this Principle of Dr. Sherlock be reasonable the Jews ought when he disputed in their Synagouge not to have stirr'd an inch not to have hearkened to him till he had disowned infallibility In the Defence the Honest Footman is ashamed of so unchristian a Principle and would disown it saying That it appears plain and natural to him that he may submit his judgment to an Infallible Judge and yet the Church of Rome may not be that Judge true but this is contrary to Dr. Sherlock's Principle For how long is the Protestant not to stir an inch till the Catholic hath proved his Churches infallibility There would have been some common sense and reason in that Advice but not so says Dr. Sherlock but till he disowns infallibility 'T is as evident then as Noon-day-light that Dr. Sherlock lookt upon infallibility pretended unto as inconsistent with disputing and pretending by reason to convince an other of the truth and that consequently he takes the Jews's part against St. Paul. The Footman Mistook here his Masters Errant Preservative fol. 6. Dr. Sherlock asks this Question What difference is there betwixt mens using their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants I answered the same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicin As between two at Law the one whereof is guided by his Reason to take Advice from a wise Counsellor the other to be his own Council c. The Doctor 's second Answers by this Question And is not here private Judgment used all this while A shrewd Question indeed Dr. Sherlock had asked what difference there was in these two uses of private Judgment I produce the difference then as if the Question had been forgot still says the Footman there is use made of private Judgment it were as nice a Reply had one asked what difference is there betwixt an Ounce of Gold and an Ounce of Silver if when the different value is express'd he should wisely return this answer why there is still an Ounce in both cases Is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in choosing his way and him who chooses a good Guide and follows him because both choose do both equally rely on their fancy What Position can more abuse common sense Certainly the Ingenious and Learned Gentlemen of the Temple cannot but smile at this strange way of Reasoning in their Master so different from theirs Preservative fol. 9. They cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so I Replyed that the sense takes its Authority from God who spake the Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is guided in delivering to us both the Letter and Sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with Her for ever according to Christs promise Joh. 14. 16. I added that if John and William dispute which is the right way to a place John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the Reasons he uses from an infallible Guide This was plain and full what answers the Doctor 's second He cites some Catholic Divines how truly it belongs not to my present purpose saying that the words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholic Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the Letter of Scripture Let it be so but what follows here But the necessity of an unerring Interpreter So that Text 1 Joh. 5. 7 8. There be three which give Testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be one and there be three which give testimony on Earth the Spirit Water and Blood and these three be one in the sense the Church hath ever received it in proves the strict Unity of God in the Trinity of Persons The Arians gave it a contrary and as natural a sense doth this prove that we follow not Scripture and this very Text in our belief of the Holy Trinity Once more I appeal to the Learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will join with me maintaining against their Master that all the Judges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their Interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it The Preservative fol. 11. moves this Question Must the belief of an infallible Judge be resolved into every mans private judgment Must it not be believed with a Divine Faith and can there be a Divine Faith without an infallible Judge I gave this answer There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation nor a prudent one without a Moral evidence in the Motives of Credibility on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it The judgment being possess'd with that Moral infallibility rests not there but observing that goodness and mercy of God which cannot permit that falshood should be propounded in his Name with all the apparent marks of his Hand and Seal and without any like appearance on the Contrary inclined by a pious motion of the Will called by the famous Council of Orange affectio credibilitatis and strengthen'd by that Grace of God which bestows the Gift of Faith fastens on Gods Veracity and with a submission not capable of any doubt embraces the revealed truth If the infallibility of the Church were more than Morally evident it were impossible that any Heresy should be To this the Second of Dr. Sherlock hath nothing to oppose and is willing to submit if I can shew a Revelation that there is an infallible visible Church I will comply with so reasonable a demand and since not one in a thousand of those who oppose our Doctrin in this fundamental Point which once being cleared bears away all disputes understands what that infallibility means on which we ground the admirable certainty of each Point of our Belief give me leave Sir to be somwhat more prolix on this Subject than the narrow compass of a Letter would otherwise allow What is and whence proceeds this infallibility Many do suppose and object unto us that we hold a Man or many to be infallible in themselves a Title to which God alone can lay a Claim who only as he is truth so he is alone infallible They wilfully suppose that we place this infallibility in the sense and judgment of men so that whatever by their own Light they resolve and order must infallibly be true and just that such may frame new Articles
