establisht on secure Grounds For otherwise 't is not possible that can in true sence be call'd a Rule which one may follow and yet go wrong or be missed The Directive Power then which it has must not be wavering Wherefore also the causes which conserve it so constantly able to perform that Effect must be established too to that degree as to keep it fitting to do the effect proper to its Nature which is to be certain in its self 7. Thus much is evidently gathered out of the common Notion or Nature of a Rule That is out of the genuin and proper meaning of that single word We are next to consider the meaning of the word FAITH By which we intend not to give rigorous School-definitions of either this or the former word but only to reflect on and make use of some Attributes Predicates or Properties which in the sence of such who intelligently use those words are apprehended to be involved in or truly appertaining to their signification This caution given to avoid mistake or cavil let 's enquire of what kind of Nature that thing is which is meant by this word FAITH and then reflect what further qualifications it requires in it's Rule that is in the Certain Means which is to guide us to that Knowledge called Faith 8. FAITH then in the common sence of Mankind is the same with Believing and Divine Faith in the sence of the generality of Christians from whom as being the intelligent users of that word the true sence of it is taken the Believing God in reveal'd Truths which necessarily imports some kind of Knowledge of
none of the pretended Rules of Faith all of them building on Scripture's Letter are Certain Disc. 2. 3 4. without Tradition it follows that no other company have any Principle of Distinction from others that is either of Constitution or self-preservation under the notion of Church but that which adheres to Tradition All the loud out-cry then made commonly against that Body which adheres to Tradition callâ—d Roman-Catholick for accounting it self onely the Vniversal Church and excluding all others is but empty noise and her claim rational and well-grounded till it be shown by evident Discourse that the other Pretenders have some other more Evident and Certain Rule to know who are of the Church who not than this of Tradition now produc't and explicated upon which she proceeds and by which she consists 12. There is no arguing against Tradition out of Scripture For since as we have prov'd Disc. 4. there can be no absolute Certainty of Scripture's Letter without Tradition this must first be suppos'd Certain ere the Scripture's Letter can be rationally held such and consequently ought in reason to be held Vncertain while Tradition is thought â—it to be argu'd against that is while it's Certainty is doubted of Wherefore since none can argue solidly upon uncertain Grounds none ought to argue against Tradition out of the Letter of Scripture 13. None can in reason oppose the Authority of the Church or any Church against Tradition First because in reality Tradition rightly understood is the same thing materially with the living Voicâ— and Practice of the whole Church Essential consisting of Pastors and Layity which is so ample that it includes all imaginable Authority which can be conceiv'd to be in a Church Secondly because in the way of generating Faith Tradition formally taken is antecedent to Disc. 2. § 11. and so in the way of Discourse working by formal and abstracted notions its notion must be presuppos'd and its Certainty establish't before the notion and Certainty of Faith consequently of Faithful and consequently of Church which must necessarily be a congregation of Faithful Whence they would argue very preposterously who should go about to oppose Church against Tradition this being the same as to think to establish the House by overthrowing the Foundation 14. None can in reason oppose the Authority of Fathers or Councils against Tradition This is evident by the former Corol. 13. in regard neither of these have any Authority but as Representatives of the Church or Eminent Members of the Church Nor can any determin certainly what is a Father or Council Disc. 2. § 11. till the notion of Church that is of Faithful that is of Faith that is of Rule of Faith that is of Tradition be certainly establish't 15. No Disacknowledgers of Tradition are in Due of reason but in Courtesy onely to be allow'd to argue out of Scripture's Letter Father or Council For since wanting Tradition they have Certainty of none of those as was prov'd Disc. 2. § 11. 't is manifest that disacknowledging Tradition while they alledge and talk of these they alledge and talk of things themselves do not know to be Certain Wherefore 't is too great a Condescendence and courtesy in Catholiks to let them run forwards descanting with wordish Discourses on those Testimonies after their raw manner since they might justly take their advantage against them and show they have no right to make use of Principles which their own Grounds can never make good to them as was Tertullian's smart and solid way de Praescr Haeret. c. