infallibility of Tradition doth not consist entirely in the delivery of such a Doctrine but in the assurance which it gives my reason that it could not possibly have been imbraced upon other terms The Baptism of Infants is at present as the communicating of Infants was of old the tradition of the Church but this gives no unquestionable assurance of the truth or derivation of these customs from our Lord and his Apostles for haply the Church embraced them upon other motives The 1. from a conceived analogy therein to Circumcision The 2d from a mistake of that of the Evangelist except you eat my flesh c. Coroll Hence you may see how injurious my Friend is in representing us as rejectors of Tradition whereas we manifestly own it where we can have assurance of it only we dare not boast of it as the Papist doth where 't is notoriously evident that both do want it we own the constant not the present Tradition of the Church Corol. 2. Hence see the stability of the Faith of Protestants above that of Papists The Protestant first denyes the Tradition which the Catholick pretends to to be sufficient ground of Faith And 2dly he denyes the Articles of his Faith to have the least Sure-footing in Tradition or his rule of Faith nay proves them wholy opposite unto it the Papist doth acknowledge that even by his own the Prorestants Rule of Faith must be infallibly certain and pronounceth her Anathema upon all who do not own both Scripture and Tradition for infallible and receive them both pari pietatis affectu with the like pious affection as the Trent Council phraseth it Sess 4. The Papists Faith is not to be found in the Protestants Rule of Scripture and this necessitates him to flie unto Tradition but the Protestants Creed and all his fundamentals are confessedly certain from the Papists Rule if therefore prudence doth direct us to the safer way and that be such which both sides do agree upon which they so frequently insist on to pervert the people it must be every mans concern to be a Protestant rather then a Papist Thirdly Reason is herein guided by her propper Maxims and cannot rationally admit of any thing as the sense of Scripture which is apparently repugnant to them for seeing 't is impossible to yield a rational assent without reason it must be more impossible to do it against reason Besides right Reason must be true and therefore should a Revelation be manifestly repugnant unto right Reason it must equally be opposed to truth Thirdly Do we not all endeavor to give Reasons of our Faith Would we not all be thought to follow it when we conclude our Faith from Scripture or Tradition Should we renounce her conduct might not the worst absurditys be imbraced as the sense of Scripture and finde their Patrimony from thence without all fear of refutation from that Reason which must not be admitted to dispute its sense must it not follow That no Controversie could be determined no Dispute resolved no Contest about the sense of Scripture finde an issue from any rational procedure Obj But doth not the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity the Resurrection of the Body the Hypostatical Vnion speak Contradictions unto Humane Reason Why therefore do you not expunge them from among the Articles of your Faith Answ These things as far as Scripture doth assert them are lyable to no immediate Contradictions but if your Curiosity proceed to dive into the Modes of their Existence you will presently discourse your self into perplexing Difficulties not in these onely but most other Matters That God is omnipresent speaks no contradiction to my Reason but to enquire into the Modus of this Presence is to be lost in mazes of them That he hath infinite Duration is a necessary truth but to call this Duration momentaneous or successive is to lay a foundation for endless Contradictions to assert Gods Omniscience is to assert a most received Article of our Faith but how this knowledge can consist with the contingency of things is beyond humane infirmity to shew that there is such a thing as motion we all see but whether it be a mode quality or substance successive only or instantaneous continued or intermixt with morula's needs an Elias to resolve us that there is quantity and corporeal Beings in the world our senses can assure us but how their parts are knit unto each other and how far they may be divided is indeed a Philosophick Trinity 't is then no prejudice to the forementioned Articles that we may discourse them into contradictions since this is common to them with the most ordinary things our senses view the reason of these perplexing difficulties in matters of this nature may happily be the exceeding greatness or parvitude of the thing which renders it impossible for us to frame Ideas of them from any thing which occurs unto our senses and consequently to pass judgment on them thus all the difficulties both of quantity and motion are bottomed upon instants and indivisibles and that which gravels still the mind in the consideration of a Deity is the infinity of his nature and therefore these affections of Goodness Wisdome and Mercy c. Which we stile communicable when once infinity is annexed to them do as much be jade the intellect as that amazing mystery of the holy Trinity but secondly I answer Ans 2. That Reason cannot think it proper to apply her maxims to these instances and consequently cannot judge them repugnant thereunto This will appear from these conclusions 1. That Reason Guided by her own maxims Tradition and by Scripture assures me that the divine nature is incomprehensible it being impossible that what is finite should comprehend what is infinite and certainly if Mathematicks have her Paradoxes and can vie demonstrations pro and con if matters obvious to sence do so be jade the intellect and lock it up in contradictions 't is little to be hoped she should conveigh her self through the infinite abyss of of divine perfections and not suffer shipwrack 2. That infinite perfection may deliver such things of it self which are incomprehensible because it may deliver what in it self it is 3. That Reason cannot pretend to judge by her own maxims of the Truth or Falsehood of what she doth acknowledge to exceed her reach For sure she cannot reasonably pretend to know what thus exceeds her knowledge much less to judge of what she doth not know 4. That Reason cannot conclude that to be repugnant to her maxims which she acknowledgeth to be such of which her maxims cannot judge for this is to apply these maxims where they ought not to be applyed and to frame consequences upon terms whereby the things they signifie are not understood and in effect to reject the proportions of the Sun and Stars unto the Earth which Mathematicks gives us as repugnant to the sense 5. That notwithstanding this Reason doth force me to attribute to God all that is