of Faith and a new Religion or at least Phanatick-like by Enthusiasms and new marvelous Revelations make new additions to our Faith so that we may have daily a different one their Votaries like a blind Herd being driven now to one Opinion then to another yet still supposing themselves infallibly right all this is a monstruous misrepresentation without one word of truth but men who themselves follow a lawless fancy and loose liberty must thus disfigure that admirable Guide which God hath left us otherwise they would soon be without any followers this account I shall deliver here of the infallible Guide which Catholics follow the Church of God will I am sure represent her in very different because in her true proper Colours Our Guide then is the Catholic Church either diffusive in its whole extent or representative in its Head and Bishops the Pope and a General Council for as in the State here in England we have a Common Law and a Statute Law the first not compiled by any one Lawgiver but delivered by all the Judges and Sages of the Law and preserved in all Courts and the daily use of the whole Kingdom the second delivered particularly by the Kingdoms Great Representative in its Head and Members the King and lawfully convened Parliaments So in the Church there is a general Faith first received from Christ and his Apostles and preserved by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses and in the mind and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholic Church and when any difficulty arises by the opposition of new Heresies then the Church Representative the Pope and a General Council or Synod of the ablest and Holiest Bishops of the Catholic Church deliver their Sentence in favour of the ancient Truth ever followed in the Church which Decisions or Canons are like our Statute Law only declaring and applying to particular instances the Common Law or Belief of the Church We hold that this general Faith received from the Apostles and preserved in all the Members of the Catholic Church explained upon occasion by the Church Representative is infallibly true and this is all the infallibility the Catholic Church pretends unto neither the whole Church nor any person or persons in it are held to possess any intrinsick infallibility which we own to be proper to God alone Nay no man in this present state or condition of life as our Divines observe can be in himself impeccable or infallible all are of themselves subject to Error Scotus in 2. diff 2 3. Q. as well as to sin and whatever God doth in favour of his Church doth no more alter her defectibility than a strong man lifting up a great weight with a Child takes away the natural weakness of the Child which remains still the same though the weight not moveable to the Child be in effect drawn or lifted up Hence Rufinus observes that we do not say in our Creed I believe in the Holy Catholic Church as we say I believe in God the Father In Jesus Christ In the Holy Ghost By that Preposition that syllable in we separate the Creator from his Creatures Divine help from In Symb. art Eccless S. Cat. Hac prepositionis syllaba Creator a Creaturis secernitur divina humanis separantur Humane means but we say of these humane means appointed by Almighty God that although they be fallible and exposed to error in their own nature yet by Gods appointment and Grace they will prove infallible as to us and certainly lead to the knowledge of truth We do not say that they cannot of themselves deceive us but that God according to his promise directing them by his infallible Spirit it cannot possibly happen that they should deceive us If then says S. Thomas our Creed as many understand it teaches us to believe in the Catholic Church this is the sence of it That is to say our Faith leans on the Holy Ghost and the meaning of these words are I believe in the Holy Ghost who sanctifies the Hoc est intelligendum secundum quod fides nostra refertur in Spiritum sanctum Sanctificantem Ecclesiam holy Church and Guides her When God revealed to St. Paul that he should come to Rome and die there or to St. Peter that being grown old he should be Crucified were either of them immortal the one till he came to Rome the other till he became old not the least they were as srail as before as exposed to Diseases within as capable of being wounded and that mortally yet in a true sense they were immortal for that time because that by reason of the Revelation and protection of God it was impossible they should die before they came the one to Rome the other to old Age according to the Revelation Thus should God reveal to a Traveller in a wild Wilderness full of wild Beasts and beset by Thieves that he should pass certainly unhurt and not fall he nor those who follow him into the Hands of these or Claws of those this man would remain as weak as ignorant of the ways as exposed to danger as before yet would prove an infallible Guide to those who would follow him So supposing which I shall presently prove that God hath promised to the Catholic Church that his holy Spirit should guide her in all truth that she shall follow that true Guide and ever avoid falling into Error though each Member of the Church remain as fallible as weak as subject to Error as before yet it evidently follows that this Church will infallibly avoid all Errors never lead any of her followers into it and this is all we mean by the Churches infallibility A thing when thus rightly understood as clear as evident as certain as that God's Revelation cannot prove false as that the Holy Ghost and Christ himself who remains with the Teachers of this Church be in themselves infallible We do not expect any new Revelations or Lights we do not admit any new Article of Faith though where a doubt arises the Church hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles and Preached by them which perchance some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof and though when the sense of Scripture appears doubtful to some this Church can explain infallibly what the true sense and meaning is and deliver more explicitly what is implyed in the Word of Scripture for example if some doubts whether in the Mystery of our Lords Supper there be a true Change of the substance of Bread into that of the Body of our Lord. This Holy Church can declare that these plain words This is my Body do declare it and to avoid further mistake may give a new clearer Name to the old Mystery so revealed by Christ and Preached by the Apostles calling it Transubstantiation as She calls the Mystery of God one in Nature and three in Persons Holy Trinity a
