Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59220
|
Errour non-plust, or, Dr. Stillingfleet shown to be the man of no principles with an essay how discourses concerning Catholick grounds bear the highest evidence.
|
Sergeant, John, 1622-1707.
|
1673
(1673)
|
Wing S2565; ESTC R18785
|
126,507
|
288
|
such Firm and Evident Grounds But I presume I have already perform'd this in my Sure-footing and its Corollaries as also in Faith Vindicated and its Inferences and if it shall appear needfull or be requir'd of me by Learned Men it may perhaps hereafter be brought into a closer and more rigorous Form Yet that it may be seen how easily our Discourses concerning the Certainty and Ground of Faith are resolvable into Evident Principles I shall annex for an Instance a small Peace of mine whiâ—h though it was never pretended to be a severe Process by way of Principles but only meant for a connected Discourse yet I doubt not but I shall show that each main Ioynt of it where it speaks assertively has a Firm and Evident Principle at the Bottom giving it Stability and Evidence and through vertue of these Qualifications rendering it Solidly and Absolutely Convictiveâ— THE METHOD To Arrive at SATISFACTION IN RELIGION 1. SInce all Superstructures mnâ—t needs be weak whose foundation is not surely laid He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion ought to begin with searching out and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built that is the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd and on which their Certainty as to us depends 2. To do this 't is to be consider'd that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful and Faithful are those who have true Faith Wherefore till it be known which is the true Faith it cannot be known which is the true Church Again A Council is a Representative A Father an Eminent Member of the Church and a Witness of her Doctrin Wherefore till it be known which is the true Church it cannot be known which is a Council or who a Father Lastly Since we cannot know which is Scripture but by the Testimony of those who recommend it And of Hereticks we can have no security that they have not corrupted it in favour of their false Tenets neither can we be secure which is Scripture till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful on whose Testimony we may safely rely in this affair 3. Wherefore he who sincerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some assured Means or Rule by which he may be secured which is true Faith For till this be done He cannot be secure either of Scripture Church Council or Father but having once done this is in a ready way to Judge certainly of all Whereas if he begin with any of the other or indeed argue from them at all till the Rule of Faith be first settled he takes a wrong Method and breaks the Laws of discourse by beginning with what is less cortain and indeed to him as yet uncertain and in effect puts the Conclusion before the Premisses unless he argue Ad Hominem or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary which is a good way to Confute but not to Satisfie 4. And because the Rule of Faith must be known before Faith can be known and Faith before Scripture Church Councils and Fathers it appears that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite for every one who needs Faith is not capable to reade and understand Books There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry And since People of all Capacities are to be saved much sharpness and depth of wit will not be requisite but plain Nâ—tural Reason rightly directed will suffice 5. This being so the Method of seeking satisfaction in Religion is become strangely both more short and easie For here will need no tedious turning over Libraries nor learning Languages nor endless comparing voluminous Quotations nor so much as the skill to read English all being reduc'd to the considering one single Point but such an one as bears all along with it and this too comprehensible as will appear to a mean understanding Again the large debating particular Points in a controversiall way is by this means avoided For when the Right Rule of Faith is certainly known then as certainly as there is any faith in the world all that is received on that Rule is certain and of faith Not but that 't is of excellent use too to cherish and strengthen the faith especially of Young Believers by shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles and recorded expresly in or deduced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books 6. Lastly This Method is particularly suitable to the Nature of sincere Inquirers who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency and be aw'd by any Authority whatever before that Authority be made out cannot but remain unsatisfy'd and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of unbyast Reason Whereas when the Authority is once made evident Reason will clearly inform them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it 7. But how will it appear that 't is so easily determinable by common Reason which is the right Rule of Faith Very evidently But first we must observe the Assent called Faith depends upon two Propositions What God hath said is true and God hath said this out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion that this or that in particular is true Of these two we are concerned only in the later For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith is not a Task for those who own Christianity But all we have to do is to finde out What God hath said or which in our case is all one What Christ has taught and that whatever it be which acqnaints us with this we call THE RVLE OF FAITH as that which Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine or the Principles of Religion Now I affirm iâ— may be obvious Reason be discover'd which this Rule is and that by looking into the Nature of it or considering what kinde of thing it ought to be which is no more than attentively to reflect what is meant by those two ordinary words RULE FAITH 8. And both of them acquaint us that the Rule of Faith must be the means to assure us infallibly what Christ taught For in case a Rule though we apply it to our power and swerve not from it leave us still deceivable in those points in which it should regulate us we need another Rule to secure us that we be not actually deceiv'd and so this other and not the former is our Rule Next Faith speaking of Christian Faith differs â—rom Opinion in this that Opinion may be false but Faith cannot Wherefore the Rule of faith both as 't is a Rule and as it grounds Faith doubly involves Infallibility in its Notion 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Phanaticism there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith see to which of them this