conclude our union with Socinus because we both acknowledge the same Rule of Faith Prop. 3. That the Churches voice or practical Tradition is not necessary to acquaint us with the sence of Scripture as my Friend would have it for if so 1. Scripture must be in vain delivered to us for where I have the suffrage of infallible Tradition I cannot want it where I want that I cannot have it 2. In vain are all the Comments of the Church of Rome for where Tradition is silent they want a certain Rule to go by and therefore must be silent to or speak at all adventures and where she speaks her evidence is such as rendreth all their pains superfluous 3. All Arguments from Scripture must be vain whether intended to convince the Heretick or your brother Catholick if you contend against your Brother Heretick from Scripture he presently demands whence have you your assurance of that sence of Scripture which you plead for if you reply from the tradition of your Church he laughs to hear you beg the Question if from any other Medium he presently returns upon you is it certain yea or no If not then may it haply deceive him if so then do you act the Protestant and own some other certain Guide unto the sence of Scripture then that of practical Tradition 't is vain also to dispute from Scripture with your Brother Chatholick for if you have no practical Tradition to assure you of the sence of Scripture you have no Medium to convince him by if you have practical Tradition 't is self-evident and consequently cannot be matter of dispute or question'd by your Brother Traditors whilest such whence it must necessarily follow that all the School Disputes all endeavours of your brother Catholick to decide a controversy from Scripture must be in vain all their arguments from Scripture precarious and all their pretensions to Tradition in these matters wilful cheats if this be not sufficient let me farther ask whether all moral duties comprised in Scripture may be interpreted by Tradition if not whether they be not useless to us if so whether the Jesuits and Italian Papists hold no Doctrines inconsistent with them or whether that can be esteemed the Tradition of the Church which is supposed by so great and powerful Members of it Whether these were the only means and measures of interpretation to the Jewish Church if not how came they to be needful to the Christian whose Rule is much the clearer and whose assistance from that Spirit which leadeth unto truth far greater If so then let us brand our Saviour for a Malefactor and pronounce with them that by their Law he ought to dye let us reject his Kingdom as being wholy Spiritual and therefore opposite to what Tradition taught them to expect let us reject his Law as cancelling and dissolving that of Moses which they pronounced eternal yea lastly let us impeach the Arguments of Christ and his Apostles as not only wanting this Authentick medium to arrive at the sence of Scripture but being manifestly repugnant thereunto or at least admire at the stupidity of the Scribes and Pharisees who albeit they sate in Moses Chair should neither plead this in their own behalf nor accuse our Saviour or his Apostles for their pragmatical opposition to it but this argument is so copious and the dream so entirely Beamenistical that I shall not upbraid the Readers understanding by its farther refutation Prop. 4. Tradition is not the only Rule of Faith for if so the Church must lye exposed to the greatest perils and want a rule of Faith in matters of the highest moment For if Tradition be the sole Rule of Faith First certain it is that where we want Tradition we must want the Rule of Faith and consequently must waver and be undetermined in all these instances and cases in which Tradition proves silent 2. 'T is manifest that what is eagerly maintained and practised by many thousand Romish Proselites asserted by whole Sects and Orders of their Gravest men what passeth daily uncontrouled both from Press and Pulpit as having nothing contrary to the Churches Doctrine and the Rule of Faith nay is acknowledged to be such by those who violently oppose it what lastly doth not render the Abettors of it how numerous soever guilty of an Heresie nor subject them to the censure of the Church cannot interfere with the Tradition of the Church or be condemned by it or if so Tradition cannot be self-evident as my Friend would have it Thirdly evident it is that many positions of this nature are stifly canvased in the Schools many such practises used in the Church of Rome which if espoused and practised must expose the Soul to the greatest peril in matters of the highest moment For instance 1. Therefore they lye open to the peril of a defective or excessive Rule of Faith for what assurance can they have whether the definition of the Pope alone or in conjunction with his Cardinals be the infallible guide of Faith or whether this be the peculiar business of a Council and whether this infallibility respect substantials only or circumstances Faith or Fact the conclusion only or the premises whether it rest upon the due proceedings of the Council the Confirmation of the Pope the consequent approbation of the Church or be wholly independant on them whether the Tradition of the present Church be indeed a Rule or only such Traditions which can extrinsically be proved Apostolicall whether this Tradition be a total or a partial Rule and what are the infallible Criterions of it these things are hotly contested in the Church of Rome and therefore cannot be defined by her Tradition what remains then but that each soul lye open to the peril of a false defective or excessive yea contradictory Rule of Faith 2. They lie exposed to the peril either of Superstition and Idolatry on the one hand or Sacriledge on the other for to omit their infinite divisions about the Worship due to Saints Angels and the Blessed Virgin the Veneration due to Reliques the sacrament and its appendages and touch only upon that of Images they are altogether uncertain whether they ought to pay their homage to the image or before it only which is asserted by some few though censured by their expurgatory Indexes whether this Homage must be dulia or latria and if so whether absolute and simple or only Analogically so called whether all or any part of this pretended worship be due unto the image absolutely considered or only relatively as it refers to that of which t is an Image in these matters to be deficient is presently to be Sacrilegious by robbing the Image of that honour which is due unto it to exceed is to be guilty of Superstition or Idolary by giving it that Homage which belongs not to it and how to fleer my course so as not dash on either of these rocks Tradition cannot possibly assist me 3. They must be
assisted the Apostles and first Promoters of Christianity in delivering to us a false Scripture and false Traditions And certain Secondly it is we have no evidence of these things but that of Reason and consequently that the whole certainty of Faith depends upon it and this is freely acknowledged by Mr. Serjeant in his fourth Section where he tells us That our assent unto Authority is at last resolved into Reason and clearly follows from his grand Assertion p. 181. That no Authority viz. whether of Church Scripture or Tradition deserves assent farther then true reason gives it to deserve and consequently it must be beholding to true reason for the assent we yield unto it And yet I am confidently rebuked for saying That if S.C. believes his church infallible because his reason judgeth it to be so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility p. 96. as if her infallibility could be believ'd on this very account deserve assent upon no other and the rationalness of assenting to it could be resolved into reason and she not be beholding to the confessed yea the only cause of this assent for the belief of that infallibility which is the effect thereof and all this forsooth Because I therefore come to have that Judgment of her infallibility because she as an object wrought upon my apprehension and imprinted a conceit of her there as she was in her self and so obliged