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. denying them the use of Scripture who deny'd the Church which would save many an aiery confus'd discourse about words unapt to evidence any thing satisfactorily Nor can the right of an Opponent to argue ad hominem licence them to claim this favour from our Controvertists in regard we never held that Scriptures Letter hammer'd upon by Criticisms and such pretty knacks of human Learning was the Ground of our Faith nor the way to establish it but onely as interpreted by the Language and Practice of the Church nor consequently can we hold it capable to be prejudic't by such endeavours of private Wits Though then we should allow them a Copy of the Letter and consequently so far a liberty to argue ad hominem against us yet we never allow'd their method of arguing from it as efficacious either to build or evert Faiâ—h but our learned Controvertists ever held direct contrary Whence in case they clamour that in not following their wild method we desert Scripture to avoid which calumny with the vulgar I conceive one reason our Controvertists generally were so civil to them as to cope with them in their fleight way the unreasonableness of the Calumny is to be made appear which is quicklier done not their unreasonable expectation to be satisfy'd 16. No Authority from any History or Testimonial Writing is valid against the force of Tradition For since Falshood is as easy to be writ or printed as Truth 't is evident those Books can give no Testimony to themselves that what they express is certainly true and if we say they are abetted by the Testimony of other Books the same question recurrs concerning them in what Age soever they were writ It remains then that 't is onely the Acceptation of Men or Sence writ in their Hearts and so convey'd down from Father to Son that these Books are true Histories and not Fables which gives them any Authority But this has plainly the nature of Tradition They have therefore no Authority but by force of Tradition Therefore they can have no possible force against Tradition since if Tradition or the conveying down from hand to hand sence writ thus universally in men's hearts can deceive us no such Books can have any Authority at all Wherefore not the Books but the Sence writ in men's hearts of the Goodness and skill of the Authours of those Books upon which qualifications the Truth of each passage contain'd in those Books is built is to be alledg'd against Christian Tradition since 't is that Sence which authorizes those Books and gives Credibility to those passages and so is stronger than any dead Testimony from the Books themselves Which devolves into this that onely some great Tradition or living Testimony for things past can in point of Authority be pretended an equal match to Christian Tradition or competent to be alledgâ—d against it 17. No Tradition is alledg'd or alledgeable in reason against Christian Tradition That none is alledgâ—d is Evident from matter of Fact For the Adversaries of Catholick Tradition never pretend the Consent or constant Sence of great multitudes deriv'd from age to age by living voice that at such a time former Tradition was relinquish't new Faith introduc't or the old Faith chang'd or abolisht but onely odd ends or scraps of Histories or other dead Testimonies according as they light on some passage which seems favourable to them or may
but that Christ promist his Church Infallibility is not thus self-evident but needs other Knowledges to evidence it unless we will make all come by Inspiration Besides if God's Providence laid in second Causes for Tradition's Indeficiency be not Certain in its self abstracting from Christ's promise to his Faithful Tradition can never convey certainly that Promise to us It must then be assur'd to us by Scripture's Letter ascertain'd onely by imagin'd diligence from Copy to Copy not by Tradition that is that Letter could not be certain its self and so fit to ascertain others till Tradition's Certainty be establish't antecedently And were it suppos'd a true Letter this Letter Tradition being as yet suppos'd unknown to be able to convey down certainly Christs sence must be interpreted onely by private skills and so all the Churches Veracity that is all Mankinds Salvation must be built on that private Interpretation Private I say for in that supposition till the Scripture's Letter for that point be Interpreted certainly truly the Churches veracity or power to interpret it truly is not yet known which besides the common Rule that no Scripture is of private Interpretation is particularly and highly faulty in this case that it would make our Fundamental of Fundamentals the Certainty of our Rule of Faith rely on such a private Interpretation Moreover to say Tradition of the Church is Certain because Christ promist it puts it to be believ'd not seen and is the same in Controversy as it is in Nature to say in common such an Effect is wrought because 't is God's will which gives no account of that particular Effect but onely sayes something in common Wherefore since the Certainty of the Rule of Faith it being antecedent to Faith must be seen not believ'd a Controversial Divine ought to make it seen that is ought to demonstrate its Certainty and Indeficiency by intrinsecal mediums or dependence on