different degrees of Evidence and measure of Divine Assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and Common Helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of Certainty from the Convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of the Scriptures that on the same Ground on which men doubt of the Truth of them they may as well doubt of the Truth of those things which they judge to be most Evident to Sence Reason I wish D. S. had explain'd himself here what he means by different degrees of Evidence whether some Glances or likely Appearances of Truth call'd greater or lesser Probabilities or such Intelleâ—tual Sights at the least of them discovers the thâ—ng thâ—â— evidenc't to â—e be indeed so or True I suspect much he means the former because thâ—se are the most proper Grounds for Fallible Certainty which he is now going to establish whereas the Latter sort of Evidences would hazard to carry too far and to beget Infallible Certainty which would quite spoil his most excellent design of setling the Fallible Certainty of Faith for those Evidences which show the thing to be True show it at the same time to be Impossible to be False whence 't is a thousand to one that such Evidences as these would utterly destroy his beloved Fallible Certainty and endanger to introduce again by necessary and enforcing consequence that Popish Doctrine of Infallibility which he had newly discarded When he adds that every Christian may by the means here assigned attain to so great a degree of Certainty c. I had thought he had meant Certainty of the Points of his Faith but my hopes were much defeated when coming to the Point he flyes off to his Christians not doubting the Truth of the convincing Arguments of Christian Religion and of the Authority of the Scriptures For this is far wide of our purpose and his Promise which was to reduce the Faith of Protestants to Principles whereas these words signify no more but not to doubt of Christianity being the True Religion or Scriptures being God's word but reaches not to what are those points of Christianity or determinate sense of Scripture in particular which constitutes Protestantism and only concerns our debate Now 't is evident that the Roman-Catholicks profess not to doubt of the convincing Grounds of Christianity nor yet of Scripture but to hold that Christianity is the only-Trâ—e Religion and that the Scriptures are Holy and God's word and yet we differ so much from Protestants that he thinks us Idolaters 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 God-head a Trinity Reality or not-Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and such like and those so certain as that we may as well doubt of what we judge to be most evident to sense and Reason as doubt of them as he here pretends and not put us off with Common words in stead of particular Satisfaction concerning his Faith and the Certainty thereof I would ask him then how it comes to pass that the Socinian whom he will not deny to have both use of his reason and common helps of Grace and both the convincing Arguments of the Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures to make use of how I say he comes so to fall short of Evidence and consequently Certainty springing from that evidence concerning Christ's God-Head which is a Fundamental Point of Christian Faith that he doubts it nay utterly denies it whereas yet the Protestant having the same means to work with judges he has evidence and Certainty grounded on that evidence that Christ is God yet all this while they dissent not at all in things most evident to Sense or Reason I much fear our Drs. big words concerning his degrees of Evidence and the Certainty of his Faith built on those degrees will when examin'd amount to a very obscure evidence and a Problematical kind of Assuredness much like those comfortable lights which both parties have when they lay even wagers at Cock-fighting such games giving good hopes to both sides but good Security to neither But so it ought to be if the Grounds of Faith be not Infallibly but only Fallibly-Certain which is all he is bent to prove 25. No man who firmly Assents to any thing as True can at the same time entertain any suspicion of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing It is therefore absurd to say that these who are Certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be False which is an apparent Contradiction and overthrows any Faculty in us of judging of Truth and Falshood This Principle and the next were I conceive intended to preserve the Dr's and his Friends Credit against the Inference at the end of Faith vindicated and diverse other Passages shewing them either to be far from good Christians in holding that all Christian Faith may possibly be an Errour and Lying Imposture or else very bad Discoursers of their own Thoughts whilst they equivalently exprest themselves in divers places to be possibly in an Errour in all they believe nay more all Christians in the whole world to be in the same condition This if justified cannot but reflect on them being so concerning a Lapse and I have at Dr. St's brisk instigation charg'd it home in Reason against Raillery though I still expres't my self to incline to the more Civil and more Charitable side and rather lay the blame on their Understandings then on their Wills and Intentions Which Book had Dr. St. seen when he writ this he would have discern'd the triflingness of these weak excuses But let 's see what he says His Firâ—t part is built on a most gross and senseless Errour which is that he who firmly assents to a thing as True is Certain of it as appears by those words for this were to make him Certain and Vncertain of the same thing I wonder exceedingly where the Dr. â—earn't this notion of Certainty Not from Mankinde I am sure at least not from those who had the use of their Reason For all these already know it to be Evident that a man may firmly assent to a thing as True and yet that thing be False must that man therefore be Certain of that Falshood and that it is though in reality it be not We experience that opposite parties firmly assent to contrary Tenets as True for example the Socinians firmly assent that Christ is not God We and the Protestants that Christ is God Catholicks assent firmly that they are not Idolaters when they make use of Holy Images in Divine Worship D. St. firmly assents they are at least he would perswade his 〈◊〉 by his Books he does so Are all these opposite sides Certain of their several Tenets because each side firmly assents to them as True