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
Dr. Stillingfleet's ANSWER TO J. S's Catholick Letters Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Discourse Concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Cerrainty of Faith c. Jan. 5. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuariensi a Sacris A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nature and Grounds OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH IN ANSWER To J. S. his Catholick Letters By EDW. STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THe Title of Catholick Letters Examin'd Page 1 How J. S. comes to be concerned in this Debate 3 His Doctrine denied to be Catholick by the Sorbon Doctors and others 5 His Self-Contradiction about it in seven Particulars 7 The State of the present Controversie about the Certainty of Faith 15 How it is altered by J. S. 25 Of the Certainty of Particular Points of Faith 27 The Grounds of the Certainty of Faith laid down by the General Consent of the School-Divines 31 J. S's main Argument against our Certainty of Faith Answer'd and Retorted 34 An Evident Proof of the Certainty of Faith without Infallibility 37 The Notion of a Rule of Faith Explained 38 The Sense of Tradition may be mistaken as well as Scripture 43 The Instances of it defended 44 The Second Argument about Fallible Certainty Answer'd 49 The Third about our Rule of Faith being common to all Heresies Answer'd 50 The Fourth about making our Private Judgment our Rule Answer'd 53 The Fifth about Judgment of Discretion Consider'd and Answer'd 54 How far the Scripture is a Rule to our People 55 What Certainty they have as to things necessary to Salvation 61 What Judgment of Discretion allowed by him 62 That it doth not serve only to find an Infallible Authority proved at large 64 His severe Conclusion of his Third Letter Answer'd 69 The Answer to the Argument summ'd up 71 The Sixth Argument about the Apostles not using a Written Rule in their Preaching Answer'd 73 The Seventh about Points necessary to Salvation Answer'd 74 The Similitude of the Purse defended 76 Scripture owned to be a Rule of Faith though not complete by the Divines of the Church of Rome 78 And that all Points simply necessary are therein contained 81 J. S. his Concession that all Points are not necessary to all Persons 83 Some Mens Vncertainty overthrows not the Certainty of Others 85 The Eighth Argument about the Certainty of the Letter of Scripture 86 J. S. overthrows it by allowing it to be corrected by the Sense of the Faithful 87 The Grounds of our Certainty laid down 89 Of Human and Divine Faith 91 The Last Argument about the Number of Canonical Books Answer'd 92 No Books of the New Testament lost 93 How the Canon was entire in the First Ages 95 Of the Vniversal Consent of all Christian Churches 97 The Demonstration for Oral Tradition laid down 100 The Instance of the Greek Church not Answer'd 101 The Argument it self consider'd 104 A clear and distinct Answer given to it and its notorious Fallacy laid open 105 How Errors might come into the Church 109 The late Instance of Molinos produced 109 110 Many other Causes of Errors besides Forgetfulness and Malice set down ibid. The Charge of Pelagianism defended against J. S. 113 Of the Council of Trents Proceeding on Tradition 115 The Proof that it did not referr'd to another Discourse 116 ERRATA PAge 16. line 9. for as Mr. G. read as Mr. S. p. 32. Marg. for 9.6 times r. q. for 19.9 r. 1 2. q. ibid. Marg. l. 9. for the 2 d. 13. r. A. 10. p. 62. l. 23. r. and how far and. p. 105. l. 15. blot out not before really l. 16. add not after are A DISCOURSE Concerning the NATURE GROUNDS OF THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH c. WHEN I published my Two Letters to Mr. G. I had good Reason to expect an Answer from him who began the Controversie But it seems he had better Reason to forbear and it is not hard to guess at it and I am turned over to one who pretends to write Catholick Letters against me I have a great and just Reverence for some Catholick Epistles and believe them written by an Infallible Spirit but for these Catholick Letters though their whole design be Infallibility yet I cannot find so much as a fair Probability in them But why must these be call'd Catholick Letters Are they written by some Catholick Bishop to give an Account of his Faith according to the Custom of the Antient Church Is it that the Doctrine contained in them is undoubtedly Catholick So far from it that I shall make it appear that no one Church of the Christian World ever own'd it But suppose it had been the Doctrine of the Roman Church how could this make them Catholick Letters unless so great a Logician had first proved that a Part may assume the Denomination of the whole But then why not Roman Catholick Letters according to the new Style There was a Reason for this J. S. hath not forgotten how hardly he had lately escaped Censure at Rome for the Principles contained in them and therefore though he hopes they may pass for Catholick here yet he durst not joyn Roman to Catholick in the Title of his Letters But how comes J. S. to be concerned in this Controversie with Mr. G. The Account he gives of it in the beginning of his First Letter is very pleasant He saith He accepted