about infallibility We have the concurrent testimony of all Churches that we have those Canonical Books But let us suppose a while that your Church were infallible what greater certainty for that is the point you know which the Doctor was upon have you of it than we have of any particular Point of Faith as for the certainty of Reason and Argument That we have and would fain see you shew more What we believe is according to Scripture and doth not Contradict either Sense or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge Answer Never was a starved Cause so pitifully defended No wonder a Footman only doth not blush to appear in its Defence the Learned and judicious Gentlemen of the Temple had each of them too much Honor Conscience and Wit and therefore none of them would Patronize so wretched a Cause and support such weak Contradictions as the Excellent Master of the Temple so the Preface-maker calls him had blundered out Pray Sir review this last Discourse blush that your License Authorises it and hereafter have some care of your Reputation and set not your Name to such Stuff This is the Case on one side there is supposed an Infallible Interpreter of the Christians great Law-Book for thus Dr. Sherlock states the Case on the other are some men far the greater part unlearned and weak who allow not any sense to this Book which seems to them to Contradict either their Sense or Reason or any other Principle of their Knowledge And I am asked whether I proceed more prudently in receiving the sense of the Law from that Interpreter which is actually supposed infallible or in proceeding by the second method Sir if you are so weak or wilful as not to declare that I have a greater certainty in submitting to that infallible Interpreter your Counsel is not worth the asking and I appeal to that of the judicious Gentlemen of the Temple But I must not omit the untruth couched in those words We have the Concurrent Testimony of all Churches that we have those Canonical Books For no part of the Catholic Church no part of the Greek Scismatic Churches own the same Canon of Scripture-Books which you do Preservative Ibid. In particular we are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture Answer fol. 5. If he means they have the same Proofs for this which Catholics have for the infallibility of the Church that is for the Continued Being of that Church which assures us that She is infallible in directing us for a Church Erring in so Fundamental a Point would cease to be the Church of Christ then it is evidently fase since each Christian in this Age hath the same Evidence of Her being the Church of Christ and of Her teaching all Truth and consequently of Her being as She declares infallible in thus teaching which he hath of Christ to wit the ancient Prophesies those of Christ himself his Miracles and the Miracles wrought in that Church according to the Promises of Christ besides the Conversion of Nations to Christianity c. These things Protestants do not so much as pretend unto as Proofs of their particular Sense in Interpreting Scripture Defence fol. 10. This is a pretty Conceit the infallibility of the Church that is to say the Being of the Church can't a Church be without being infallible We have heard much of Miracles but could never see any Answer Do you allow such Answers Sir that have so little of Sense and less of Piety Can a Church remain the Church of Christ and yet teach her self to be infallibly guided by the Spirit of Christ whil'st she is abandon'd to the Spirit of Error and that so far as Idolatry and the Evacuating of the Passion of Christ Are we come to own that Herod might well be excused from believing in Christ because he had heard much of his Miracles but could never see any Well Sir when you License such an other Discourse add to your Titles that of a Christian that we may think you are one Preservative fol. 23. If you must not use your Reason and private judgment then you must not by any Reasons be persuaded to condemn the use of Reason Answ f. 5. I never heard so much and so little of Reason All he says might with equal weight be said by a sick Man who dissuaded from choosing his own Remedies and desired to send for a skilful Doctor should answer ' T is impossible by Reason to persuade me not to use my Reason in governing my self by Reason as my own Reason teaches me which would be to Condemn Reason and yet be guided by your Reason or the Doctor 's Reason Such a Discourse would prove the Sick party at least somewhat light-headed What 't is a Symptom of in Dr. Sherlock I will not be positive Defence f. 11. Is this Sick Man persuaded to renounce his Reason or rather is it not that he should submit his judgment not renounce his Reason in that case to that Person whom he hath all the reason in the world to believe hath better knowledge and understanding of those things which are to be used for his recovery than himself And all this while methinks he is governed by Reason though he doth not think fit to trust his own skill But this bears no comparison Religion is or ought to be the Concern of all Answer The Footman prevaricates here or is ashamed of his Master 's gross Sophistry and will not stand by it 'T is Dr. Sherlock who pretends that a Catholic by following an infallible Guide renounces his Reason I contend that all the while he is governed by Reason and chiefly because that in a matter of that Concern he thinks not fit to trust his own skill which God hath as often declared to be too weak in any private person as he hath declared he would give to all such Pastors and Teachers as should guide them and Commanded each to repair to them to be guided by them But Religion is or ought to be the Concern of all a wise Observation So is or ought to be each ones health and the preservation of his life as therefore each one ought to advise with a good Doctor concerning his Health a good Lawyer for the preservation of his Fortune so and much more with a good Guide and since it can be had an infallible one for the securing of his Souls eternal happiness the Practice of Religion is the duty of all but the teaching it of those Doctors whom God hath appointed to that end as St. Paul teaches us Eph. 4. is not this Sir a most evident truth Preservative f. 25. Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve is such a plain and express Scripture that no reason can justifie the Worship of another Being Answ f. 6. A rare Consequence to Infer a Negative for an Affirmative Antecedent that bears no opposition with it 'T is like this a Subject must