proper Causes It signisies therefore no more in the Science of Controversy to say Christ promist than in Natural Science to answer to every Question in stead of showing a proper Cause that God wills it which is a good saying for a Christian as is also the other but neither of them a competent Principle either for Philosopher or Controvertist Consent Of AUTHORITY To the substance of the foregoing Discourses 1. THus far Reason Let 's see how 't is seconded by Authority And first by the Scriptures 2. For the Self-evidence of the Way to Faith or which is all one The Rule of Faith see the Prophet Isay c. 35. v. 8. This shall be to you a direct way so that Fools cannot err in it That is evident to the rudest Vulgar or self-evident else Fools might possibly err in it in case it needed any Skill of Discourse and were not obvious to Common Sense 3. Now what this Self-evident Rule is is most expressively declar'd by the same Prophet c. 59. v. 21. speaking of God's favour intended to the Gentiles that is of the Law of Grace This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy Seed and from the mouth of thy Seed's Seed from henceforth for ever Here we see God's promise to perpetuate Christ's Doctrin and on what manner that is by Oral Tradition or Delivering it from Father to Son by word of Mouth or Teaching not by scanning a Book put in their hands We see it promist also that this Tradition shall be Indefectible or Vninterrupted and Lastly that his Spirit or Sanctity is both in the Church and will continue ever with her which being so she must needs be supernaturally assisted by the Holy Ghost that is incomparably above the power of Nature to this Effect of perpetuating Christ's doctrin by Tradition 4. As pithy and home is that of the Prophet Ieremiah c. 31. I will give my Law in their Bowels and iâ— their Hearts will I write it and still more that of St. Paul contradistinguishing the Law of Grace from Moses his Law by this that the later was writ in Tables of Stone the former in the fleshy Tables of mens Hearts Both as express as can be imagined to send us for our Faith to living Sence in the hearts of the Faithful not to meer dead Letters in a Book that is recommending to us Tradition which is the perfectest and naturalest way imaginable to write them there as hath been shown Note the word Hearts which in the Metaphorical expression is the Principle of Action not of meeâ— Speculative Knowledge as is the word Brain Which intimates the Practical nature of Tradition and that it imprints Christs Law and conveys it down by Christian Carriage and Action not by Speculative scanning the significativeness of Characters in a Book Note also the word Fleshy which signifies that the manner of writing Christ's Law is through the affecting the Soul by her Inferiour part considering her as she is a virtue of understanding that is by Sensations which make strong and plain Impressions in Mankind according to their material part and so force into them Natural Knowledge Whence things thus imprinted are apt to settle themselves solidly and even sink deeply into the most material gross and vulgar understandings Quite contrary to which in all regards is the way of beginning with reading and labouring to understand certainly Letters in a Book which is a kind of Speculation and so belongs to the Superiour part of the Soul as she is understanding being Artificial both in the very Nature of such Characters the skill in Reading and highest skills requisit to Sence them with Certainty 5. After Scripture-verdict succeed next in order those of Councils I will onely mention three in several Ages leaving multitudes of others The first Synod of Lateran We all confirm unanimously and consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and sayings of the Holy Fathers adding nothing subtracting nothing of those things which are DELIVERâ—D VS quae TRADITA sunt nobis by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have TAVGHT The Council of Sardica in its Encyclical sent to all Catholick Bishops We have received this Doctrin we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession And the seventh General Council in its second Act. We imbu'd with the precepts of the Fathers have so confest and do confess In the Third we receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church And in the seventh Act giving their final determination they declare the Grounds on which they proceed in these words We walking in the King's-high-way Regiam viam incedentes and relying on the Doctrin of our holy and divine Fathers and observing the TRADITION of the Catholick Church define c. where we see General Councils that is the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church relying on the Teaching of