my Reason to conclude and my judgement to hold her such as she is pag. 182. A very deep discourse and able to evince that no man is beholding to his Reason for any thing he assents unto but contrarily his Reason is beholding to the Object for causing that assent Seing that object works upon his apprehension and imprints a conceit of it self there as in it self and so obligeth our Reason to conclude and our Judgment to hold it such as it is but Sir is your assent rational or not If not 't is Bruitish and Absurd it may he false nor have you any reason to believe it true If so then must you be beholding to your Reason for it Coroll Hence I infer That Reason cannot be rejected as unsure and unsufficient to ground an Article of Faith upon for the certainty of our whole Faith depending upon that of Reason it must fall together with it So that to quarel with the use of Reason upon that account as Papists usually do is in effect to quarrel with Religion and Christianity Prop. 3. The certainty of Faith cannot be greater then that of Science or Mathematical Demonstration for that supposing only as the fundation of all certitude that my faculties are true and not supernaturally enclined to falsehood is absolutely certain and such as takes away all matter of a doubt for who can question the truth of these assertions that nothing can produce it self and that from equals if you take only equals the remainder will be equal both which are conclusions arising with the clearest evidence from that first principle of Science 't is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be Now seeing certainty consists in the removal of what is or might be matter of a doubt for whilest this matter of doubt remains we are not and when 't is once removed eo ipso we arrive at real certainty and seeing nothing can take off more then all no certainty can be greater then that which cuts of all matter of a doubt Nay secondly I ask whether this principle viz. it is impossible for the same thing at once to be and not be can possibly be doubted whether some Conclusions Scientifical be not immediately and unavoidably derivative from it for since all Truths are ultimately resolved into it some most immediately conclude from it and whether hence it will not follow That Scientifical Conclusions may remove all possibility of doubting Thirdly all Articles of Faith are ultimately founded upon Reason by Prop. 2d And so our assent unto them must terminate thereupon no reason can be of greater certainty then a Scientifical Conclusion as being wholy derived from and resoluble into that first Principle of Science impossibile est idem esse non esse Fourthly That any Article of Faith is true or not true is a Scientifical Conclusion from that of Logick one part of contradictories must needs be true nor can the truth of any article be greater then the truth of this since 't is impossible to be true but eo ipso it must be true or not true When therefore you pretend p. 181. to cleave more heartily and firmly to a point of Faith then to any conclusion of Science whatsoever your adherence must outgoe your Reason for what if Faith depend upon divine veracity and that be closely applyed by the Church unto you Seeing it depends also on your assurance of these two Assertions 1. That the Divine power could not be engaged to deceive the Church or attest a falsehood Which you owe to Reason And Secondly That the divine veracity is engaged for that which you esteem an Article of Faith which you must owe unto the Eyes and Eares and the Fidelity of other men since then each Article of Faith attested by Divine Veracity is nevertheless known to be so partly by reason which cannot rise beyond a Demonstration partly by the evidence of sence and the fidelity of other men which is not capable of demonstration it is not possible that your assent which bottoms on them should exceed its certainty But secondly I affirm that all our certitude of Faith is less then that of Science for notwithstanding all your motives unto Faith are there not many real Atheists and secret rejecters of Christianity Many that are still enquirers many that labour under continual doubts and scruples and have Faith only as a grain of Musterdseed Yea may we not all cry out with the Disciples Lord increase our Faith Produce your motives manage them with your utmost care and you will find the Sceptick will still make exceptions put in his scruples and ask might it not be otherwise Whereas Science compels assent puts the intellect beyond a feare and will not suffer us to scruple or demur upon her Theorems or labour under the least uncertainty Whether one part of contradictories be true or the three Angles of a Triangle be equal to two right ones Sith then 't is nothing but the clearness of the truth which expels fears and doubts and 't is the want of such convictive evidence which is the cause of their continuance that certitude must needs be greatest which is most effectual to this end but 't is superfluous to insist farther upon that which is so admirably confirmed by Mr Chillingworth p. 291. Ed. ult Yea thirdly I affirm that the certainty of Faith is not so great as that of sence for all its certainty depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by
believes such Articles or asserts their truth he presently replyes because revealed in Scripture by that God who cannot lye whereas the Catholick must Answer because revealed by that Tradition or that Churches voice which is infallible to assure me of the Churches voice is the business of my Eyes and eares to ascertain me of the infallibility of that voice is the work of Reason Is now the faith of Catholicks resolved into their eyes or ears Is it resolved into the use of Reason and not into the Churches voice If not why must this be objected to the Protestant because his Reason doth assist him to evince his Scripture to be the product of Divine Veracity If then you take this prayse in its largest sense as it imports the enquiry into all its causes in their several kinds both Catholicks and Protestants do resolve their faith into humane Reason as giving them assurance of the infallibility both of Scripture and Tradition if in its proper notion as it it implyes the principal efficient cause of Faith 't is evident that neither of them do it Nevertheless I freely grant that all the certainty of our Faith in things not punctually expressed in Scripture depends upon the certainty of our Reason working upon the never sayling Rules of Logick which as it is no disparagement to the certainty of Faith so is it a thing common unto us with Catholicks who must acknowledge with my good Friend That many things have been delivered by the Church which were not formally contained in her tradition or the Rule of Faith but only thence concluded by the help of Reason Sure Footing P. 206. Prop. 3. The Fundamentals of Christianity i. e. all doctrines necessary to the Salvation of each person delivered in the Rule of Faith must be both evident and obvious to the eye of Reason for seing the proper end of a Rule is to regulate and direct and nothing unevident and obscure whilst such can do that office unto those to whom it is so for this were to require the intellect to be regulated by what it cannot know to be a rule what ever is the the Rule of Faith and so of Fundamentals must evidently declare them to such persons to whom it is a rule and is it not monstrous to imagine that God should have suspended our Salvation and Christ the