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
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
irreligion or any contrary Religion can pretend to and consequently I stand bound in Prudence to embrace it Obj But what is fallible may be false and if so you have no certainty that it will be true Answ What is fallible not because equally poysed betwixt truth and falshood but onely because not demonstrable by Mathematical mediums or because the contrary doth not imply a contradiction may yet be of sufficient certainty to produce assurance The judgement of sense cannot be proved infallible to the Sceptick he will argue from experience That it may once or twice deceive you and thence that 't is not absolutely impossible that it should frequently do so that it may deceive you for a minute and then ask what infallible assurance you can have that it cannot do so for five ten twenty minutes If you reply Your senses are infallible but with such limitations as having a due medium Organ distance and the like he will call for your infallible assurance that neither God nor the devil do at any time infect the Medium dis-tort the Eye alter the Species and the like Now tell me notwithstanding this denyal of the infallibility of Sense Whether we have any just temptation to question what we daily see and hear Whether he that walls in London streets may not be certain that he sees a Man or Woman and yet less reason had the Primitive Christians to distrust those Miracles which for some Hundreds of Years employed not onely their own Senses but the Eyes and Ears of all the World Again The testimony of ten yea of an hundred Men is fallible as we have seen already and hence 't is evident That the testimony of Two hundred yea a Thousand may be so for seeing all you adde is fallible their Testification most be so Tell me now Whether I have reason to distrust the Existence of such a Man as Alexander Mahomet or that the Alcoran was published by him if not What reason can I have to doubt of what 's delivered to me with greater evidence of general Tradition touching Scripture Christianity you see now what little ground of fear our Doctrine gives you that it might happen to be otherwise p. 196. because we dare not pretend infallibility even as little as you have to fear the constant Testimony of sense or your own sure footing And when you adde That 't is a damnable and diabolical Tyranny to oblige men to the hazards of falshoods in the matters of Faith and in the mean time profess our selves ignorant whether they be false or no. Answ True And 't is as great a falshood that we do so No Sir in matters Fundamental we profess as much assurance as Scripture and Tradition can afford in matters which admit not of the greatest Evidence we oblige not unto Faith but to Submission and Obedience and in neither do we profess what you so dis-ingeniously impose upon us That we are ignorant whether they be false or no. CAP. II. Of the Guide of Faith THat Reason still must be my guide after it hath brought me to my Rule of Faith Prop. 1. and were it otherwise since we have no express from the old Testament that Jesus of Nazareth or the Son of Joseph was to be the Saviour of the world why are we sent to Scripture to be convince of it Why is this word of Prophecy esteemed a surer evidence thereof then a voice from Heaven John 5.39 2 Pet. 1.17 Matt. 22.29 Luk. 24.25 Why doth our Saviour quarrel with the Jew for not concluding that from Scripture which was not to be found expressly there Or rebuke the slowness of his own Disciples to believe all the Prophets had delivered touching his Death his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory When visibly they could not do it without comparing circumstances and using a long train of inferences Why lastly are the Beraeans so much commended for their search of Scripture Judgement of Pauls Doctrine thence seeing his business was to prove that Christ must needs have suffered be raised from the dead that Jesus was the Christ Act. 17.3.11 should this way be rejected as fallacious and unsufficient to establish faith In vain must be Apollos wisdome endeavouring hence to convince the Jew that Jesus was the Christ Act. 18.22 And 't was their weakness to be over-powred by it whilst he produced no express from Scripture in vain did Peter attempt to prove the Resurrection of our Lord from that of David Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell Act. 2.27 and S. Paul to convince the Jew by Reasoning from Scripture Act 17.2 In vain did he compose his whole Epistle to the Hebrews so full of Rational deductions thence in a word to infer the unlawfulness of Divorce for any cause from that of Genesis They twain shall be one flesh of Corban from that of Moses Honor thy Father and thy Mother to infer the Lawfulness of plucking ears of corn upon the Saboth from Davids eating the Shew bread And lastly to conclude the Resurrection from that of Moses I am the God of Abraham must be according to the contrary Assertion to argue upon Grounds fallacious and to interpret Scripture