it self To omit here that he makes it the very temper of a Christian mind not to question Tradition he maintains Continuance of Time to be so far from weakening the Certainty of Traditionary points that it contributes to strengthen them more And the reason is because the Churches Doctrin spreads by Time and so the sway of Tradition's descent is ampler besides that every new Degree of Continuance establishes its Title to Possession and makes it hainouser to revolt from it And Effects show our discourse true for there were more variety of Heresies that is Renouncers of Tradition in the first 400 years after the Apostles than we read of in any 400 years since Nor that we may use a familiar Instance in Human Tradition does I conceive any man living more doubt now of Mahomets or Iulius Caesar's existence than within an 100 years after they liv'd 15. A few Notes well weigh'd will strengthen the force of these Allegations which even at first sight seem to look very favourably on our Cause I mind my Reader then First That almost every Citation alledg'd is of Councils or Fathers speaking directly against Hereticks that is in such Circumstances as put them to declare what fixt them Catholicks and what made the other Hereticks Secondly That though some Fathers and Councils speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. 'T is first to be markt whether they speak of Scripture Senc't or as yet to be Sencâ—t and if the later by whom or whether any Fathers say that Scripture wrought upon by private Interpretation and Human Wit is apt to ascertain Faith or be the Rule of Faith which is the true point between the Renouncers of Tradition and us Thirdly They shall observe it frequent in Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the Sence of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and very frequent to Sence that Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward show the Scripture's Letter seems to bear as interpreted by human Skills or to say Universal Tradition is insufficient or uncertain unless the Scripture's Letter thus interpreted came to clear or assist it Lastly 't is impossible they should hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith it being notorious that most Hereticks against whom they writ held it theirs And so had they held Scripture thus interpreted the Rule of Faith they could not have held them Hereticks since they adher'd stiffly to that Rule or Root of Faith however they might err in many particular Tenets Not to repeat how all the Properties of the Rule of Faith are urterly incompetent to Scripture's Letter This done all the Testimonies for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge That is if my discourse also hold the test it will appear by way of Fact as it did before by Argument that there is neither Reason nor Authority against Tradition So that I have no more to do but to show that our Church at present grounds her faith on Tradition as formerly which done it follows all the Substance of my foregoing Discourses is but an Explication of our Churches Sence 16. To know our Churches Sence in this point we will not fetch our Testimony from private Authours as is the Protestants mode when they would affix any thing upon her but we will attend to what her own living voice pronounc't in her late famous Representative the Council of Trent Where in every Session definitive of Faith It professes to follow TRADITION either in most express or equivalent Terms As Session 4th The Holy Synod clearly seeing that this Truth and Disciplin Christ's Doctrin is contain'd in the written Books and Traditions without writing which received by the Apostles from Christ's own mouth or from the very Apostles the Holy Ghost dictating as it were deliver'd by hands per manus Traditae have come down to us c. And Again Also the TRADITIONS both belonging to Faith and Manners as dictated orally by Christ or the Holy Ghost and conserved by CONTINVAL SVCSESSION in the Catholick Church c. Session 5. The Holy Council following the Iudgment aud Consent of the Church Ibid. § 4. As the Catholick Church where ever diffus'd hath alwayes understood it For by reason of this RVLE OF FAITH according to the TRADITION of the Apostles c. Session 6. It professes to follow that Doctrin which Christ taught the Apostles deliver'd and the Catholick Church the Holy Ghost suggesting perpetually or interruptedly retain'd Session 7. The Holy Synod adhering to the Holy Scripture the Traditions of the Apostles and the Consent of Councils and Fathers Session 13. The sound and sincere doctrin which the Catholick Church hath ever kept and will ever keep to the end of the World And again For so ALL OVR ANCESTOVRS that ever were in the tru Church of Christ most openly have profest And yet again cap. 3. This Faith was ever in the Church So cap. 4. It was ever held in God's Church More such like Expressions are found in the same Session But to proceed Session 14. chap. 1. The Consent of ALL the Fathers EVER understood c. Chap. 5. The Church of God NEVER taught nor held c. Chap. 5. The Vniversal Church EVER understood that c. Chap. 7. It was ever held in God's Church Chap. 8. It was PERPETVALLY COMMENDED by our Fathers to Christian people No Catholick EVER held c. And in the same Session concerning Extream Unction alledging S. Iames his Text it adds By which words AS THE CHVRCH HATH LEARNED BY TRADITION RECEIV'D DOWN BY HANDS he teacheth c. And Can. 3. As the Catholick Church EVER understood from the beginning c. Can. 6. Which the Catholick Church ever observ'd from the beginning and doth observe c. Session 21. chap. 1. The Council