very being of his Church on what 's obscure and void of evidence And secondly seeing what is not obvious cannot be evident to such persons as are unable to search into the depths of Reason and see into the coherence of a continued train of consequences that this Rule may be evident to such it must be obvious Obvious I say in delivering the affirmative heads of Christian Faith not in affording means to extricate the understanding from all the Sophistry of a Learned Adversary which to require from the Rule of Faith especially as applyed to the illiterate person and his certainty thereof is as absurd and monstrous as to require in order to his certainty that he sees walks or hears that he should have ability to Answer all the quirks of Zeno and demurs of a Gascendus to the contrary As therefore in these matters the clear and immediate evidence of sense is a sufficient preservative to the rudest person from all the Sophisms of Zeno and his Academy even so the full and pregnant evidence of Fundamentals especially if joynd with that internal evidence of the Holy Spirit which is promised by our Saviour to all those that do his will is sufficient settlement unto the meanest person capable of Religion against all the Fallacies of a subtle Heretick Coroll Hence I conceive it Sophistically objected by my Friend That we prove and defend our Faith by skils and languages history and humane learning and so make them our Rule of Faith For we aver the Fundamentals of our Faith are so perspicuously revealed in Scripture as to need no farther skill to apprehend them then what is necessary to understand that language in which our Rule of Faith is writ yea what is equally necessary to understand the Churches voice which constantly is delivered by her representatives in Greek or Latine and therefore the preceding skils are not of absolute necessity to Faith in General but only to some portions of it of which we may be ignorant without considerable prejudice to our eternal welfare of which nature is the legitimacy of Baptism conferr'd by Hereticks the Millenium c. and if we use such mediums in matters of the highest nature we do it still ex abundanti either to conclude the same things from obscurer places which are perspicuously revealed elsewhere or to obviate the evasions and confute the cavils of the Hereticks all which the Catholick doth and must do both when engaged with him and us Thus when again he tels us That our Rule is deal Characters waxen-natured and plyable to the Dedalean Phancy of the ingenious moulders of new opinions P. 194. Ans 'T is true some passages there are in it which are may be wrested to such evil purposes but still the Fundamentals of our Faith are such as are by no means plyable to any other sence Prop. 4. Reason in judging of the sence of Scripture is regulated partly by principles of Faith partly by Tradition partly by Catholick maxims of her own 1. By Principles of Faith for Scripture is to be interpreted secundum analogiam Fidei that is say we particular Texts of Scripture when dubious are so to be interpreted as not to contradict the Fundamentals of Faith or any doctrine which evidently and fully stands asserted in the Word of God and 2ly since Scripture cannot contradict it self When any Paragraph of Scripture absolutely considered is ambiguous that sence must necessarily obtain which is repugnant to no other paragraph against what may be so and thus may Scripture regulate me in the sence of Scripture and what I know of it lead me to the sense of what I do not Secondly By tradition for since tradition is necessary to assure us that there were once such men as the Apostles who delivered that Christianity and these Scriptures to us which we now embrace to question the sufficiency of the like tradition to assure me of the sence of Scripture is virtually to call in question the motives which induce us to believe it such this then would be an excellent help unto the sence of Scripture only the mischief is that where it can be had we do not want it and where we want it 't is but too visible it cannot be had Note only that I speak here of a like tradition to which two things are requisite First That it be as general as that of Scripture And Secondly That it be such as evidenceth it self by Reason to have been no forgery as here it doth it being morally impossible that the whole Church in the delivery of Scripture to us should deceive or be deceived For the
ΔΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΣΤΟ OR AN ANSWER TO Sure Footing So far as Mr. Whitby is concerned in it Wherein the Rule and Guide of Faith the Interest of Reason and the Authority of the Church in Matters of Faith are fully handled and vindicated FROM THE Exceptions of Mr. SERJEANT AND Petty Flirts of FIAT LUX Together with AN ANSWER to Five Questions propounded by a ROMAN CATHOLICK By Daniel Whitby M. A. Coll. Trin. Oxon. Soc. And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall Rom. 11. OXFORD Printed by W. Hall for R. Davis 1666. Imprimatur ROBERTUS SAY VICE-CANCELLARIUS OXON TO THE READER Courteous Reader THe Animadversions of Mr. Serjeant being confused and immethodical would not admit an Answer in that Order in which they lie wherefore I have reduced them to their several heads and as I hope sufficiently discovered the weakness of them in the following Chapters still being careful that I did not actum agere or say any thing which might interfer with his two great Antagonists I have since been assaulted by a second Sampson willing perhaps to shew the world what Execution he could do with the Jaw bone of an Asse He hath three passages in his Epistle which seem guilty of a little reason and shew he has some lucid Intervals which therefore shall receive an Answer But as for his continual falsifications of my words and arguments his Wit and Drollery his Any mad versions and his white Boys that is the residue of his Epistle I shall leave them to be bound up with Asdriasdust Tosoffacan And rest Thy Friend and Servant DANIEL WHITBY CHAP. I. Of the certainty of Faith and the use of Reason in matters of Faith Prop 1. REason is that faculty which God hath given us to discern betwixt true and false good or evil just and unjust For that we do discern betwixt these things is every Mans experience and that we do it by the exercise of Reason is most evident for Judgement must be either brutish or founded upon Reason Coroll If then my reason doth determine what is just or unjust good or evil true or false and consequently what is to be done believed thought or not Reason must be my judge in every case Secondly To judge is to determine from some ground and that is to infer or reason and therefore nothing can be judge in any case but Reason Thirdly The Papist must acknowledge Reason for his Judge in every case for either Reason must assure them that the Church in her Traditions is infallible or else they must believe it they know not why this done what is unquestionably the Tradition of the Church cannot be matter of a doubt and when 't is doubted or disputed what is the voice of holy Church Reason must still become their Judge for sure they must have motives to encline them either way And they are Reasons wherefore in all cases Reason is their Judge and were it not the greatest folly to offer Reasons to convince us of the Roman Faith and at the same time tell us its judgement is not to be taken Object But here you presently throw in p. 187. The existence of the Trinity and then cry out To