against or else besides the tenour of the Churches voice Secondly If Reason may not be my Guide in these conclusions as well as others then 1. must not all Arguments produced by the Romanist against our Church or upon any other subject be pronounced null when bottomed only on the inferences of Humane Reason from the Rule of Faith and must not Vanity be writ upon the labours of their greatest Champions Must it not follow that no promise of the Scripture can administer comfort no threatning terror to the Soul that is not either expressly contained in it or otherwise ascertained and expounded to us from the Tradition of the Church And must not then the greatest part of Scripture-threatnings prove bruta fulina and its Promises be as unsignificative And thirdly might not Jew and Gentile Sadducy and Pharisy have still excepted against Christ his Apostles whose infallibility they little dreamt of for making faith depend on the fallacious deductions of their Reasons for moulding Scripture according to their Daedalean Phancies in opposition to the Churches living voice Had Mr S. been a Traditionary Catholick or which is much the same a Pharisee in those days he would have doubly schoold them 1. For chusing a wrong rule of Faith viz. Scripture so to avoid the Church and next for glossing it as seems best unto their Reasons and that in opposition to the Church who by her practical tradition must interpret Sure footing p. 193. Prop. 2. That to assert Reason as my Guide in matters of Faith is not to resolve Faith into humane Reason for Faith is properly resolved into its Principal efficient or formal object which is not Reason but to the Protestant Divine Veracity to the Catholick the Churches voice for aske the Protestant why he
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
otherwise men must renounce their reason reject the guidance of their conscience and so of Gods Vicegerent act in the concernments of their eternal souls at all adventures who shall pass judgement on the final and irrefragable judge thus Fiat lux Ep. 2. p. 198. Ans The Conscience being subject unto none but God who only knows the secrets of it he only can pass judgement of its actions and pretences and he assuredly will convince the Shismatick and Heretick t was not their Reason but their lusts that did betray them to such errors but the results of such a Judgement which interfere with the received doctrine or customes of the Church must so far be condemned and censured by the Superiors of the Church as they do interrupt the Peace and Unity thereof The Jews were bound to hearken to the Scribes and Pharisees the Sanhedrim and High-Priest and they had power to chastise their disobedience in lawful matters and yet I hope with that discretion which was requisite to preferve them from condemning our Messias for a cheat or for embracing those Traditions which did evacuate the Law of God for otherwise our Saviour was very much to blame when he so often taught the contrary and put in so many caveats against the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees Thus Rulers are appointed for a terror unto evil doers and an encouragement unto the Good and consequently must have surficient means to be instructed in that Good or evil which they are to reward or punish and power so to do and yet inferiors are forbid to yeild obedience to their unlawful precepts and in such cases are to prefer obedience to the Laws of God which must suppose a judgement of discretion in them to discern what precepts are unlawful and when they intersere with the unerring rule of Scripture so well consistent is the judgement of discretion we allow to private persons both with the power of Superiors and Peace and Unity of the Church Ob. But I denyed them to be judges of Faith Now to be clearly revealed or evident in Scripture and to be of Faith is all one so that they must not be judges of what is evident in Scripture least by necessary consequence they become judges of Faith too p. 195. Ans This Argument supposeth that to be judge of Faith and to be judge of what is Faith are terms equivalent which is a great mistake to judge what is Faith and what is evidently revealed in Scripture is the business of each Catechist and Preacher who declares the Articles of Faith of each believer who assents unto them because his judgement tels him they are such and therefore signally the work of them with whom this Faith is visibly intrusted but to be judge of Faith or to be that person or cōmunity whose judgment in such matters must be infallibly received without farther scrutiny is a prerogative as clearly incompetent to any person or community as it is vehemently pretended to 't was Sir upon this slender Cobweb your doughty inference did hang. Ob. 2. You refuse to admit them as Guides of their Faith which signifies they may have power to require our assents in matters in which they have no power to guide us i. e. they may have power to require us to go wrong for any thing we or they know p. 195. Ans Let me again inform you that to guid others in their faith or