professes to follow the Iudgment and CVSTOME of the Church Chap. 2. It declares that this power has PERPETVALLY been in the Church Session 22. That the antient Faith and doctrin may be retain'd in the Church Ibid. cap. 1. As the Catholick Church EVER understood and taught Chap. 1. According to Apostolical TRADITION Session 23 Holy Writings show it and the TRADITION of the Catholick Church ever taught it Chap. 2. They are known to have been in use from the very Beginning of the Church Session 24. The Holy Fathers Councils and the VNIVERSAL TRADITION of the Church have ALWAYES taught And speaking of some Errors It pronounces them different from the Catholick Church and from the CVSTOME approved SINCE THE APOSTLES TIME Session 25. The Catholick Church instructed by the Holy Ghost teaches out of Sacred Writings and the ANTIENT TRADITION of the Church c. According to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church TRADITAM deliver'd from the first or Primitive times of Christian Religion c. More Expressions of the like strain are found in this Session And to close up all in their Acclamation they use this
to a lesser one in the margent and that to Luke 19. 22. And David's cutting of Goliah's Head with his own Sword a story known undoubtedly by all that were like to read his Sermon shall be secured from being thought a piece of a Romance or Knight-errantry by a punctual Citation in the open margent 1 Sam. 17. 51. And to omit diverse of the like pleasant strain lest any Unbeliever should be so impious as to doubt that his THEOPNEVST AHOLIAB was an Embroiderer you shall see it as plain as the nose on a man's face in an express Text Exod. 35. 30. 34. 11. But why insist I thus on so poor a foolery in a Book I design'd for solid or what advantage can I gain to my cause by so sleight an Animadversion I'answer â—Tis my temper when I see an odd action done without reason to trace it to its Original and to search after its proper Cause And upon consideration I finde none so proper for this Effect as a certain kinde of humour of quoting in D. Pierce and others of his Brethren so strongly possessing them and even naturaliz'd into them that so they be quoting they matter not much whether it be to purpose or not This I have shown in the whole bead-roll of his Citations the usefullest part as he sayes of his whole performance and that not one of those which he call Evidences is conclusive that is worth a straw or to purpose But because every one will not be capable to see it in those Citations he brings for Proofs I let them see it in those his late quotations of Scriptures In which he so pittifully betraies his silly and vain humour of quoting to no imaginable end but to satisfy his customary habit or Fancy and as in his Citations so in these imagins the Application of them to his Cause in stead of showing it that I conceive no Universitie-wit but will see in this carriage of his that Dr. Pierce's head is not too Scientiâ—ical nor himself a fit man to to demonstrate against the Papists SECOND APPENDIX Animadversions On Some Passages in Mr. Whitby 1. I Beg pardon of my Reader for my late Merriment and Children's play with aiery bubbles and Feathers Both D. Pierce's manner of writing and his Carriage towards Catholicks merited this kind of return I hope the passages in Mr. Whitby I have design'd to answer will give me occasion to speak more solidly And that they may do so I will pick out those which aim at some point of Concernment I have a particular respect for the person and am sorry his growing hopefulness receiv'd a foil by his Book against Mr. S. C. and this though a threefold disadvantage the badness of his Cause the Patronage of Dr. Pierce's malice and his impar congressus with so learned an Antagonist 2. My Designe leads me to take notice especially of that passage p. 93. Sect. 4. where he begins a discourse about the Soveraignty of Reason and explicates rather than proves it ought to be so what is his Rule and Guide to Faith Which because it look't plausibly yet was prudently neglected by Mr. S C. who hearing of more Eminent Antagonists writing against him judg'd it wisest to reserve himself to answer the Protestanrs second and best Thoughts in Them in case they were found to deserve it and because on the other side the Challenge was made to all the Romanists in the World and many passages in it light cross to the Grounds I had laid I took leave to consider and examin it my way In a great part of it especially at the beginning the discourse is rightly made but in other places he confounds Guide with Rule Power with Motive and by straining a word in Mr. S. C. beyond its necessary signification imposes on us a false Tenet which he mainly builds upon So that I am forc't to begin my answer by putting down our true one which gives Faith and Reason both their due This done his Superstructutes on that Supposition will fall of themselves 3. Our Tenet then is that Faith is the same with Belief that Belief relies on Authority and Divine Faith or Belief on the Divine Authority as its Motive and on the Churche's as on the Applier of the other to my Understanding At next I hold that no Authority deserves Assent