Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	answer_v	church_n	scripture_n	1,708	5	6.0408	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

perfection and remove the contrary he being therefore incomprehensible because infinite in perfection whence albeit I do not comprehend his nature yet can I rationally conclude him not corporeal because that necessarily subjects him to varietie of imperfections 6. This doth not prejudice the use of Reason in other matters any more then the Asymptoticks of the Mathematicks the cruces logicorum the Insolubilia of other sciences do prejudice our getting knowledge in these matters by the use of Reason Corol. Hence evident it is That Scripture must not alwaies be interpreted according to the Letter or Grammatical importance of the words because that often is contradictory both to reason tradition and the Analogie of Faith this cannot be disputed by any person who is not professedly industrious to render Scripture odious and ridiculous there being nothing more abhorrent from humane nature then some Scriptures are in their Grammaticall importance but you object Ob. If Reason must guide you sometimes so as to denie the clear letter of Scripture or to deny the Spouse of Christ is properly whatever she is stiled in the Canticles by what principles must Reason be regulated in this enquiry Whether God hath hands and feet c. pag. 193. Ans 1. By Principles of Faith or those perspicuous Scriptures which dogmatically aver that he is a Spirit invisible and without all shape lastly attribute unto him many things repugnant to a body this you see is done antecedently to the known sence of some Scriptures though not of all And 2. by Reason assuring me that corporeity is incompatible with that power which is every where infinite That it is an imperfection and so not incident to this all-perfect Being that it interferes with his simplicity and independance degrades him beneath the ranke of Angels and humane Souls which Scriptures represent as incorporeal that to ascribe such Phrases properly unto him must represent him the worst of Monsters as having wings and seaven eyes and putting on more shapes then ever Proteus did and render his reproofs of Heathen Images irrational and absurd Ob. But is not this to flie back for refuge to the old rule Humane Reason which you seemingly renounced when you had found your new Rule of Faith Ans It s power to pass judgement of the truth of what is revealed in Scripture I did and do renounce its assistance in finding out the sence of Scripture I cannot renounce without the sorfeiture of Reason Corol. 2. Hence it must follow that to be expresly contained in Scripture is not to be the mind of God contained in Scripture for that God is a Shepheard and a Roaring Lyon a Lanthorn and a wall of fire that he begat Israel and doth continue to beget Believers That the Messiah is a Lamb a Lyon and a Stag a Worm Plant Fagle Root and Cedar this and much more is expressly told us from Scriptures letter but to infer hence that Reason guided by Scripture cannot otherwise interpret them but it must Violently wrest the Scripture and be so absolutely the Rule of Faith as to controle and baffle Scripture though clearly revealing p. 192. is to make Christ the worst of Monsters to out do all the Fables of the Poets and represent the God of Heaven more ridiculous then an Heathen Jupiter Secondly I defire to know whether the Church of Rome doth own and sence these places according to the letter or contradict and wrest baffle and controul the clearest revelations of the word of God by doing otherwise Qu. But if to be in express terms in Scripture be not to be clearly revealed there what is it to be thus revealed Ans T is manifestly to be the mind of God contained in Scripture Which being so if you continue to imagine that every thing contained in Scriptures letters is clearly manifested to be the mind of God in Scripture then must you either contradict what is clearly manifested so to be or cut off hands and feet and pluck out eyes that you may be Christs Disciple if you enquire farther amidst all the varietie of Tropes and Figurative Expressions used in Scripture how any thing can be manifested to be the mind of God revealed I Answer by the very same means and circumstances by which we know the mind of one another notwihstanding all the variety of Tropes and Figures which we use in ordinary Discourse or Writing how often doth the Divine the Poet the Historian and especially the Orator flourish in all the arts of Rhetorick and Grace his subject with the chiosest flowers of Eloquence and yet presents it in a dress as clear as it is pleasant and were not men wilfully perverse they would have less reason to complain of the obscurity of the Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation upon this account When therefore you thus Argue That God hath Hands Feet Nostrils is plainly writ in your Rule of Faith p. 121. and therefore is revealed in it the inference must be weak the Foundations of it are already overturned And yet however you suppose it all along I peremptorily deny that it is possitively asserted in any Scripture that God hath Hands Feet Nostrils True we are told the Heavens are the Workmanship of his hands c. But to infer it from such places would force you to acknowledge that the Word of God is Milk and that Milk is Rational because Saint Paul hath stiled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here therefore is no need to captivate my Reason much less to Answer as you would have me That the contrary is plain in Scripture too pag. 191. and so that Scripture holds forth plainly contradictions this Answer so dishonourable to God and Scripture so repugnant unto Faith Reason and Tradition I permit to be your own CHAP. III. Of the Rule of Faith Prop 1. SEeing Divine Faith in the proper import of the words is an assent to Divine Authority revealed whatever I assent to as an Article of Faith I must assent to as being the revealed will of God whence evident it is That the mind or will of God revealed and nothing else must be my Rule of Faith Again What is the proper office of a Rule but to examine what is to be ruled by it Must we not pass a Judgement on our Weights and Measures by bringing them to the Rule and Standard In like manner Do we not examine each Theological conclusion by this Enquiry Whether it be the minde of God revealed or not and from the Answer made unto it pass Judgement on the thing in Question This therefore is the Rule of every Theological conclusion And so of Faith Corol. 1. Hence it will follow That not Tradition but the minde of God revealed in Scripture or Tradition is the Rule of Faith And indeed Tradition where it as certain as Mr. S. supposeth it would be the formal Object but not the Rule of Faith which two things are miserably confounded through the whole Series of my Friends Discourse

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