with which these late Heresies are patch'd up But the last Defence brought for Dr. Sherlock is surprising and I could well quarrel with you Sir as a Christian for Licensing it What do you own that we only are to look on the Faith even as Preached by Christ as necessarily Infallible Is it no part of your Belief that you are any way concerned in that that certain Faith which Christ exacted from the Jews St. Paul from each Christian must of necessity be Infallible 'T is impossible by Reason to prove that Men must not make use Preservative of their own Reason and Judgment in Matters of Religion That Men must use Reason to come to this Knowledge that Answer Fol. 5. God hath revealed what they believe is very certain As the Jews Exod. 14. Crediderunt Domino Moysi servo ejus Did believe God and Moses his Servant As all Nations believed Christ and his Apostles So each Christian now believes Christ and his Church the first as Author the second as Witnesses Commission'd from God of their Faith being moved by the Proofs they offered of their Commission So far Judgment Thus the Apostles believed Christ teaching himself to be the Son of God their Judgment having first been convinced that God spoke by him which Method appears more particularly in the Man born blind whom Christ our Lord cured and who Nin̄ Dominus esset cum illo was thereby convinced that God was with him taught by him and in consequence to that Conviction having barely heard from Christ that he was the Son of God he fell prostrate and adored him not exacting any farther proof beyond his Word After a full conviction that God speaks by those who Preach to us there is no farther use of Reason if we believe St. Paul but in order to the bringing into captivity all Vnderstanding in obedience to Faith. 2 Cor. 10. Defence f. 7 8. If my Sense and Reason will serve me to find out an Infallible Church it is a little severe to renounce it when I come there The Apostles were as Infallible as the Church can pretend to be now yet 1 Epist John 4. 1. Believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits if they be of God. 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak to wise Men judge you what I say And Acts 17. 11. we have this particular Commendation of the Bereans that they were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what they heard were conformable thereto or no. Answer Do I renounce my Reason when I embrace what my Reason hath convinced me to be infallibly true Sure Sir you have too much Sense not to own this to be a sensless Position But let us apply it to another Case When a Protestant is convinced and that if you please infallibly that the Word of God in the Bible delivers a Truth and his Reason hath convinced him of it is he not to abandon whatever Reason can object against the Mystery If you say he is not then a Man may doubt of the truth of Gods Word A very Christian Protestant Principle If you say he is then 't is not severe but most reasonable to renounce Reason when it opposes it self to a Truth infallibly Preached and received from an Authority acknowledged Infallible As for the three Texts I have before shewed how the First is wrested from its plain natural Sense to the opposite The Third is against him for the Bereans received First the Word with all readiness of mind and then searched the Scriptures to see in them those Texts which the Apostles used to convince the stubborn and so do Catholics The Second is neither directly nor indirectly to the purpose For St. Paul having brought a Reason why they were to abstain from such Meat and Drink as was offered to Idols to wit that since they did partake of the true Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood they could no more use what was Sacrificed to Idols than serve at two opposite Altars and adore the true God and the false ones he asks them Whether this Reason is not convincing Now I would know whether a Supreme Judge much more an infallible one doth disclaim his own Power because he offers evident Reasons for the Sentence he gives and shews the Parties obstinacy that should refuse to submit to them As for those words As to wise Men I speak the honest Footman little understands the meaning of them it being the Language of the Primitive Church when any thing was touched concerning the great Sacrament of our Blessed Lord's Body and Blood not to publish that high Mystery but to refer to the private Instruction about it which was given after Baptism and never trusted to the Catechumens an evident Proof that in this Sacrament there was a high Mystery beyond the Faith in Christ our Redeemer as Saviour of the World and Food of our Souls by his Passion without which no one was admitted to Baptism Thus St. Augustin ever expressed himself in this Subject The Norunt fideles norunt qui Initiaati sunt In Ps 39. 33. Ps 109. Hom 42. c. 4. l. 50. Hom. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 9. Chrys Hom. 27. in Gen. Hom. 5. ad Antioch c. Faithful know what I mean those understand me that have been Christned Thus Origen and St. Chrysostom before him and St. Paul himself I speak to you more boldly of this Mystery as to the wiser and more fully taught Pray Sir leave off Licensing such wretched Trifles and such wonderful wrested Texts or never expect there should be any Answer returned to them tho' how far this Motive will prevail with you I have some small reason to doubt Preserv f. 21. We have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church First because we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Answer f. 5. This is the great Point indeed which if a Protestant loses he loses all For 't is certain and evident that the Catholic hath the same assurance for each Article of his Faith proposed by the Church which he hath of the Churches infallibility as I have the same certainty of all that my Friend says to me which I have that he speaks nothing but certain truth He proves it first because he is in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God Hitherto there holds some parity though but lame but suppose it were entire the Conclusion would be this Catholics are as certain of the sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the Letter whence it follows demonstratively that when Protestants differ in the sense from Catholics they have less assurance for it than Catholics who have always the same assurance for the sense as Protestants have for the Letter Defence f. 6. and 7. You are Judges in your own Case