work now with your Reason and see how you evince it Answ Do you believe the assertion to be true or not if true Why do you then disupte against it if not Why do you not return some Answer to those Arguments wherewith it was confirmed nay why do you acknowledge That in great part of the whole Section and especially at the beginning the Discourse is rightly made p. 180. since that Discourse is visibly a Complex of Arguments professedly evincing this conclusion But Secondly I conclude the existence of a Trinity by rational Inference from such Scriptures which affirm That God is one and that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are truly God and therefore do assert it because my reason judgeth these Inferences to be valid and the Sacinian who rejects the Article doth not reject the Authority of those Scriptures upon which I ground it but onely endeavors to evade the Inferences of my reason from thence Thus then you see that Reason acting on my rule of Faith produceth this assent And tell me Are we not enjoyned to give a reason of our Faith and so of this as well as other Articles and consequently to acquaint the Enquirer why we judge it necessary to believe the Existence of a Trinity You indeed teach me to speak thus That I have reason to believe Authority and Authority to believe the Trinity Answ True but I must still have reason to conclude it from Authority for it is not formally contain'd in Scripture but onely thence inferr'd by reason so that I have here Divine Authority for my Rule and Reason for my Guide to apply the Rule unto the Article and infer it thence Object Belief is as properly relative to Authority as Science is to an act of Reason whence 't is as incongruous to say I must have reason to believe such a Point as to say I know such a Point scientifically by Authority p. 187. Answ As incongruous as it is I hope you do believe the existence of a Diety the Divine Authority of Scriptures and the truth of Christs Miracles and that you have reason so to do and do you not now see the strange and monstrous incongruity of saying You have reason to believe Exerc. 3. Art 3. Sect. 6. Baronius his hand maid to Divinity will teach you to distinguish betwixt Faith strictly taken for an assent built upon the Testimony of another in which sense it is relative to Authority or more generally and so in Scripture and approved Authors it denotes any manner of assent thus we are said to believe our eyes and Heathens without a Revelation to believe a Diety And lastly this or that to be the sense of Scripture Prop 2. It is confess'd on both sides and in it self most certain That the foundation of all our Faith depends on Reason and is ultimately resolved into it the Protestant hath his internal and external Arguments to induce him to believe the Divine Authority of Scripture the Papist for his upstart Tradition pretends no less then a Demonstration and for his Churches Authority he hath his motives of credibility to produce And certain it is that all our Faith and Religion depends upon the Being of a God and that assurance which we have That his veracity is such as will not suffer him to deceive us His goodness such as will not suffer us to be invincibly deceived to our souls destruction nor let his providence be wanting in providing for and preserving to us that rule of Faith without which salvation cannot be attained unless we are assured of these things how know we but that God may have deceived the World with false Miracles yea that he hath not Imprinted in us such dispositions as may continually incline us unto Error That he hath not
the Divine Wisdome in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophecies they delivered the Doctrine they taught And that by sence Should any of them be questioned must we not recur unto the senses of the Primitive Christians to confirm them And must they not then be the ultimate Foundation of our Faith and your tradition must we not be surer of the proof then the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sence then that of Faith which deriveth from it If not why secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather blessed who believe and have not seen then Thomas who first Saw and Felt and then Believed Is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence And so their Faith is more illustrious and prayse worthy 'T would be more Generous and Noble to die in the defence of him whom we did only probably believe to be our Prince or Parent then to do it only upon iufallible assurance of his being such because an evidence of greater love even so is it more virtuous and prayse worthy to venture all upon an highly probable hopes of the truth of Christianity it being such a pregnant indication of our true love to Pietie and Vertue that even a probable assurance of it can prevail against all worldly temptations to the contrary Yea this it is which rendreth Faith rewardable that 't is an act of the believers choise and not irrefragably induced however it be abundantly confirmed with arguments extreamly probable and such as render it perversness and obstinacy to resist Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts af a plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to increase it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferiour to that of Sense and Science to pretend infallibility which is the highest certainty is to pretend such evidence as is not competible to Faith But that the Folly of this pretence may appeare more signally I shall farther manifest 1. That Humane nature is not capable of infallible assurance in matters of Faith Secondly that to require such assurance unto Faith is contrary to Scripture Thirdly That our Saviour required Faith upon lower motives Fourthly That the Romanists can have no such assurance Fifthly That it is no prejudice to the certainty or reasonableness of Faith that it is built upon foundations not absolutely infallible And Lastly Answer Mr Serjeants Exceptions to the contrary And 1. If Humane Nature abstracted from Divinity be capable of this assurance its certainty must be equal to that of Vision of Angels of Christs Humanity yea of God himself for even their assurance cannot reach beyond infallibility And secondly Reason must give as great assurance of a thing revealed to others 1600. years agon and in it self inevident as it is possible for present sence or revelation to afford all which are monstrous absurdities Secondly each Text of Scripture which mentions any that were weak or strong in Faith any that were of little or of great Faith any that were rich that did abound encrease or grow in Faith any that were grounded established rooted and consirmed in Faith that speakes of having Faith as a grain of musterd-seed and of having all Faith is a demonstrative refutation of this pretence it being certain that infallibility admits of no degrees Such secondly must be every Prayer which the Apostles made to encrease their own and others Faith or in the language of the Catholick to advance it some degrees above infallibility Such thirdly are all those places which tell of Hereticks who overthrew the Faith of some of others that were unstable and wavering in the Faith And lastly Prophecy that men should Erre and be seduced from the Faith or depart from it giving heed to seducing spirits it being as impossible for such who are infallibly assured or guided by what is self-evident even to the un-reflecting person to Waver Erre or be Seduced as to