a Commission from Mr. G. to hold his Cards while he is not in Circumstances to play out his Game himself I will not examine Mr. G's Circumstances nor the Game he plays at but methinks this is no very decent way of expressing the undertaking a Debate about Matters of Faith and Salvation But in Truth he makes the business of Infallibility as he handles it to be a Matter of Sport and Diversion notwithstanding all his Grimaces and Tragical Expressions about it It is hard to be severe upon a Metaphor but suppose it be allowed yet I wonder of all Men he should pitch upon J. S. to hold his Cards for him who had plaid his own so ill and so much to the dissatisfaction of the leading Men of his own Church Yet he now appears as brisk and confident as if he were some New Gamester although he produces his old sullied Cards a little wiped over again and seems to have forgotten the Answer to his Sure Footing and the Accompt he still owes to the World for it I know not how far it agrees with the Laws of Ecclesiastical Chivalry for one who hath not defended himself to appear a Champion for another especially in the same Cause but there is no great Reason to apprehend he should do much for another who hath done next to nothing for himself The main Subject of the Debate is about the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith and the Method I think most natural and effectual to proceed in
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
was a great variety as to others is evident to any one who will compare the Ancient Creeds as I have lately shewed And these main Articles are those which Aquinas calls the prima Credibilia which are therefore revealed because necessary to be believed by all that hope for Salvation by Jesus Christ. II. There are other Points of Faith which are only necessary to be believed because they are so clearly revealed As that Cajaphas was High Priest when Christ suffer'd that there were two Malefactors who suffer'd with him that he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's Sepulchre no Man who believes the Scripture can doubt of these things and yet we do not make these Points of Faith in themselves necessary because they have no immediate Reference to Salvation which might have been as effectually carried on if there had been another High Priest or Christ had lain in another Sepulchre But in these Points there is an absolute Certainty from the unquestionable Evidence of their being contained in Scripture III. There are doctrinal points not necessary to Salvation about which some may attain to a greater Degree of Certainty than others And the same Measure is not required of all Because Mens Capacities are not equal if they do use equal Diligence and all are not obliged to the same Degrees of Diligence that some are As to the Points necessary to Salvation God is not wanting by his Grace to make them known to Men of honest and sincere Minds And this is no peculiar Doctrine of mine as J. S. would insinuate but it hath been the constant Doctrine of their most Learned and Judicious School-Divines as is evident from what they speak of the Donum Intellectus and the Lumen Fidei which secure Men from Errour in what concerns their Salvation If he hath therefore such an Inveterate Spleen against this Doctrine let him attaque the greatest Divines of the Church of Rome who have in terms asserted the same which I have done And I would fain see J. S. demonstrating against Aquinas and all his followers That there is no such Security from Errour in Points necessary to Salvation where ever God bestows true Grace As to Points not necessary to Salvation I do not affirm there is any such Ground of Absolute Certainty as to particular Persons who are only concerned as to their own Salvation And that was the Reason of my Answer to the fourth Question The Universal Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the Book of Scripture and the Doctrine contained therein is a sufficient Ground to make us certain of all Matters necessary to our Salvation But of this more afterwards It is sufficient here to observe that even in the Church of Rome there are Points of Doctrine which are not de Fide and consequently the Certainty of Faith is not required to them And then it is most unreasonable to require the Absolute Certainty of Faith in those things which we deny to be Points of Faith. It is as if we should ask them what Absolute Certainty of Faith they have as to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the B. Virgin or the Popes Infallibility they would tell us these are no Points of Faith with them and therefore it is unreasonable to ask after the Absolute Certainty of Faith where there is no Faith pretended The same we say in the like Case It is very absurd to demand of us the Absolute Certainty of our Faith in such things wherein we never pretend to a Certainty of Faith but of common Sense and Reason proceeding according to the Rule of Scripture As if Men impose false and absurd Doctrines upon us as Transubstantiation c. we insist upon the Common Right of Mankind not to be required to believe Contradictions and the Right of Christians not to believe what hath neither Scripture nor Reason nor Tradition for it And these are the Grounds on which we reject the Additional