kinds of Bread and Wine yet notwithstanding the Authority of the Sacred Canons the laudable and approved Custom of the Church hath observed and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after Supper nor Confici received by the Faithful not fasting but in case of sickness and such other necessity as the Canon Law and the Church admit or allow of And so this Custom to avoid some dangers and scandals hath been reasonably brought in that although this Sacrament in the Primitive Church was received by the Faithful under both kinds since that it should be received by those who Consecrate Priests in both kinds by the Laity only under the appearance of Bread. Because we are firmly to believe and in no way to doubt that the entire Body and Blood of Christ is truly contained as well under the species of Bread as under that of Wine Behold the Council declares that it owns it no part of the Institution that the Sacrament be taken under both kinds no more than that it be taken at Night after Supper c. All these being but Circumstances belonging to that Discipline which wholly depends on Church Authority and is alterable at any time when there is reason for it And indeed if this be a Crime which Protestants cannot be capable of how comes it to pass that your Congregations receive your Sacrament kneeling fasting in the Morning in the Church notwithstanding the Institution of Christ Own Sir own Candidly this insinuation to have been a Calumny Preservative f. 45. No Argument from the necessity of a thing must be admitted to prove it is V. G. 'T is proposed to You that If there be no infallible Judge there can be no certainty of Faith though it be true and you think it to be true you must not allow this Consequence therefore there is one such Arguments do not prove that there be such a Judge but that there Ought to be Answ f. 6. This is not only to mis-use human Reason but to deny Wisdom and Reason in God. Alphonsus the Royal Mathematician was ever look'd on as guilty of a horrid Blasphemy for having said That he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation 'T is one of as deep a die to think that God ought to have done what we believe he hath not done Defence f. 15. The Doctor says fol. 44. We should never admit any Arguments merely from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove it is Now the Answerer leaves out supposed and so makes that absolute which was conditional If I thought says Dr. Sherlock all this were true as I believe not a word of it is that if there be not an infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an infallible Judge Instituted by Christ But if you would have me conclude from these Premisses Ergo there is an infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must Conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so it self and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient and necessary c. And now I would fain know who it is that denies Wisdom and Reason in God. Answ It is a pleasant way of Answering in the Defence of a Person accused to have offended against the first Principles of Reason and Respect to say that he hath spoken wisely and dutifully elsewhere yet so Answers our Footman if it be an Answer meerly to add what is not blamed in an Author to what is blamed Dr. Sherlock says well in advising us to believe that not to be necessary which we know God hath not appointed therefore I did not touch or reflect on that saying but I say that the advice he gives to one who supposes there is a necessity of any thing towards the Eternal Salvation of Christians That tho' he believe it true yet he infers not Sure then God hath bestowed it Christ hath obtained it for us but rather God ought to have done it Christ ought to have obtained it but I do not therefore believe he hath This Advice I say is much more injurious to Gods Mercy and Wisdom than the Saying so much blamed by all Christians in Alphonsus the Salvation of Mankind being the ultimate Work of God towards his own Glory Whether this Charge be not just and Dr. Sherlock teach not this Doctrin in the words cited by the Answerer in the Case of one who supposes that there can be no certain Faith in a Christian and such a Faith Christ exacts in all by St. Paul and St. James c. without an infallible Guide and who believes it to be true I leave it Sir to your observation Principles of Dr. Sherlock which make void all Faith. SVppose the Protestant Faith uncertain how is the Preserv f. 79 80. Cause of the Church of Rome the better Is Thomas an honest Man because John is a Knave Answer If Thomas and John be accused severally of a Theft and the stoll'n Goods be found with John I conceive tho' this prove not Thomas so assuredly an honest Man yet an honest Jury would bring him in Not-guilty That there is a true Faith and consequently a certain Rule of Faith all Christians acknowledge Protestants on one side choose one Rule how differently soever they apply it Catholics another I conceive then that if the Protestant Rule be proved uncertain 't is plain the Catholic Rule must be the certain one Defence f. 17. You must first prove that 't is impossible for People to make to themselves two wrong Rules Answer I do not write against Dr. Sherlock's Errors but with this Supposition that he holds what generally is called if there be any such fixed thing the Doctrin of the Church Established by the Law in England I suppose he owns a Faith in Christ That this Faith ought to be firm certain not wavering for such is the Faith S. Peter and S. Paul require of us That this Faith altogether leans on Revelation That the Scriptures are the Word of God That if we understood the full extent of its true Sense and Meaning there would never be Error or Heresie amongst us Hitherto we agree Now the thing in question is by what Method we ought to come to that Knowledge as far as it is necessary to a Christian and I say that all the Methods are reduced to these two Heads That we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God hath revealed either by a Knowledge communicated to each of us or by a Knowledge communicated only to Guides apppointed to direct
