is I. To shew how unfit J. S. of all Men is to undertake this Cause II. To settle the true State of the Controversie between us III. To examine the Reasons he produces against our Grounds of Certainty IV. To lay open the weakness of his Arguments on behalf of the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition I. As to J. S. his appearing in this Cause again we are to consider that in his Catholick Letters he frequently owns Faith vindicated Reason against Raillery and Errour nonplust and even Sure Footing it self But I shall now shew that he disowned the main Principles in those Books when he was in great danger of being Censured at Rome for them and therefore is not to be allow'd to produce them again The Account of this Matter will give great Light into the state of the present Controversie and is therefore necessary to be premised to it Out of those Books of J. S. a considerable Person in the Church of Rome selected three Propositions about the Grounds of his Infallible Certainty which were these I. That he who is obliged to profess Faith propositions true must see the Connexion between their Terms and consequently that they cannot be unconnected or false II. If the two Terms be not seen to be connected these Propositions may nay ought to be denyed by the Respondent whose Office and Right it is to grant nothing but what is evident lest he ensnare himself III. 'T is requisite and necessary that the Assent of Faith in divers particular Believers be formally Infallible or that those Persons be infallibly certain by evident Reasons that the Authority or Rule of Faith they rely on cannot herein deceive them Else great Wits and acute Reflecters whose piercing Vnderstandings require convictive Grounds for their Faith would remain for ever unsatisfied nor would the wisest Christians sincerely and heartily assent to nor with honesty profess the Truth of their Faith nor could any prove it true or establish rational doubters in it or convert Men of exact knowledge to it or convince Hereticks calling the Truth of it in question Nor could Governors and leading Persons with any Conscience or Credit propose and preach the Truth of Faith to the Generality These Propositions were tender'd to two Doctors of the Sorbon who declared The First could not be explained in a Catholick Sense and therefore very unfit for Catholick Letters For if say they a Person sees the Connexion between the Terms it would be Science and not Faith it is enough to see them not to be contradictory or that the Connexion is not repugnant to Reason Divine Faith is above not contrary to Reason As to the Second they agreed That neither could that be explained in a Catholick Sense because it is destructive of Faith and a Proposition ought not cannot be denied although the Respondent hath not Evidence of the Terms of which it consists when he otherwise knows the Church which Faith not Demonstration teaches to be Infallible in Matters of Faith to propose as a Truth revealed by God. To the Third they say That it cannot be explained in a Catholick Sense Because it is sufficient that the Church be believed by Faith to be Infallible and it is not requisite that the Infallibility of the Church be proved by evident Reason See here the main Design of his Catholick Letters declared to be no Catholick Doctrine which is to prove that there must be Infallible Certainty by Conclusive Evidence of the Churches Infallibility And if this be not Catholick Doctrine I am infallibly certain his Letters are far from being Catholick in their Sense One of these Doctors writes to the A. B. of D. That the Natural Sense of the Propositions could not be Catholick and that all Bishops were bound to suppress this Doctrine lest it did mischief to the Flock of Christ. And that the A. B. of Paris would revoke his Licence if the Author did not retract them as he hoped he would What Retract the Substance of his Catholick Letters Is this possible And yet again publish the same Doctrine as Catholick This is indeed very surprising But so it was For the A. B. of D. averrs That J. S. confessed the Propositions to be Heretical yea very Heretical but he said they were not taken in his sense which the other said was a ridiculous Plea. He granted that J. S. might contradict himself but there was no colour for saying the Propositions were not taken in their true sense And Mr. S. being requir'd by the A. B. of Paris to Anathematize these Propositions and to subscribe to the Censure that they could not be explained in a Catholick Sense he did it And yet the sense of them is maintained by him in his Catholick Letters Is not such a Man fit to hold the Cards for Mr. G. who makes the same Doctrine to be Heretical and Catholick as his Circumstances require And in his own Language he goes backwards and forwards blows and sups declares for and against the same Principles This Doctrine of J. S. was complained of at Rome and a Congregation of Cardinals was appointed to Examine it and they sent their Instructions about it to the Popes Nuncio at Paris where J. S. then was And therein they took notice that in his Vindication sent to them he detested that Doctrine as Heretical viz. that the Evidence of the Connexion of Predicate and Subject and the