Doubt and Disbelieve that twice 2 is 4 or that if you take equally from equals they will still be equal Thirdly Our Blessed Saviour required this assent from his Disciples without Infallible assurance for doth he not call them Fools and slow of heart Luke 24.26 for not believing all the Prophets had delivered touching his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory Had they infallible assurance that these Prophecyes concerned him yea or no If not then did he look upon them as Fools and slow of heart for not believing upon motives confessedly fallible if their assurance might have been infallible then either as bottomed upon Reason infallibly concluding his Ascention and Resurection from the Prophets or secondly upon Tradition and the Churches living voice if the first why may not we also who have greater assistence of the Spirit of Wisdome be able from the same Principle of Reason working on our Rule of Faith to conclude infallibly the Fundamentals of Christianity For is it not unreasonable to assert that the Resurrection and Ascention of our Lord is more clearly revealed in those places of the Old Testament which are few obscure by reason of the Language more ambiguous then the New and lastly acknowledged by the greatest part of learned Men to refer primarily to other things or persons then the Articles of our Creed are in those numerous and admirably prespicuous places of the New Testament which give in Testimony thereunto Must they be looked upon as Fools for not infallibly concluding the Ascention of our Lord from the obscure items of the Prophets by the help of Reason And must we be damned for holding Reason sufficient from Scripture to conclude our Creed Nay secondly is not this to admit Reason as a competent yea infallible judge of the Sense of Scripture and consequently to approve of in the Jew what you condemn and rail at in the Christian If secondly you flye unto Tradition It is not ridiculous to assert that the Jewish Church should not only Crucifie this Jesus and endeavour with their utmost powerto prevent the Fame of his Resurrection albeit she had infallible assurance of it But that she should at the same time interpret Scripture so as infallibly to attest it and be condemned from her own mouth Nay had they not a contrary Tradition viz. That the Kingdome of their Messias should be Glorious upon Earth sufficient to confront all evidence Tradition could afford them in this case and void her Testimony because repugnant to it self Secondly I desire to know whether that voice from Heaven which testifyed that Jesus was the true Messiah and the Son of God did not oblige the hearers to believe it And to what other end it was sent Whether our Saviour doth not plead
it as his Fathers testimony of him which sure must be sufficient ground of Faith whether Saint Peter doth not hence endeavour to make good this truth 2 Pet. 1.17 18 19. And therefore whether his argument doth not oblige us to believe it And yet whether he doth not peremptorily say that 't was confirmed by a more sure word of Prophecy And whether hence it doth not follow that this voice from Heaven was not an evidence most sure and therefore not infallible however it were such as did require belief from us as well as them that heard it Go now and tell your God and Saviour what you have told our Church That they are guilty of most Absurd Ridiculous Irrational Self-condemned Damnable Diabolical Tyranny and such as Humane Nature can scarce own for requiring any mans assent to any Point or Proposition whatsoever as evident in Scripture without infallible certainty pag. 196 198. Fourthly The Evidence which Papists have or can have of any matter of Faith is not infallible for had they infallible Evidence to produce is it not matter of amazement that so many millions of persons endowed with Intellects as piercing and accomplished with all abilities which their Adversaries can boast of yea who many of them have all temporal Motives to encline them to believe and all the Miseries that Papal Tyranny can inflict to awaken them into a serious consideration nay who are Men seriously industrious after their salvation and such as know that they must perish everlastingly if this indeed be the true and onely rule of Faith which they reject I say Is it not matter of amazement that such persons from generation to generation should unanimously reject what offers it self with infallible evidence and assurance even to the most rude illiterate and unreflecting person Sure footing p. 5. s 10. that is but capable of Christianity and not onely so but that they should dispute and write Books against it albeit they could never go about to do so but they must necessarily be convinced infallibly even as unreflecting Layicks are supposed to be of the truth of what they thus oppose which is indeed to say we were are and whilest Protestants must be as bad and obstinate as the very Devil This alone is abundantly sufficient to arm the soul against all temptations unto Popery Again the infallibility of your Tradition is bottomed partly upon this foundation That your Church thinks her self obliged to deliver nothing but what and so far as she received it from the former Age and Church But what assurance of this at present are there not of your own Party who roundly tell us That what (a) Maldonate in Joh. 6. v. 53. Binius Concil Tom 1. p. 624. Petavius de la penit publ l. 1. c. 7. s. 6. p. 97. flourished in the Church for many hundred of Years is now condemned by her That there was a time when the Trent desinitions were not (b) Roffensis in confut Lutheri p. 496. Biel in Lect 57. super Canonem missae Durand opusc 15. c. 1. Scotus apud Bellar de Euchar l. 3. c. 23. de fide yea when the (c) Vid Potters Answer to charity mistaken pag. 73 74. contrary was delivered by the Church That there was time when Fathers (d) Non mirum est si isti nonnulli etiam alii patres re nondum eo tempore satis illuftrata in eam Haresin incidissent Petro Soave Hist Concil Trident l. 7. p. 575. Petavius in Epiphanium p. 285. did and might teach contrary to what she now delivers because the Church had not declared her minde And is not this to give liberty before the definition of a Councel to deliver to Posterity even from the first Age to that very moment what is flatly contradictory to the Churches voice and to unravel the whole thread you have so finely spun (e) Bellar l. 4. de Pontif Rom c. 14. Sec. Res imprimis Are there not those who positively assert the definition of your Church makes that to be esteemed a matter of Faith which before was not necessarily to be deemed such who lastly say To definition of your Church is that which makes a fundamental how many hundred times have all or most of these things been Printed Preached Licensed in your Church and yet there is not one of them but bids defiance to your Assertion But secondly your infallibility is bottomed upon this That 't is impossible for your Church to be deceived in judging what 's Tradition Now first Is it not as certain as the truth of Christianity can make it that the whole Nation of the Jews did erre and that most dangerously pretending a Tradition of that nature which rendred them uncapable of embracing the Messiah Now what was the sad fate of these Traditionary Catholicks scattered not onely over Jury but through all the World why may it not be Romes When Arianism prevailed so much upon the World as to fright the Orthodox Professors into Dens and Caves when it had defiled almost all