to it and to be guide of Faith are things extreamly differring whoever doth instruct his Brother in any matter of Faith or reclaim him from his Error becomes a charitative Guide unto Faith whoever by the Church is authorized so to do becomes an Authoritative Guide unto Faith but to be guide of Faith especially in that sence in which this phrase is taken in our present Controversie is to be such a one whose judgement must determine for us what is Faith what not and thus our Reason onely is our Guide in matters dubious Ob 3. But what can be replyed to a Socinian answering when his assent to the Trinity is required That he humbly submitted to Scrip. that he used al means he could but discovered it not so evident there as you conceive it Answ The very same you would return unto your Brother Carpocratian pretending as humble a submission to your Rule of Faith and yet concluding thence for Heresie or to the Protestant asserting Tradition where it may be had to be as Authentick as the written Word and yet protesting That after all means used he could never finde therein one footstep of the Romish Faith or lastly to the Arrian of old or new Photinian who both laid claim to the Tradition of the three first Centuries In a word the onely answer you can make to such Enquiries must be this That your appeal unto Tradition is both true and just so was not that of the Photmian or Carpocratian Heretick And surely then the like return of Protestants to the Socinian Quaker Independant when pretending the same reason for their separation from the Church of England which we do from that of Rome if founded upon real Truth must vindicate our Church from all your clamors Object But upon the same right and title that we separated from Rome did Independants Quakers c. depart from us for since they do it upon their own discretion and so upon our Principle to deny it to be done by them so justly or so truly is to do wickedly and talk fondly Fiat Lux Ep 2. p. 198 199. or which is trantamount to do and talk after the manner of fiat lux Answ As if not onely the Carpocration but the Jew and Heathen should be thought to act as justly and as truly as the best of Catholicks because as vehement Alsertors of the Traditions of their Fathers and all the Actions and Sentiments of Mankinde should carry equal Truth and Justice in them as being equally the products of what they looked on as reason and discretion Thus Saul the Persecutor must act as justly as Paul the Doctor of the Gentiles because according to his Conscience and the Catholick when Preaching to convert and practising to destroy his Prince must do both with equal Justice provided that his good intentions to propagate the Roman Faith be alike in both Prop 5. In matters which belong not to the Foundations of our Faith to be content with such submission as is consistent with a liberty of opinion and binds us onely to reserve our Judgements to our selves in what they differ from the professed Doctrine of the Church we live in seems most serviceable to the ends of Peace and Unity to the ends of Peace because it lesseneth the Objects and so withdraws the fewel of Contention of Unity because it much enlargeth the conditions of it and rendreth them such as may more easily be submitted to Coroll Hence 't is apparently most safe and prudent to be content with this submission as being most conducive to
That they should talk so much of the Catholick Church and not one title of its infallibility That in their descants on these Passages which are so often pleaded by the Romanist they should never intimate unto us that in the Judgement of the Catholick Church or at least their own they taught infallibility That the Nicene Fathers albeit they had so great occasion from the multiplying of Heresies to have insisted upon this so Fundamental Doctrine that each Mans Soul must bottom on it or be built upon the Sand should not onely wave the stating clearing confirming or the trying of it but compose a Creed and never mention it That the Catechumeni should never be taught this foundation of their Faith That it should never be required at Baptism That none of the Treatises ad Calechumenos Institutiones Mystagogice Enchiridia Doctrina Christianae None of the Treatises of the Church her self should once make mention of this great and principal Funamental is as if a Man should write of the chief Cities in England and leave out York and London or of the degrees of Hierarchy in the Church of Rome and leave out Pope and Cardinal lastly That whereas since the Usurpation of this Prerogative by the Church of Rome there have been hundreds of Disputes touching the subject of its infallibility whether Christ were here or there without determining of which to affirme in gross the Churches infallibility is to leave us perfectly in a maze say just nothing that not any of those disputes should ever be started nor any thing resolved upon These are things morally impossible and consequently this pretended infallibility must be so this being so 't is superfluous to refute the pretence of a General Council