infallible Person must know what he knows as it truly is but needs not see how or why it can be so Preservat f. 82. 'T is their common Argument That there is a great variety among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance Answer 'T is one of your usual Artifices to leave out always the pressing part of our Arguments you should have added Tho' they use the same Rule of Faith and apply it by the same Method Thus proposed 't is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith and evidently proves it uncertain Defence f. 19 20. Here the honest Footman sends me for an Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet and bids me try my Skill upon him Thus he delivers the Answer given to J. S. first Letter and applied to the present Case 't is divided into five Propositions which to avoid repeating I 'll set down with the following Answer Answer First Arithmetick says Dr. Stillingfleet prescribes a certain way by Addition and Substraction to find out any Sum. 'T is granted Secondly Therefore it must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the exact Sum. That 's true also Thirdly But two Men who have made use of the same way differ at least a Hundred in casting up the Sum. This is impossible if they both really made use of that way as the words of Dr. Stillingfleet express But 't is very possible if the meaning be one of them doth not know the Rules of Arithmetick but only thinks he knows them or both know well the Rule but one blundered and set down one Figure for another Fourthly Therefore they who take only that way cannot by it arrive at the certain Sum. This is evidently false and the contrary true to wit Therefore they who take precisely that way and not another for it erring in the Theory or the Practice cannot but arrive by it at the certain Sum. But this following Conclusion might have been drawn from the Third Proposition taken in its Second most improper Sense which Dr. Stillingfleet gives to it Therefore those who err in the Knowledge or miss in the Application of the Rule of Arithmetick tho' they believe never so much in their own Judgment that they know and use the Rule right tho' they have used their best Endeavors tho' they firmly believe they have cast the Sum right yet certainly they have missed and are in the wrong This is the Conclusion which the Dean of Pauls should have drawn and then he might have concluded Still the Rule is certain to those who use it right But is this the Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet's full Answer and that in Dr. Sherlock's Case Stupidity it self would not own it T is an evident Demonstration against Dr. Sherlock's Position and Dr. Stillingfleet's Tenet It proves evidently that altho' Scripture be as infallible a Truth and thereby a Rule of Truth for from Truth only Truth can follow as any Rule of Arithmetick Ex vero non nisi verum yet as in one Case if two casting up an Account by the same pretended Rule differ in the total Sum this following Principle would not only be false but also after such a trial most absurd and sensless Every one is bound in reason to believe the Account he hath cast up to be right if he hath a Book of Arithmetick by him hath read it believes he understands it and hath used his best Endeavors to follow it So is this like Principle which Dr. Sherlock and all his Party stand for If two Men have the Bible read it endeavor to understand it and believing they do draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions two opposite Articles of Faith both are bound to stand to their private Judgment and to believe themselves in the right tho' all the World should accuse one or both of them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one But let us suppose farther that an eminent Master of Arithmetick should shew to one of these Men where he erred against the true Rule of that Science where he misplaced a cypher otherwise than the Rule directs that this Man in lieu of submitting should appeal to his Book of Arithmetick by the which also the other teaches and the Dispute should be carried on by the one saying the Book teaches and directs thus whilst the other as sturdily pretended it teaches and directs otherwise In this Case were it a reasonable Principle Both must stand to their private Judgment in Interpreting of the Book and well they may for the Rule is certain which both follow Never did Man give a fairer and easier Victory to an Adversary than Dr. Stillingfleet doth to his by this Simile The dullest School-Boy will easily discern the Dean of Paul's patent Parallogism whereby he compares the written Word of God to the Rule it self of Arithmetick whereas the natural and only true Comparison is of the Book or Letter of Scripture with the Book of Arthmetick the true Sense of Scripture with the Rule of Arithmetick A Right-Line-Rule and a Square are the Rule of a Carpenter suppose a Carpenter had a bent and crooked Rule and that what he calls his Square opened at an acute or obtuse Angle this Man working by these would certainly make his Work wrong I ask you now where the Fault would be Certainly in his Rule in his supposed Square and Rule But is not a Carpenter's Rule exact Yes a Carpenter's but not this Carpenter's the Rule he pretends to follow is most Just the Rule which he actually follows is most false and erroneous And if many Carpenters pretending to work by a Right-Line and Square applying them the same way did all differ in the Irregularity of their Work it would be evident they had a false Rule for that 's ones Rule not that he pretends to have but what he actually works by Now to apply this to our Case The Word of God is not the Letter but the true Sense of the Bible for the knowledge of Scripture as St. Hierom observes consists not Scripturae non in legendo sed intelligendo consistant in the Reading but the Vnderstanding of it The Rule of Faith then is the Sense of the Letter of Scripture The pretended Rule is the true Sense of Scripture The real Rule that Christians use is that Sense of the Letter of Scripture by which they square their Faith for that is any ones real Rule by which he in reality acts The true Sense of Scripture is a certain Rule The Sense given to the Letter of Scripture is a most uncertain and frequently a wrong Rule The Rule Protestants pretend unto is a certain infallible Rule for Truth never misguides But their Rule of Faith is the Sense which each Man 's private Judgment gives to the Letter of Scripture for they square their Faith by it believe according to the same The Letter of Scripture is their Material Rule