Creed of Pius the Fourth We make them no Points of Faith at all and if others do make them so we desire to be excused because it is as certain to us they are not so as we can be of Negatives And farther than this we go not in such Points and if this be what he means by Protestant Faith he hath my Answer IV. The General Reason of the Certainty of Faith in Particular Persons is not from Conclusive Evidence as to the Points of Faith but from some higher Cause And this Mr. S. ought to know hath been the constant Doctrine of the Schools ever since Divinity hath been brought into them I except only one Franciscus de Marchia who required conclusive Evidence to the Certainty of Faith but he is disputed against by Gregorius Ariminensis and he saith His Doctrine was condemned by the Faculty of Paris and Gregory de Valentia speaks of him with great Contempt for holding so absurd a Doctrine The Certainty of Faith is declared by the Antient School-men to be above Opinion and below Science by which they understood the Intrinsic Grounds on which Truth is built which Mr. S. makes necessary to the Profession of it Hugo de Sancto Victore saith That the highest Certainty of Faith is owing to a Pious and pure Disposition of the Mind and an immediate Divine Influence Petrus Pictaviensis That it lies not in Evidence but Adherence Guliel Parisiensis proves Conclusive Evidence repugnant to Faith in a long Discourse Gul. Antissiodorensis thinks rational Evidence good to support and defend the Faith and to prepare men for it But that the Certainty of it lies not in Speculation but in an Adherence of the Mind to the Prime Verity Alex. Alensis saith likewise its Certainty doth not lie in Speculation but in inward Affection and Adherence there is he saith an inferiour sort of Acquisite Faith which relies on Reasons and Testimonies but this he saith is meerly Natural and Preparatory to Divine Faith. Bonaventure saith the Certainty of Adherence is beyond that of Speculation because a Martyr may have doubts and yet die for his Faith. Thomas Aquinas thinks those that go about to bring Demonstrations for Faith expose it to the Scorn and Reproach of Infidels and he resolves the inward Certainty of Faith into Divine Illumination when the Objection was put That Matters of Faith could not be resolved into first Principles Which Mr. S. hath so long and so vainly pretended to Henricus Gandavensis saith There is a Certainty of Adherence in the habit of Faith and that the Evidence of Credibility falls much short of that of Science and he makes Scripture the Rule whereby we are to judge of the Doctrine of the present Church and of all Ages succeeding the Apostles Scotus distinguisheth between Acquisite and Human Faith and Divine or Infused Faith but he denies any Infallibility to belong to the former Durandus denies Faith to be consistent with Conclusive Evidence and that the Motives of
And then my Answer lies in these things I. That the Scripture is a certain Rule of Faith as to all Points necessary to Salvation to all such as make use of it as such and do not through their own fault make a wrong Application thereof II. That the Scripture was not designed for a Certain Rule as to Vnnecessary Opinions and therefore Mens not arriving at a Certainty in them doth not hinder its being a Rule of Faith. III. That Scripture being our Rule of Faith we are bound to reject all pretended Articles of Faith which cannot with Certainty be proved from the Sense of Scripture And so the Proof of Certainty lies upon those who affirm such Articles of Faith and not upon us who deny them This Argument is Mr. S's Goliah and now it is no wonder if his lesser Men at Arms soon quit the Field But I must take some notice of them lest they be magnified by being slighted His next Argument is That I contradict myself I hope I have in the beginning made him unwilling to repeat such a Charge against me till he hath cleared himself But wherein is it In another place he saith I deny any Absolute Certainty as to Tradition attesting the Books of Scripture which in the Conference I asserted I have looked in the Place he refers to and there I find nothing like it I deny the Necessity of any Infallible Society of Men either to Attest or Explain the Scripture Where by an Infallible Society of Men I mean such as have a Divine Assistance to that purpose And what is this to the Absolute Certainty we have of the Books of Scripture by Vniversal Tradition But he urges it further If this Society be not Infallible then it is Fallible and if it be Fallible then we cannot be more than fallibly Certain and so we can have no absolute Certainty from a Fallible Testimony This is the whole force of what he saith To which I Answer I. I understand no such thing as Infallibility in Mankind but by immediate Divine Assistance I grant that the Holy Spirit may where he pleases preserve the Minds of Men from any possibility of mistake as to those things wherein it doth inlighten them but set aside this there is no such thing as Infallibility the utmost is a rational Certainty built on clear and convincing Motives Where the Motives are meerly probable there may be Opinion but no Certainty where the Evidence is thought so strong as to determine Assent there is a Certainty as to the Mind as