further than true Reason gives it to deserve and hence the Divine Authority being Essential Truth deserves in true Reason if possible Infinitely intense Assent or adhesion to its sayings from me and the Churches Authority being found by my Reason to be Certain it applies with Certainty that is closely the Divine Authority to my Understanding and so obliges it absolutely to believe the Truths God has told and to submit whatever reasons I may have against the Object reveal'd to this all-overpowering Authority of Essential Truth This being the First Cause of all those things whence my particular Reasons are taken Nay farther hence it is that I adhere more heartily and firmly to a point of Faith than to any Conclusion of any Science whatever because a more efficacious Cause equally closely apply'd is apt to produce a greater Effect and no Cause is or can be in 〈◊〉 reason comparable to that of the Divine Verâ—city in the point of causing Assent which is closely apply'd by me to the Churches assurance Hence my Faith is ever most Rational because â—is 〈◊〉 rational to believe a point for which the Divine Veracity is engag'd and highly rational to believe the Church assuring me that it is engagâ—d for such and such points Nor yet is the Divine Authority or the Church as Mr. Whitby p. 96. very mistakingly argues beholden to the judgment of my private reason for my belief of her Infallibility but on the contrary my private reason is beholden to them for that Judgment seeing I therefore come to have that Judgment because Those as Objects wrought upon my Apprehension and imprinted a conceit of them there as they were in themselves and so oblig'd my Reason to conclude and my Judgment to hold them such as they were This Rational Assent establishes my Faith against the assaulds of any doubts from Human Reasons resting assur'd thâ—â— the same God who told me this is the Maker of all things else and hath writ all Created Truths in the Things he hath made whence no created â—ruth can thwart my Faith unless He can contradict himself which is impossible Hence if I have true Science I am certain to find no part of it opposit to my Faith but on the contrary conformable to It as being a Child of the same Parent Essential Truth If I have not true Science I ought not to think so nothing therefore but mine own overweening can make me miscarry 4. Reason having thus playâ—d her part in bringing me to Faith deserts me not yet while I act in it nor I her my Acts of Belief are still rational because it was rational to believe at first
Again for God's love who ever deny'd they ought to have reason to believe the Churches Authority Is any thing more frequent in our Controvertists and Divines treating of the Ground of Faith than large Discourses concerning Motives of Credibility 9. Thirdly he saies that disputing with Romanists whether Scripture be the sole Rule he means t is so limitedly that is between Christians who have already acknowledged Scripture a Rule of Faith By which I see Mr Whitby guides him self by sounds though he must need know if he knows any thing of Catholick Tenâ—â—â— our sence is quite different I beseech you Sir deal fairly with us Is not that speaking formally and properly the Rule of Faith which gives us Christs sence and does not that give us the Sence of Scripture which regulates us in the Interpretation of it Did ever Catholick then hold that Scripture interpreted on any fashion much less on your fashion by private Judgments or reasons regulated by Grammatical skill Criticisms and such like verbal knowledges is a Rule of Faith nay do not we constantly abhor this way as the Source of Heresy Take us right then we hold not Scripture's Letter alone a Rule but Scripture interpreted by the Church that is indeed the Church formally speaking and so you see you mistake our Principle Yet upon our joint-agreement in this your Discourse against us proceeds Retrive it then you see your Errour Again you tell us Scripture is your new Rule but forget quite in your discourse to tell us that your Reason assures you Scripture is to be the onely Rule or why it should be so since besides what I have demonstrated to the Contrary in my former Discourses 't is evident Christian Religion had descended many steps ere the Scripture's parts were much scatter'd much less the Whole collected and no less clear that that can never be a Rule or Way to Faith which many follow yet their thoughts straggle into many several Judgments not in indifferent points but in that of the Trinity amongst the rest as your self profess of the Socinian that he rejects not the Trinity in the first place because it seems a contradiction but because 't is not clearly discover'd in Scripture by which you see he adheres firm to your Rule and so ought to be acknowledg'd one of your Church since though he hap to differ in some points yet he holds fast the Rule common to both which is the substantiallest Principle of a Church as such being the Ground of all Faith And indeed your Kindness to him here and your tender care not to displease him shows you have a true brotherly affection for him Though I fear he he will con you small thanks for making his Principle run