directed to God and Christ from him only we expect the whole Mercy that must blot out our Sins and the whole Goodness that must make us Eternally happy Preservative f. 89. The Papist believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist Answ f. 8. This I call the most disingenuous Representation and the most false Calumny imaginable as a supposed and owned Truth to wit That Catholics Worship the visible Species in the Eucharist A most impudent slander no Catholic being guilty of it no more than the Apostles of Worshiping and Adoring the Cloths of Christ when they Adored him upon Earth Defence f. 21. There is no mention made of Species but the word is Sacrament Answ This is what I called disingenuity If he takes not Sacrament in the Catholic sense therein lies his fraud in Expounding by his opposite Principles our Actions and in the Catholic sense nothing hath a reference to his Accusation of a Breaden God but the visible Species of Bread. I concluded with this address to Protestants in Dr. Sherlocks words putting as I owned the word Scripture in the lieu of Fathers to shew that according to his very way of Reasoning the meer reading of Scripture could not serve for an useful Guide at least to the far greatest part of Protestants The Sentence is as follows Preservative f. 76. Amongst Christians there is not one in a hundred thousand who understands all Scripture and it is morally impossible they should and therefore there must be certainly an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generality of mankind even of profess'd Christians are out of possibility of Salvation Think well on it as you will answer at Gods Tribunal for the care you took of the one only necessary the saving of your Souls seek out that easier and shorter way and walk faithfully in it Defence f. 26 27. We do not only say but we find that Scripture in all points necessary to Salvation is plain and easie so that we may run and read 'T is true there are some Texts which we that are unlearned cannot readily find the true sense and meaning of but they are not such as immediatly concern Salvation and we are not destitute of helps as to these for we have learned and Religious Divines Answ Is it not pleasant to say that Scripture is plain and easie in all points necessary to Salvation and yet to see that those who use the same Method for the understanding of it differ as much as may be in the belief of these Points Is it not against plain Scripture to say that such Texts as the unlearned cannot readily find the sense of are not such as immediately concern Salvation whereas Scripture teaches us that there be Texts which the unlearned wrest to their own perdition Well I am weary in following this Footman running Extravagantly out of all Way and Reason Neither Sir have I any mind to add to this long Letter any farther Advice adress'd to your self If the exposing to your Eyes the Characters of the Books you License doth not move you not to prostitute so easily your Name to those heaps of disingenuous Cavils ill-laid Calumnies and monstrous Misrepresentations which you daily License it shall be to me a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the reading much less the Censuring where ever I see you have opened it the Press which will in part ease of an ungrateful and unnecessary toil SIR Your Servant to all Christian Offices LEWIS SABRAN Of the Society of JESVS POSTSCRIPT THO' the Preface to Dr. Sherlock's Defence might very naturally have challenged to be first Answered yet because the Defence did attempt tho' most vainly to undermine the very Foundation of the Christian Faith that Rock of the Catholic Church on which Christ our Blessed Lord raised it whereas the Preface was stuffed chiefly with forged Calumnies against me I thought it my Duty and ever shall to pass by my own private Concerns till I had vindicated the Church of God. Now Sir I come to my own Defence I find my Adversaries Choler heated to the highest Ferment because I Answered the Celebrated Preservative an excellent Tract says he proved so acceptable by the Vniversal Entertainment it met with in a single Sheet which he says was a ridiculous Answer to so great a Book I omitted nothing Sir that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument and if your Celebrated Books swell so with words and prove void of Sense and Reason am I blameable for it He should have pointed at some pretended Proofs which I slighted to expose or have praised me for not wearying my Readers with a dull Prolixity But it seems we must copy these Men's Faults or abide their Censure He tells us next That the Accusations of Forgery of Clipping of Texts Fathers and Councils Run high on both sides That the Reader hath this certain way of knowing where the Guilt lies That the Church of Rome accuses us but do's not prove it but our Men do not only accuse them but prove it upon them This is indeed somewhat material and he instances upon my Forgeries on the one side and those that Dr. Comber Author of the Advice to Roman-Catholics is accused of on the other I am content to joyn issue upon this matter and having produced the Grounds on which these several Accusations are bottom'd I will leave the Decision to your and every unbiassed Reader 's Judgment having first owned Forgery to be the greatest Mark of a bad Cause and that even owned such by those who thus defend it He produces against me three Letters written as he says by one of their Learned Writers in which no less than One and twenty such Forgeries are proved upon me and Protestant like because I am accused concludes me guilty without taking the least notice of my full Answers given to those most false Calumnies he and his Learned Author following both the old Advice Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit Do but Calumniate boldly something will stick of the Dirt you cast First then I will shew the confident Impudence of my Accuser I Preached on the 25th of August last before his Sacred Majesty at Chester on the Conversion of St. Augustin from Heresie and a loose Life and throughout that Sermon I laid out in the B. Saint's own words those mistaken Reasons that hindred him and keep off present Sectaries from a due Reconciliation with the Catholic Church I offered evident Motives taken from the same Saint's words which obliged Him and do as efficaciously exact from all Protestants under pain of Eternal Damnation when a most dull Ignorance doth not excuse them to return to the Communion of that one only Church which they professed themselves Members of at their Baptism Those unanswerable Arguments of