the World and all except a very few obeyed it Was it impossible in that juncture of Affairs they should pretend Tradition for their Faith doth not your (f) Answ to Du Plessis l. 2. c. 7. Cardinal Perroon and their own Epistle shew they did (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist Pseudosynodi Aucyrans apud Epiph p. 847. Our Faith say they is kept as a Patrimony handed down from the Apostles times by their immediate Successors even to the days of our Father And must that be impossible to the done by the Church of Rome which we see done in so great an instance How oft did East and West plead contrary Traditions and impeach each other for walking (h) Synod Const in Trullo Can 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the beginning of the fatal breach between them either the Plea or Tradition was deserted or falsly pretended by one party and what impossiblity can there be that what happened to the one should be found incident to the other And to adde no more Is it not (i) Frequenter contingit unum Theologum constantissimè asserere se habere Theologicam demonstrationem de aliquo dogmate illud deducere per evidentem consequentiam ex sacris literis traditionibus patrum alium vero per oppositum certissimè affirmare se habere demonstrationem Theologieam quod illud sit baresis Nec solum hoc contingit inter duos fingulares Theologos sed inter unam Scholam cum alterâ Gonzales in 1 disp 2 2. N. 34. ordinary in the Schools to hear contrary Sects and Parties pretending to the Tradition of the Church of God with equal confidence Should now the prevailing Party of a General Councel be made up of either of these Sects Were it impossible for them to define and deliver for Tradition to Posterity what they according to their Private but misguided Judgement esteemed to be such Must it
be possible for many handreds of Lateran or Basil Nice or Constantinople to pretend Tradition falsly because in contradiction to each other and shall it not be possible for 52 Bishops met at Trent to do so But what if she hath actually deceived us Is it infallibly evident that she cannot do what she hath done already and that as sure as History can make it For in the sixteenth Century we have several Translations of the Bible set forth with special Prefaces before them such were that of Santes Pagrinus the Dominician at Lyons that of Antonius Braciolus in Italy every one delivering and declaring the distinction that we make and was then commonly receiv'd between the Canonical Books of Scripture and Apocryphal may in that famous Edition of the compleat Bibles set forth by Ximenius the Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo in Spain and published by the Authority of People Leo we are told that Tobit Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the Macchabes with the additions to Hester and Daniel are no Canonical Scripture but such as the Church read rather for edification of the people then confirmation of her Faith Yea the vulgar Bible printed at Basil with Lyra's Commentary and the ordinary Gloss do not onely number her Books Canonical and un Canonical as we do putting that difference between them is be ween what is dubious and what is certain but farther tells us That she did it for the Information of them who being not much used to Scripture did not know how to put a difference betwixt them and so became ridiculous to the Learned Picus Mirandula assured us Admitto igitur Hieronymum in ea fuisse opinione Bellar de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. That the Testimony of St. Jerome in this matter which punctually accords with us even our Adversaries being Judges was esteemed most sacred by the Church And Cardinal Caietan that common Oracle of the days he lived in saith as expresly What he received into the Canon that do we what he rejected we also do reject Nay That the Latine Church was very much obliged to S. Jerome who by making this distinction had freed us from the reproaches of the Jews left them no ground to say of her what now they may of the Latine Church That she had forged a new Canon of her own with which the Jews had no acquaintance 'T is true Catharinus opposed this Sentence as being contrary to what one or two Popes had held before him but he was presently derided for it by one of his Brother Monks as an unlearned fellow And to conclude Johannes Ferus in his Book called An Examination of Persons to be Ordained See this and much more in Dr. Cosens's Canon of Scripture Cent 16. informs them of nine Apocryphal Books the same which are so called by our Church which were not anciently used in the Church and whose Authority was not pressing To him you may adde Faber Stapulensis Jodochus Clictovaeus Ludovicus Vives Fr Georgius Erasmus and Driedo all in this sixteenth Century This being so Can any man imagine that the Canonical Authority of these Books was look'd upon in this Century as an Apostollick Tradition by the Church of Rome and a thing necessary to be taught Posterity and yet they are pronounced Canonical by a few Men at Trent in the same Century and a Tradition is pretended for it in defiance to their own and other Churches If then we cannot be infallibly assured that the Church of Rome kept to Tradition when she most pretended it yea are abundantly certain That in her first Decree she contradicted the prevailing Doctrine of that very age What assurance can we reasonably expect that she always did so Obj The Attestation of One thousand Men of good repute touching a matter pretended to be seen by them and confirmed by their Oath obligeth to belief And must not then the Attestation of the Church of Rome incomparably more ample render the matter so indubitable c as that onely irrational vicious and wilfully blinde persons can recede from it by unbelief p. 196 197. Answ 1. I desire to know Whether it were absolutely impossible that One thousand hypocritical Pharisees should have procured the repute of honest men it being Proverbial amongst the Jews That if Heaven were designed but for two persons the one would be a Scribe the other a Pharisee or whether it were absolutely impossible for One thousand of such persons who were confessedly guilty of greater sins and frequently accustomed to swear a lye by any thing but the name Jehovah to attest falshood with an Oath and if not Why should it be impossible to our Modern Pharisee who can equivocate as well as he Whether the Priests of Apolio were not many Thousands in the World Whether they might not be reputed honest Men and whether it were impossible for them to consent in an Attestation of such a falshood which might gain reputation to that Idol especially considering that the Frauds and Artifices of the Priests were the usual ways of keeping up the credit of their Idol-worship Secondly In some cases such a Testimony will oblige unto Belief But what if these Witnesses should be confronted by the Testimony of Two thousand equally Judicious and Pious Men What if these Witnesses should very in their Testimonies and when met in Councels contradict each other What if Scripture and History delivered to us from the unquestionable Tradition of many Millions of which this Thousand were a part should manifestly condemn them of a lye What if the thing they undertook to testifie depended not entirely on their Attestation but required also the Testimony of the next Age and so up to the Apostles days What if the Attestation were visibly for their own Interest or they were partly ignorant