when we commonly say we are certain of such things we mean no more than that we firmly believe them but when the Evidence is the highest which in point of Reason the thing is capable of then there is that which I call Absolute Certainty i. e. such as depends not meerly on the Assent of the Mind but the Evidence which justifies that Assent II If by being fallibly Certain he means any Suspicion that notwithstanding such Evidence in all its Circumstances I may be deceived then I utterly deny it for otherwise I could not be absolutely Certain but if he means only that there is no Divine Infallibility and I know no other then I own that there is still human Fallibility consistent with this Absolute Certainty But Mr. S. will have Absolute Certainty to be Infallible If nothing will satisfie him but Human i. e. fallible Infallibility much good may it do him but I much rather chuse proper Terms which I know the certain meaning of than improper though they make a far greater Noise I do own an Absolute Certainty in some Acts of the Mind by inward Perception as that I think I doubt and that I am I do own an Absolute Certainty as to common Objects of Sense and as to some Deductions of Reason I do own an Absolute Certainty as to some Matters of Fact by a Concurrence of Circumstances but for all that I do not account Human Nature Infallible nor this an Infallible Certainty unless it be taken in another Sense than Divines take it in For even the Divines of the Church of Rome as well as Ours make a difference between a Human and Acquisite Certainty and that which is Divine and Infallible And if Mr. S. by Divine means Human and by Infallible no more than Certain he must not think he hath gained any great matter when he hath made use of Words in an improper and unusual Sense III. His next Argument is That our Rule of Faith is common to all the Heresies in the World which pretend Scripture as well as we This is just the Old Sceptical Argument against Certainty if there be any such thing as Certainty you must assign such a Criterion which is not common to Truth and Falshood but if you cannot assign any such Mark of Truth which may not as well agree to what is False then there is no such thing as Certainty to be had In Matters of this nature the Proof must not lie in generals but we must come to particulars to shew the Grounds of our Certainty viz. as to the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ and then if we cannot shew why we believe those Points and reject the opposite Heresies as Arianism Sabellianism Eutychianism c. then we are to be blamed for want of Certainty in these Points but not before But this he saith is to make Light and Darkness very consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends It seems then there is no difference to be found by the Rule of Scripture between the Doctrine of Christ and the Devil Is this in Truth your avowed Principle Do you in earnest believe the Scripture to be such a Chaos where there is no difference of Light and Darkness and that nothing but Confusion can be found in it And we cannot tell by it whether we are to Worship God or the Devil If Mr. S. grants that there is enough in Scripture to distinguish these two then it is a Rule so far as to put a difference between Light and Darkness between Christ and Belial and so these Expressions must be disowned as little less than Blasphemous for all his pitiful Defence of them in his Second Letter which is That he never said that Christ and Belial could be reconciled or advanced any Position that implied it But he said That to make Scripture our Rule is to make Light and Darkness consistent and Christ and Belial very good Friends And is not this Blasphemy against Scripture and implies that if we go by that Rule only they may be very good Friends How can this be unless he asserts that by Scripture alone we can find no certain difference between Light and Darkness between Christ and Belial Let Mr. S. Answer to this and not think to escape with such a poor Evasion If he owns the Scripture a Certain Rule as to the difference of Christ and Belial and Light and Darkness then we have gained thus
what Sense I took it and could I answer him more directly than to tell him I took it in the largest Sense as it was made up of all the Parts and not in such a Sense as they do who give the Denomination of the Whole to a Part But by this I do not seclude all Hereticks I do not take upon me to judge of all the Bodies of Christians in the World whether they be justly charged with Heresie or not but I take them only as Christians and from their Universal Consent I prove the Certainty of the Canon of Scripture Hereby I profess a Brotherhood with Excrementitious Outcasts I know not what Brotherhood lies in making use of their Testimony but I had rather do it than with unsufferable Pride and Folly call so many Bodies of Christians for whom Christ died Excrementitious Outcasts But although he seems to own that their Testimony doth strengthen the Evidence for the Canon of the New Testament yet he calls it back again and for extraordinary Reasons 1. They may have corrupted the Letter of Scripture although they may allow of the Books Let us then take their Testimony for the Books and examine the Letter afterwards 2. This Vniversal