thus That which is not clearly revealâ—d in Scripture and is coniradictory ti reason is not to be believ'd which seems to imply that were it clear in Scripture yet contradictory to Reason then he would notwithstanding belive it An over-strain of Piety no Socinian was ever guilty of and I can assure you no learned Catholick Divine I ever heard of ever made such an Act of Faith But 't is another case if it onely seems contradictory and is not judg'd by him to be evidently such for then there is room left in his mind for the contrary Assent of Faith to settle there 10. You say you prescribe not the doctrin imputed to the Socinians because it makes Reason the Iudge of Faith but the Rule of Faith Pray take pains to consider what you say He that judges must have some Principles in his head by which he is regulated in making such a Judgment those Principles then must be his Rule in that Action and if that Judgment be an adhesion to a point of Faith those Principles are his RULE OF FAITH Examin now well your own thoughts whether your Principles by which you find out certainly by interpreting Scripture this is God's sence or a point of Faith be not Maxims of your human Reason I am sure in disputes against us you prove and defend your Faith by such skills as Languages History and other Knowledges got by Human Learning and consequently hold It your selves upon the tenour of those skills which therefore are your Rule of Faith and not upon the bare Letter You I know will deny it But I beg your second thoughts to reflect that a Rule to such an Effect is the immediate Knowledge to the Power as conversant about that Effect and that if another intervene it regulates the former which thereupon becomes the thing ruled not the Rule Do then these skills clear the Letter of Scripture that is make known Gods Sence to you If so since their Immediate effect is to clear it 't is impossible to deny but they are at least part of the Revelation for revealing is clearing and God's Sence was not clearly revealed but by those means that is by human maxims and so they are at least the more formal part of your Rule of Faith Again I ask might you not have mistaken the true Sence without those Human Maxims If so then They and not Scripture's Letter were your Rule If not then onely common Sence is requisit to understand clearly what 's reveal'd in Scripture and then either your Brother Socinian or you want Common Sence which I think you 'l scarce say 11. But will you see you still hold Reason your Rule notwithstanding you cry up the Written word Find you not there expresly that God has hands feet nostrils and passions like ours and this in clear terms Why is it not then a point of Faith You will not answer sure it is against Maxims of Reason you renounc't them formerly p. 94. when you had found out your new Rule and onely allow'd your Reason power to judge if a point were sufficientlie reveal'd that it is most rational to 〈◊〉 it self though it seem to contradict or thwâ—â—â— Reason Now this is sufficiently reveal'd being plainly writ in your Rule of Faith and the direct Letter of Scripture why will you not then captivate your Reason and believe it I see you do but complement with God's incomprehensible Knowledge in speaking so highly of it and so humbly of your own shallow Intellâ—ct Will you deny a point of Faith so plainly reveald for your own capricho or conceit Perhaps you 'l say 't is not clearly reveal'd because the contrary is plain in Scripture too I ask is it as plain if not it cannot overthrow the title of This to be a point of Faith If as plain why should you not believe both Be valiant Sir and believe a contradiction it being clearly reveal'd Perhaps it seems but such and then your own profession p. 94. obliges you to admit it You that can acknowledge an Infinit extension of space when you say all the world besides does so too sure you thought all the World was in your Fancy may also hold Materia ab aeterno and that it is onely a part
with such a person were not he mad that is a renouncor of Reason or Man's Nature who should not believe them You see then these Witnesses have power to propose such an Object as can oblige to Belief You see the Dissenters are Irrational that their act of dissenting springs from some Passion or Vice and Vice is punishable and so is the Effects of that Dissent if it be in such a matter as is highly pernicious to Mankind's best concerns Now our Church makes account she is able to propose an Authority incomparably more ample than the Attestation now spoken of for the true Descent of her Faith and judges such a proposal founded on the eye-sight of all those Witnesses to be able to oblige to interiour Assent in such a degree as to render them most highly wilful vicious and irrational who should disbelieve it hence the crime intrenching upon the order to mankind's Salvation the highest concern imaginable both to edify those dissenters by correcting their vice and the circumstant Faithful by breeding a conceit in them through the punishment of the others of the sacredness of Faith and its Rule and the hainousness of Pride of understanding the ready way to all Heresies they may nay ought punish their