as a piece of Wood is the Material Square of a Carpenter their application of Sense to this Letter is that which makes their real and Formal Rule as the streightness or crookedness of a Rule is the true Rule of the Carpenter that uses it 'T is against this I write and against Dr. Sherlock's Principle that tho' several Men using the same Method of making Rules find and own that their several Rules make different Lines yet it follows not says he that the Rules they work by are not true nor their Methods of making themselves a Rule erroneous Preservat f. 83 84. Were all Protestants of a mind would their Consent and Agreement prove the certainty of their Faith Answer f 7. Not at all but 't is a most ridiculous Inference of yours This is the same Rule and their Disagreement proves not their uncertainty All Union is not an Argument of the Spirit of God for People may combine to do ill But St. Paul assures us Disunion and Dissention is a certain Mark of the absence of the Spirit of God. Defence f. 21. You should have added in some not in all the disagreeing Parties If the Question be put amongst a company of Men to go rob such a House is it a Mark of the absence of the Spirit of God in those which do not agree to that Wickedness Answer Certainly this honest Footman is hired to write as wide as may be from Reason that in Comparison with it Dr. Sherlock's Errors may appear tolerable I speak of People led into Disunion by the same Principle which from thence I conclude to be no good one And I pray those who refuse to go and rob the House do they act in this Refusal by the same Principle by which others are moved to the Robbery If they be for Example out of Spite tho' their Refusal be just and good their Motive or Rule they act by and of that only I speak is stark naught Dr. Sherlock's Principle which makes void all Scripture-proof IF a Mystery appears against Sense and Reason Preservative fol. 72. we must have a Scripture proof as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against it Sense and Reason proving it naturally impossible Answ f. 7. A Text which cannot possibly have an other sense doth not leave it in any ones liberty who owns Scripture to be an Heretic therefore the Church produced no such Texts against the Arians or Nestorians to whom the Mysteries of the Trinity and of Christs Human and Divine Nature in one Person appeared against Sense and Reason whence it evidently follows that according to Dr. Sherlock the Arians and Nestorians were bound not to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ A happy Ministerial Guide and well led such as follow him Defence f. 22. The Trinity and Incarnation which the Arians and Nestorians disputed they are Mysteries indeed and might seem to be above Sense and Reason but they are not contrary to it But that Transubstantiation contradicts both is plain Answ The Footman had better have minded his Masters business than to pretend an Answer to what he doth not as much as understand Certainly the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are not against Sense and Reason but they did appear so to the Nestorians and Arians and that is the Case put by Dr. Sherlock and therefore 't is evident that according to his Principle Arians and Nestorians were bound not to leave their Heresies Dr. Sherlock's Principle making void all use of Councils and Fathers AFter he hath respectively told us That Preservative fol. 73 Learned men may squabble about the Fathers he gives these Rules without which they be of no use 1. We must know that the Father is truly Author of the Book or the Council of such a Decree 2. That he was not corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of the Transcribers while they were in the hands of the Monks and to make this impossible he assures us They not only pared their Nails but also their very Habit and Dress to fit them to the Modes of the time 3. That the Father doth not in some other place Contradict what there he says 4. That he did not alter his Opinion after Answer f. 8. That 's to say some of these requisites not being possibly to be known no use is to be made of them Defence f. 23 24. These requisites that man that will build any thing upon their Authority must know or else he may be miserably mistaken yet this is not to deny any use of Fathers and Councils for Learned men may dispute about them Answ A rare Privilege granted to Learned Men that they may dispute about Fathers and Councils but not till they have resolved some doubts first which cannot possibly be resolved This is to sport pretty pleasantly but not to answer Dr. Sherlock's Principle which makes void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Justice to our Neighbor IT lies in his last Chapter in which he attempts Answer fol. 8. in vain to colour the Misrepresentations which his Party hath ever been guilty of It is when a mans Exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning and he ever and clearly declares that it is His. Yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning taken from his opposers contrary Principle Than which there cannot be a greater and more unjust disingenuity this he calls to join Protestant Principles with Popish Practices For Example to insinuate That a Catholick thinks the blessed Virgin more Powerful in Heaven than Christ He tells us that he says ten Ave Maria's for one Lords Prayer And this though he knows that the first half of the Ave Mary is in memory of and thanksgiving for the Incarnation of Christ and the other half asks of the Virgin only to pray for us to Christ which is all the Power we allow her in Heaven Defence p. 24. The matter of Fact is true Suppose he doth not think her more powerful than Christ yet sure he must think her more merciful and ready to hear his Prayers Answ This is in lieu of excusing his Masters Malice and disingenuity meerly to make the Proverb Good like Master like Man. Mary her self her Merciful concern for us her Prayers are an Effect and Gift of the Mercy of Christ But to see how people will speak in spight of Sense when they are resolved to impugn Truth how can it prove that I believe a person more merciful than another because I repeat oftner my instances and Petition Naturally we call that a greater mercy which is sooner moved and yields to a single address But the whole is a most false Calumny as it insinuates that our Church applies her Devotions more to our blessed Lady than to Christ Our Mass our Church Office except now and then a short Prayer of three or four lines our Meditations our Fasts are all