of what they did Attest Would not all or any of these things sufficiently null their evidence and vet this is manifestly the case of your Churches Testimony Fifthly It is no sufficient prejudice against the reasonableness or certainty of Faith to confess it to be built upon foundations not absolutely infallible This is the natural result of what hath been already proved but 1. That it is no prejudice unto the prudence and reasonableness of our Faith is sufficiently concluded hence That the most weighty Affairs of Life are built upon Foundations not absolutely such No Childe hath an infallible assurance of his Parents no Subject of his Prince and would it not be madness hereupon to deny Obedience and Homage to them our Title to our Estates derived from Ancestors our assurance of the Laws of the Land we live in is but moral nevertheless to doubt or question them upon this account would be extreamly foolish moreover Reason and Prudence oblige us to believe what is highly credible and exceedingly more probably then it 's contrary And sure it is That Christian Religion is upon various accounts more credible and built on grounds incomparably more rational then either
very Argument against your Church I wonder how you would avoid the blow Secondly Your next Assault runs thus Do not 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 as if it were impossible to deny the Comment to be a part of that Text it cleareth for revealing is clearing and Gods sense was not clearly revealed but by these means that is by humane Maxims and so they are at least the more formal part of your Rule of Faith Answ I remember when I learn'd my Grammer that I had a Construing Book the immediate effect of which was to clear to me the sence of my Rules cōtain'd in Propria quae maribus Quae Genus c. but never was I so happy as to know that my Construing book was part of them or to which special Rule it did belong I knew indeed that revealing was clearing and that the sence of these special Rules was not clearly revealed to me but by means of my Construing Book but was not so inured to Science and versed in true Logick as to be able to infer thence That it was at least the most formal part of the Rules forementioned but must thank my Friend for his Instruction in so deep a Mystery and confess I owe that Light I have received in this Point to his noon-day Sun of self-evidence For a close you ask Might I not have mistaken the true sense of Scripture without these humane Maxims if so then they not Scriptures-letter are my Rule of Faith p. 191. Answ And must that necessarily be my Rule of Faith without which I might possibly have mistaken any portion of it then good Eyes and Ears and diligence in using of them good Dispositions Judgement Instruction c. must be my Rule of Faith for without these 't is very probable I may be frequently mistaken in the sense thereof Prop. 2. That notwithstanding any thing M. S. hath pleaded to the contrary Scripture may be a Rule of Faith for to object That Christian Religion had descended many steps ere the Scriptures parts were much scattered much less the whole collected is effect to argue thus Scripture was not a Rule to those that wanted and therefore cannot be such unto those that have it 't was not the onely Rule to those who were assisted by the infallible guidance of the Authors and Propounders of it graced with the extraordinary assistance of the same Spirit who drank even from the Fountain and Spring-head of Tradition and therefore it cannot be so to us who are removed from it 16 Centuries and destitute of all those Priviledges and Advantages which they enjoyed And yet remarkable it is That amidst all these Enjoyments the new-born Christian is sent unto his Scripture Rule his word of Prophesie bid to give heed unto it as a thing more certain then a voice from Heaven writ designedly for his instruction able to make his wise unto salvation perfect both in Faith and Manners and make him throughly furnished unto all good Works and after all the Apostles are inspired to indite and to deliver the New Testament unto them to be the pillar and the ground of Faith and can it be imagined that Scriptures so comparatively obscure so purposely designed for and accommodated to the Jewish Paedagogy should be thus commended and enjoyned by the Spirit of God as a Rule unto the Christian when graced with all the helps fore-mentioned and yet that Scripture which was indited by the same unerring Spirit in a more familiar way with great plainness of speech 2 Cor. 3.12 13. and not obscured by a vail as was that of Moses which is exceedingly more full of moral Precepts and Rules of Faith and Manners of gracious Promises to comfort and Exhortations to perswade to Patience and every other Vertue which lastly was Indited not in a Tongue peculiar to the Land of Jury but such as was most generally spoken throwout all the World should never be intended as a Rule unto them when destitute of those assistances Obj 2. 'T is objected secondly That that can never be a Rule which many follow and yet their thoughts straggle into many several Judgements in Points of so great moment as the Trinity ibid. Answ If you imagine that these straglers do indeed keep close unto the minde of God revealed in Scripture you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and make the Word of God the very sourse of Heresie if you affirm that cannot be a Rule which such pretend to follow you in effect assert the Law of Nature and right Reason could not be the Gentiles rule and that he had no Pharaoh's to guide him to the knowledge of the Being and Attributes of God because they generally took up with such uncouth notions and gross absurdities in matters which are evident from the light of Reason That neither Scripture nor Tradition could be a Rule unto the Jew who branched into such Sects as either did evacuate the Law of God by their Traditions or denyed the Resurrection That Tradition is no Rule of Faith or otherwise That no pretender to it was ever guilty of an Heresie And lastly That the denyal of Tradition must be the onely Heresie all which are monstrous Absurdities and yet the natural Results of your Assertion To conclude this Section I must crave leave to minde my Friend of an early brood of Carpocratian Hereticks who being confounded by the Scriptures to be revenged of them gave it out Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertantur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate dy quia varie sunt dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem Iren. lib. 3. cap. 2. 1. That they were not as they should be viz. the Original copies being not preserved entire Disc 2. S. 5. 7. had not authority sufficient there being no means to convince the Sceptick the acute Adversary yea the rational doubter of their trath no certainty of Scripture in it self and no ascertableness of it unto as Disc 4. S. 1. c. And 3 That they were spoken variously or so as to admit of diverse sences Disc 2. S. 6.8 And lastly That in them the truth could not be found by such a were ignorant of Tradition it being not delivered by writing but by oral Tradition Good Sir I do not in the least suspect that you have Carpocratians Manuscript or that this passage of the Father did supply you with the heads of your Discourse however it will let you see that he adheres firm to your Rule p. 589. If then your inference stand good the Carpocratian must be owned for your Brother Catholick if bad then blush hereafter to