Interiour Dissent Not out of an height of Authority without motives as Mr. Whitby conceits but because that Authority is her self such a motive to Belief that onely irrational vicious and wilfully-blind persons can recede from it by disbelief And hence our Churches procedure is rational natural sweet and charitable tending to amend an enormity of Will not bred from a rationally but passionate dissatisfy'd Understanding Nay Mr. Whitby's discourse justifies Our Churches procedure who seems to allow his Church a power to require a positive Assent when the case comes to be such that the denier of it must needs be held wilfull and our Church neither sayes nor acts otherwise 15. By this Discourse I would not have Mr Whitby imagin that I am about proving our Churches Infallibility in this place but onely showing that holding She can evidence her Authority She goes rationally to work and consonantly to her self in requiring Assent to her Proposals whereas Theirs confessing her self fallible even in interpreting Scripture upon which all both her Faith and Authority as a Church depends were self-condemn'd irrational and tyrannical if She should go about to require any such Interiour Assent Now though he in big words denies this to be her carriage asking when did they meaning Bishops Convocations or Parliaments challenge any power over our minds and Consciences and alledges the consent of their Divines for it yet I wonder what he thinks of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy made by a Protestant Parliament is there no obligation there to hold any thing Yes as strong as Oath can tye it And which is worse 't is more Irrational to go about to bind Our Assents who are not of their Church than to bind their own Subjects This in practice is perform'd towards all but so imprincipled a procedure that their Church waves it when it comes to a rational scanning in a Dispute and Controversy acknowledging so their want of Grounds to make it good Which shows that the Authority of their Church sprang from the Parliament or Secular State in regard She professes her self very heartily content with external Obedience let the Interiour Assent goes where it will most unlike the Church settled by the Wisdome of the Eternal Father and constituted the Pillar and Ground of Truth who provided in the first place for the Churches Power to hold us to the same Tenets which are the Principles of our Actions knowing that unless the Root of Faith be sound the Actions its branches must needs be rotten and unconscientious and that no Congregation could long hold together nor indeed longer than the plain force of the Secular Sword aw'd them unless by power to evidence its Authority it had power to oblige men's Understandings connaturally to an Unity in the same Faith which done all else would follow And hence we may see confessedly in the Protestant Principles the reason of their present and past distractions and divine of the future for men's Fancies being naturally various and no power in her to keep them in an Union they must needs ramble into multitudes of dissenting Sects which to strive to unite into 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 and that to force them to act with Them is to force them to sin So that the Protestants at once profess they will not or cannot oblige their Vnderstandings and yet at the same time contend by force to oblige their Wills without nay against their Understandings 16. In a word let Protestants write talk quote words as long as they will Plainest Common Sence tells them and every man who considers it that unless they settle some undisputable Method of arriving at Christ's 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 nor lastly Union with them that have it and charitably endeavour they may have it too THIRD APPENDIX Animadversions On Some Passages in Mr. Stillingfleet 1. THe loud Fame of Mr. Stillingfleet's Book preventing its Publication and withall the report of his good parts coming from diverse Judicious Persons bred in me a great Impatience to see something of his other Writings that so I might have more solid Ground to build my Expectation on than common rumour or commendation of acquaintances A Protestant Friend show'd me a little Treatise of his concerning Excommunication I perus'd the beginning of it and immediately told him Mr. Stillingfleet was a very ingenious person and writ the best I ever yet saw any Protestant For he settled first his notion or the true nature of the Thing and thence attempted by intrinsecal mediums to draw immediate Consequences which show'd that his head lay right for Science But withal I assur'd my Friend 't was impossible he could write against us and take that method the nature of his Cause not enduring so severe a Test. His Book coming forth and bearing in its Title a Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion my Expectation was more erected and till my self could get leasure to peruse it I told diverse both Catholicks and Protestants that they might expect from Mr. Stillingfleet's Wit the most that could be said either for the later or against the former But coming to over-look cursorily his Infallibility of Tradition