to it for besides what already hath been said can it be that what 's so necessary to the welfare to the Church should by an all-wise God be left at infinite uncertainties A general Council is infallible say they provided that it be legitimately called that the members of it be legitimate that they be legally elected and in due number from every part and portion of the Church that being thus convened they vote freely and without constraint and packing after due Means of Study Prayer and fasting used provided lastly that the decree conciliarly have these decrees confirmed by the Pope and accepted by the Church diffused if one of these conditions be wanting to the greatest Councils they take liberty to reject them yet who knows not what animosities and feuds there are in the now present Church of Rome and much more in the Church of God touching the greater part of Councils styled Oeconomical whether all these conditions have been punctually observed by them in the whole and each particular Decree how more then probable it is that like uncertainties should arise touching the definitions of future Councils how impossible it is for any but especially for persons illiterate far removed from the place of their Convention to attain to any tolerable satisfaction in all these particulars This objection is by the wiser sort of Papists handsomely passed over as knowing it to be unanswerable but Fiat Lux hath ignorance enough to warrant his attempts upon it which are these 1. That we may as well except against the obliging power of the decrees and Acts of King and Parliament and say is that power in the King alone or in the Parliament what if they run counter what if they should not be rightly Chosen p. 190. Ans But dares he say that one of these particulars are undetermined by our Law Dares he avouch that the obliging power of our Acts of Parliaments depends on such a multitude of things of which no tolerable assurance can be had If so he evidently stands guilty not only of Rebellion but justifies the late Phanatick assuring him that he may safely question and oppose the power both of King and Parliament as depending on some hundreds of uncertainties as hotly contested and as unresolved by the Lawyers of the Land as the forementioned Decrees of Councils are in the Church of Rome If not how gross most his impertinence and folly be in bringing such comparisons which both his conscience and his reason tell him are vastly different from what his adversary produceth And yet secondly who knows not that a less degree of certainty may suffice in civil then in sacred matters But secondly he takes Sanctuary in Titulus colovatus and moral evidence and tels us that if this suffice not we can be sure of no Authority either Spiritual or Civil in this world ibid. Ans And is this that Fiat Lux who writ a pamphlet of infallibility Made it so necessary for the Churches welfare that without it nothing can hang firm nor Christ be just p. 5 6. had he not provided such assurance for our faith to build upon is he now content to sit down with Titulus Coloratus moral evidence And to confess that Catholick Faith and the Authority of the Church depends upon so many and such various conditions for which they do pretend but moral evidence Is not this moral evidence the very thing at which the Romanist doth so much quarrel in the resolution of our Faith And must it now become the refuge of those very men who do so vehemently cry out against it in the Protestant See here the triumph and the Victory of Truth which forceth her professed adversaries to agnize and own her though to the ruine of their cause and credit and yet manifest it is that few of the particulars objected will admit of moral evidence or any tollerable degree of probability Corol. 1. Hence see the excellency of our Churches method for peace and unity beyond what Rome can boast of seeing then only she require our assent when the revelation is so clear and palpable that he who runs may read it and when the thing is such as hath the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World handed down from the Apostles to this present age and acknowledged to be such by Catholicks themselves And in other things rests contented with that submission which is consistent with mens liberty of conscience and each mans duty to afford her whereas Rome doth not only bind the conscience to what 's unnecessary unheard of in the Churches Creeds till now of late and so obscure as to be matter of contest through the Christian world but doth all this upon pretence of that infallibility woh were it only questionable must subject us to the peril of embracing the most destructive errors for divinest truths without all hopes of a redress dispose us unto Atheisme and irreligion by making all our Faith and piety depend on what is disputable and lay us open to continnal fears and jealousies doubts and uncertainties Schisms and dissentions about the rule and foundation of our Faith but being evidently false must be most certainly productive of these fatal consequences and yet we must be