Evidence of the Rule of Faith by which the Believer may be infallibly certain he cannot be deceived is necessary in order to Faith. I desire the Reader to mark this Declaration which J. S. sent to Rome and to compare it with the Doctrine of his Catholick Letters But of that hereafter But it is worth our while to shew with what a double Face I. S. appeared in his Vindication and Complaint sent to Rome and in his Books which he published here And by that the Reader may judge of the Catholick Sincerity of the Writer of these Letters I. About the Faith he designs to demonstrate Faith Vindicated Preface I declare then that my chief End in this Treatise is to settle Christian Faith or to demonstrate that it must be truly or absolutely certain and that my applying it now and then to my Opposers is only a Secondary Intention and meerly Occasional Querimonia advers Lominum p. 49. He saith He speaks not of Faith in itself but as it is controverted among us The same he affirms p. 145 146. that he meddles not with Faith but with respect to his Adversaries or as it is disputed between Catholicks and those he calls Hereticks p. 148. If it were his design to settle Christian Faith and to make it truely and absolutely certain and only secondarily applying it to his Opposers how is it possible that at the same time he should not meddle with Faith in itself but meerly with respect to his Opposers Is not this a
brave Undertaker to make Faith infallibly certain who so evidently contradicts himself as to his own design But it seems to us he must pretend to make Faith certain in itself but at Rome he meant no more by it but only to perplex and confound us As though his Demonstrations were only intended for a sort of Metaphysical Traps to catch Hereticks with But we are glad to see by his own Confession that Faith in itself is not made absolutely Certain by them II. About the Objects of Faith and the Evidence of them Reason against Raillery pag. 55. The strangest and wisest Souls are unapt to assent but upon Evidence Hence unless such Men see Proofs absolutely concluding those Points true they are unapt to be drawn to yield to them and embrace them as certain Truths Nothing can rationally subdue the Faculty of suspending in such Men at least but True Evidence had from the Object working this clear sight in them either by itself or by Effects or Causes necessarily connected with it Other Evidences I know none Faith Vindicated p. 12 13. The Truth of Propositions of Faith consists in the Connexion of those Notions which make the Subject and Predicate Whoever therefore sees not the Connexion between those Notions in the Principle of Faith sees not the Truth of any of those Propositions It follows that he who is obliged to profess Faith-Propositions true must see the Connexion between those Terms In his Declaration sent to Rome p. 11 13. he not only expressed his Assent to these Propositions but That the contrary to them were False Destructive of Faith and Heretical viz. I. That the Objects of Faith are not to be evident or demonstrable by Natural Reasons in order to believing them II. That in order to the believing such Objects of Faith conveyed down to us either by Scripture or Tradition it is not necessary to know evidently the Connexion of Predicate and Subject but it is sufficient if they be proposed by the Catholick Church Now let any Man try how he can reconcile these things 1 Nothing can subdue rationally the Faculty of suspending but true Evidence had from the Object and yet it is destructive to Faith and Heretical to say that the Objects of Faith are demonstrable by natural Reasons in order to believing them Is not true Evidence from the Object a natural Reason in order to believing 2 He that sees not the Connexion between Predicate and Subject sees not the Truth of Faith-propositions and he who is obliged to profess them must see it and yet in order to believing Objects of Faith it is not necessary to see it nay it is Heretical to assert it III. About Infallible Assent Reason against Raillery p. 113. 'T is most evident therefore and demonstrable that there is no Certainty but where there is Infallibility and that we can never be said to be truly certain of any thing till all Circumstances consider'd we see ourselves out of possibility of being deceived hic nunc in that very thing In his Declaration p. 11 13. he owns this Proposition to be True and the contrary to be Heretical viz. That it is not necessary in order to believing the Objects of Faith that he that believes should know evidently his Assent to be Supernatural and Infallible But if there can be no Certainty of Faith till we see ourselves out of possibility of being deceived I should think it very hard to say it was Heretical to assert it was necessary for him that believes to know his Assent to be Infallible For what difference is there between knowing we cannot be deceived in our Assent and that it is Infallible But here he will hope to escape by joyning Supernatural to Infallible and so he over-reached the Cardinals by putting those together for his is nothing but a pure Natural Infallibility IV. About the Mediums of Faith used by him Sure footing p. 172. He rejects Extrinsecal Mediums as insufficient and requires