Testimony must reach to each Chapter and Verse but we must have Assurance not only of each Verse but of each significant Word in the Verse How hardly are some Men satisfied about the Certainty of Scripture Are there not different Copies in all Parts to examin and compare if there be cause of Mistrust and if there be none What Prejudice is this to our Certainty At this rate Men may argue against every thing and that there can be no Certainty of any Writing unless the Person stood by and saw the Author write and even then he might question his Senses too These Objections do indeed lead to an Incurable Scepticism in the Church of Rome 3. The Judges suspect the Justness of the Cause if known Knights of the Post are called in to corroborate the Evidence What a desperate Cause is that which forces Men to fling such Dirt in the Face of so many Christian Churches And that without the least Evidence or Proof against them How come all the Greek Abyssine Coptick Oriental Christians to be compared to Knights of the Post because they afford a Concurrent Testimony with us about the Canon of the New Testament They may be the honestest and best Part of Christendom for any thing J. S. knows and what Justice can there be in such Uncharitable Censures It is not enough for you to say They are all accounted Hereticks or Schismaticks by you for we that know how unjust and unreasonable your Censures are so near home have no Cause to regard them at such a distance Thus I have Answered all the Objections I have met with in J. S. against our Rule of Faith. I now come to the last part of my Task which is to examin the Arguments produced to prove the Infallibility of Oral and Practical Tradition The main Argument is thus set down by Mr. S. All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour and if they follow this Rule they can never err in Faith and therefore are Infallible And they could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice after it All the Parts of this Argument Mr. S. endeavours to shew to be Self-evident but in truth it is a Self-evident Fallacy as I shall shew at large But before I particularly lay it open I must consider what he saith against the Method I used in the Conference for answering it I then thought and do still that the clearest Answer to an Argument which proves a thing impossible was to bring an undeniable Instance that such a thing really was which was proved impossible to be And to this purpose I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which professed to follow Tradition and yet they could not deny to have erred This Mr. S. saith Is giving no Answer at all for this is no Answer to his Argument but producing a new Argument against him And he magisterially tells me That it is my turn to answer and therefore I am confined to Concedo Nego or Distinguo as the Propositions are either true false or ambiguous or I may deny the Inference if I find more terms in the Conclusion than in the Premisses But these are my Bounds which I must not exceed But with submission to these Logicians I answer That where an Argument is designed to prove a thing impossible which is contrary to Sense and Experience the producing an evident Instance is the plainest and shortest way of Answering as well as in an Induction which is allowed to be disproved by a plain Instance As in the Case of Zeno's Argument against Motion Diogenes his Moving was a far more effectual Answer than if he had stood a great while with his Concedo Nego and Distinguo J. S. confesses That the vanity of Zeno 's Argument was not ill ridiculed by Diogenes his moving before him And why might not I then expose the vanity of this Demonstration by the Instance of the Greek Church unless some fault be found in the Instance He brings the Argument and I an Instance against it what are People the wiser and which shall they be for the Argument or the Instance Zeno brought his Argument and Diogenes his Instance were not By-standers the wiser when it so apparently proved the foppery of the Argument Doth J. S. think the vanity of it was not enough exposed by that means But he saith This is excepting against the Conclusion when there lies none against the Premisses No such Matter for it shews there is a Fallacy in the Premisses It is however but an Argument ad hominem call it what you will so it doth my business to shew the vanity of the Demonstration This way doth but sham an Adversary And truly that is a great matter if they be such as P.G. They are of no use for discovery of Truth As much as laying open Sophistry helps to the discovery of Truth which is not a little when we deal with Sophistical Disputers But we come to the Instance How doth he after all clear this Instance of the Greek Church Doth he deny that they hold to Tradition No. Doth he deny that they have erred notwithstanding All that he saith is That P. G. was no ways obliged not to deny that the Greek Church had erred in Points of Faith. No then he must grant that the Roman Church hath erred for they contradict each other Let him take his choice one doth my business as well as the other and more effectually destroys the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church But I say they did not err What is my saying to the business in hand Besides there are