Intrinsecal Faith Vindicated Preface at the end He owns his Discourses to be built on Intrinsecal Mediums Errour Nonplust p. 169. He requires clear Evidence from the Object to ground a firm Assent Page 170 171. He makes it necessary to true Certainty that it be taken from the Thing or Object And true Certainty he saith is built on the Things being as it is and nothing can ever be truly known to be otherwise than it is In his Subscription to the Instructions from Rome p. 12. he denies that he spake of Intrinsecal Requisites to Faith but only of Extrinsecal And this he goes about to prove against his own plain Words in his Declaration Sect. 3. pag. 34 c. How can Intrinsecal Mediums and Evidence from the Object be only Extrinsecal Pre-requisites V. About Human and Divine Faith. Faith Vindicated p. 73. Divine Faith ought to have a far greater degree of Firmness in it than any Human Faith whatsoever Wherefore since Human Faith can rise to that degree of stability Divine Faith being Supernatural ought to be more firmly grounded and consequently more highly impossible to be false Errour Nonplust p. 143. He speaks expresly of Divine Faith. In his Vindication p. 97. He saith It is Evident that he spake of Faith formally as Human and not as formally Divine What Evidence can there be like a Man's plain Words Is not that Divine Faith which he goes about to demonstrate the Infallible Certainty of It seems we are all this while to seek for the Certainty of Faith formally Divine and all this mighty Noise about the Necessity of Infallibility reaches no farther than a Faith formally Human. And yet J. S. affirms that he undertook to prove the impossibility of Falshood in Divine and Supernatural Faith. And so it seems Divine and Supernatural Faith must derive its Infallible Certainty from a meer Natural Infallibility Or if it be but Human Faith he means then he falls short of what he promised which was to shew the Infallible Certainty of Divine Faith. And thus the Trap-Maker is catch'd himself VI. About particular Points of Faith. Errour Nonplust p. 161. I thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith. What we are then in Reason to expect from Dr. St. is that he would bring us Grounds for the Certainty of his Faith as to determinate Points viz. Christ's Godhead a Trinity c. Reason against Raillery p. 167. Seeing then Christians are bound to profess their Faith true as to those Points of a Trinity for Example or Incarnation c. it follows that it must be affirm'd and held that a Trinity or Incarnation absolutely is and consequently that it is impossible not to be Declaration p. 50. He peremptorily asserts and challenges his Adversaries to shew the contrary that he produced not one Argument to prove any Points of Doctrine to be Divine or Supernatural but only that such a Doctrine was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And this he frequently insists upon and is the
up with all its due formalities of Major Minor and Conclusion Must I be forced to tell him as the Painters did by ill Pictures This is a Horse and this a Wolf This is an Argument and this an Answer It is a hard Case if a Man cannot understand Reason unless like Scaliger's Jests against Cardan there be something in the Margin to direct where they are to be found All Men of Sense understand the force of an Argument though it be not dressed up after the way of the Schools and to tye Men up to those Methods of Reasoning in our Age in Books of Controversie is like Trammelling a Horse when he is to go a Journey it might do well to teach him to pace but it would be ridiculous when he is upon Service Upon this he runs out into a very Eloquent piece of Trifling making sad Moans and Complaints with many Exaggerations and great variety of Phrases As if I offer'd no kind of Certainty to Mens Souls but only that I bid those that doubt prove the contrary and so brings notable parallels of Peters having twenty pounds in his Purse because Paul cannot prove he hath it not or his having the more Title to an Estate because an Adversary may have the ill luck to be Nonsuited I know not how Mr. G. will take these things for they do not seem much to his Advantage If I were as he I would never trust him to play my Cards more for what means this insinuation of Nonsuiting c But Mr. S. is plainly mistaken for the force of it doth not depend upon his bare Nonsuiting but upon the Goodness of the Deeds and the Strength of the Evidence which himself relied upon and appear much stronger for us than for him It is not Pauls not proving but Peters producing the twenty pounds and laying it before him which is the Argument to prove he hath it Suppose he did not produce it in Specie but shewed good Security for it such as Paul could not deny had he not reason to believe he was owner of it There being so little colour in the Reasoning Part I pass over the Declamatory as fitter for the School at the Savoy than a Writer of Controversies But here comes in among his Flowers a very notable Point of Divinity Truth is therefore Truth because it is built on Intrinsecal Grounds which prove it to be such and not on private Mens Abilities or their saying this or that This latter is undoubtedly true and is universally believed since the School of Pythagoras was broken up Wherefore till those Grounds be produced it cannot be with Reason held Truth This is great and becoming the Scientifical I. S. But will he hold to this Will he own it to the Cardinals of the Inquisition I find a certain Gentleman with the very fame Letters J. S. writing two whole Sections wherein he denies that ever he medled with Intrinsic Mediums or that it was possible that he should But P. T. was then living and followed him close at Rome now that fright is over out come Intrinsic Grounds again and no Man can hold any thing as Truth till those Grounds be produced Suppose a Man assents to the Doctrine of Faith as True and Divine on meerly Extrinsecal Grounds or Motives of Credibility hath this Man true Faith or not Is he bound to hold and profess it to be true though he doth not see the Intrinsecal Grounds which prove Truth to be Truth Doth that Man sin who professes to believe a thing to be true though he doth not see the Intrinsic Grounds for it What kind of sin is it Mortal or Venial How far may a Man safely deny that which he cannot with Reason hold to be true How many thousand Martyrs Lives might this Doctrine have saved in the Primitive Times How might the poor Innocent Christians have pleaded for themselves That they could see no Intrinsic Grounds which made Truth to be Truth and they understood from a deep Divine that till those Grounds be produced it cannot with Reason be held Truth and if it cannot with Reason be held it may surely in our very hard Circumstances with Reason be denied or at least concealed and dissembled There seems to be more danger in professing the Faith without it than in not owning it being not able to produce Intrinsic Grounds for it And these are far above our reach and capacity and if it cannot with Reason be held Truth without it it seems very unreasonable to require us to dye for it What saith J. S. to the Case of the Jews who heard our Saviours Doctrine and saw his Miracles did they sin in their Infidelity or not It will be very hard for him prove that they saw Intrinsic Grounds for what they were required to believe and yet our Saviour charges them with very great Sin in their Infidelity I hope Mr. S. will not answer me about these things as he did some in the Conference at Paris with Tace Tace interrumpis confundis me This very Instance of the Jews was then brought against him by Dr. G. and he said That only those Jews sinned who had clear Evidence that Christs Miracles were true and Supernatural But A. B. of D. then urged That if they had such Evidence they could not have inward Vnbelief nor call in Question the Truth or Divinity of Christ and his Miracles To which J. S. replied Tace nolo tibi Respondere I hope he is better provided of an Answer now and that he will shew wherein the sin of the Jews lay who did not profess Christ's Doctrine to be true because they could not produce any Intrinsic Grounds for the Truth of it But to return to our first Controversie About the Certainty of Faith to be proved by us He tells me that I know well enough that to prove Protestants have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith is no hard Task even for a weak Man I know he saith that any Man may find it confessed to his hands by Protestants and in the Margin he cites Dr. Tillotsons Rule of Faith pag. 117 118. I wonder at Mr. S's Courage that he dares mention that Book to which he hath so many years been indebted for an Answer and what he hath offer'd towards it in Faith Vindicated and Reason against Raillery he hath again retracted as to the main Principles of them for fear of a Censure at Rome and which he advanced out of opposition to those of that Book which he quotes here So that J. S. by disowning those Principles of his hath justified Dr. T. and hath overthrown the Absolute Certainty of his own Faith. For I have already proved from his own words That he owns Moral Evidence to be absolutely sufficient for Faith and yet this is the very thing from whence he proves that Protestants have confessed that they have no Absolute Certainty of their Faith. But if this Matter were to be decided
Certain to those who use it aright although it be very possible for Men through their own Faults to mistake about it And this is no way disagreeing to the infinite Wisdom of God who deals with us as with Rational Creatures and hath put Faculties into us that we might use them in order to the Certainty of our Faith. And such Moral Qualifications are required in the New Testament in order to the Discerning the Doctrine of it as Humility of Mind Purity of Heart Prayer to God Sincere Endeavour to do the Will of God that it would be very repugnant to the Design of it to suppose that the Letter of Scripture alone would give a Man immediate and certain Directions in all Matters of Doctrine being applied to it Therefore an easie Answer is to be given to Mr. S's great Difficulty viz. How the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight For we say that the Sense truly drawn from the Scripture can never fail to be true but we do not say that every Man must draw the True Sense from the Scripture for although the Scripture be an Infallible Rule yet unless every Man that makes use of it be Infallible he may mistake in the Application of it And this to me is so clear that to make an Infallible Rule in his Sense he must make every Person that uses it Infallible or else he may err in the Application of it But the Right Way saith Mr. S. will certainly bring a Man to his Journeys End and the way must needs be a wrong way if it do it not The Right way will certainly bring them to their Journeys end if they continue in it but here we must consider what is meant by the Journeys End. If by it be understood their Salvation then we say that those who do their utmost endeavours to keep in that way shall not fail of their Journeys End. But if by it be understood the Certain Truth or Falshood of every Opinion tried by the Scripture then I answer that although the Sense of Scripture be infallibly true yet it was not designed as an Infallible Way for us to know the Truth and Falshood of all particular Opinions by For as Mr. S. well observes Salvation is that which chiefly imports us and it was for that End the Doctrine of Christ is made known to us and it is an Infallible Way to it if Men continue therein but for judging the Truth or Falshood of Opinions without respect to Salvation as the End it was not intended as an Infallible Way to every one that makes use of it and therefore it is easie for Men to mistake in judging by it of things it was not design'd for As if a Man designed to observe all the old Roman Cities and Stations here and were told the old Roman Way would be a Certain Way to lead him to them with the help of the Roman Itinerary if that Man objects that this will not do for he cannot find out all the Modern Towns and Villages by this Means is it not a just and reasonable Answer to say that is a most Certain way which leads a Man to that which it was design'd for and the Roman way was only intended for Roman Foundations but it is very unreasonable to find fault with it because it doth not lead you to all Modern Towns and Villages So say I here the Scripture was designed by Divine Wisdom to make us Wise to Salvation and thither it will infallibly lead us if we keep to it but if besides this we would know by it such things as are not necessary to Salvation we blame it for that which was not in the Original Intention and Design of it For when we make use of it to be our Rule of Judgment meerly as to Truth and Falshood of things not necessary to Salvation it is not because it was designed for that End but because it is of Divine Revelation and so is the surest Standard of Divine Truth and we are sure there is no other Rule for us to judge besides From whence we may and ought to reject any Points of Faith imposed upon us which are neither contained in Scripture nor can be proved from it And so it is our positive Rule of Faith as to all Necessary Articles and our Negative Rule as to all pretended Points of Faith which are not proved from thence II. I answer that this Method of Mr. S. will overthrow the Possibility of any Rule of Faith because none can be assigned which it is not possible for Men to misapprehend and to mistake about it Let us at present suppose Mr. S. to substitute his Rule of Faith in stead of Scripture viz. Oral and Practical Tradition Why may not Men mistake the Sense of Tradition as well as the Sense of Scripture Is Tradition more Infallible in it self Is it deliver'd by Persons more Infallible Doth it make those to whom it is delivered Infallible Why then may not those who deliver it and those who receive it both be mistaken about it This I had mention'd in my second Letter that it was very possible to mistake the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and I instanced in that of Christ's being the Son of God where the Traditionary Words may be kept and yet an Heretical Sense may be contained under them Mr. S. answers That the Sense of the Words and all the rest of Christ's Doctrine is convey'd down by Tradition This is bravely said if it could be made out and would presently put an End to all Disputes For if all the Doctrine of Christ be derived down to us in such a manner that we cannot mistake the Sense of it we must be all agreed whether we will or not For how can we disagree if we cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition Not while we hold to Tradition Then it seems it is possible not to hold to Tradition and if so we have found a terrible flaw in Human Nature that will let in Errors in abundance viz. that it may grosly err about the Rule of Faith yea so far as to Renounce it But how is this possible if the Sense of Tradition be infallibly convey'd For is not Traditions being the Rule of Faith any part of it We must in Reason suppose this And if we do so how can Persons Renounce its being the Rule while they cannot but believe its being the Rule If Men may mistake about Traditions being the Rule of Faith why may we not suppose they may as well mistake about any Points convey'd by it For the greatest Security lying in the Rule there must be more Care taken about that than about the Points convey'd by it But let us see how he proves that Men cannot mistake the Sense of Tradition in Particular Points The force of what he saith is That Men were always Men and Christians were always Christians and