the Divine Wisdome in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophecies they delivered the Doctrine they taught And that by sence Should any of them be questioned must we not recur unto the senses of the Primitive Christians to confirm them And must they not then be the ultimate Foundation of our Faith and your tradition must we not be surer of the proof then the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sence then that of Faith which deriveth from it If not why secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather blessed who believe and have not seen then Thomas who first Saw and Felt and then Believed Is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence And so their Faith is more illustrious and prayse worthy 'T would be more Generous and Noble to die in the defence of him whom we did only probably believe to be our Prince or Parent then to do it only upon iufallible assurance of his being such because an evidence of greater love even so is it more virtuous and prayse worthy to venture all upon an highly probable hopes of the truth of Christianity it being such a pregnant indication of our true love to Pietie and Vertue that even a probable assurance of it can prevail against all worldly temptations to the contrary Yea this it is which rendreth Faith rewardable that 't is an act of the believers choise and not irrefragably induced however it be abundantly confirmed with arguments extreamly probable and such as render it perversness and obstinacy to resist Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts af a plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to increase it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferiour to that of Sense and Science to pretend infallibility which is the highest certainty is to pretend such evidence as is not competible to Faith But that the Folly of this pretence may appeare more signally I shall farther manifest 1. That Humane nature is not capable of infallible assurance in matters of Faith Secondly that to require such assurance unto Faith is contrary to Scripture Thirdly That our Saviour required Faith upon lower motives Fourthly That the Romanists can have no such assurance Fifthly That it is no prejudice to the certainty or reasonableness of Faith that it is built upon foundations not absolutely infallible And Lastly Answer Mr Serjeants Exceptions to the contrary And 1. If Humane Nature abstracted from Divinity be capable of this assurance its certainty must be equal to that of Vision of Angels of Christs Humanity yea of God himself for even their assurance cannot reach beyond infallibility And secondly Reason must give as great assurance of a thing revealed to others 1600. years agon and in it self inevident as it is possible for present sence or revelation to afford all which are monstrous absurdities Secondly each Text of Scripture which mentions any that were weak or strong in Faith any that were of little or of great Faith any that were rich that did abound encrease or grow in Faith any that were grounded established rooted and consirmed in Faith that speakes of having Faith as a grain of musterd-seed and of having all Faith is a demonstrative refutation of this pretence it being certain that infallibility admits of no degrees Such secondly must be every Prayer which the Apostles made to encrease their own and others Faith or in the language of the Catholick to advance it some degrees above infallibility Such thirdly are all those places which tell of Hereticks who overthrew the Faith of some of others that were unstable and wavering in the Faith And lastly Prophecy that men should Erre and be seduced from the Faith or depart from it giving heed to seducing spirits it being as impossible for such who are infallibly assured or guided by what is self-evident even to the un-reflecting person to Waver Erre or be Seduced as to Doubt and Disbelieve that twice 2 is 4 or that if you take equally from equals they will still be equal Thirdly Our Blessed Saviour required this assent from his Disciples without Infallible assurance for doth he not call them Fools and slow of heart Luke 24.26 for not believing all the Prophets had delivered touching his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory Had they infallible assurance that these Prophecyes concerned him yea or no If not then did he look upon them as Fools and slow of heart for not believing upon motives confessedly fallible if their assurance might have been infallible then either as bottomed upon Reason infallibly concluding his Ascention and Resurection from the Prophets or secondly upon Tradition and the Churches living voice if the first why may not we also who have greater assistence of the Spirit of Wisdome be able from the same Principle of Reason working on our Rule of Faith to conclude infallibly the Fundamentals of Christianity For is it not unreasonable to assert that the Resurrection and Ascention of our Lord is more clearly revealed in those places of the Old Testament which are few obscure by reason of the Language more ambiguous then the New and lastly acknowledged by the greatest part of learned Men to refer primarily to other things or persons then the Articles of our Creed are in those numerous and admirably prespicuous places of the New Testament which give in Testimony thereunto Must they be looked upon as Fools for not infallibly concluding the Ascention of our Lord from the obscure items of the Prophets by the help of Reason And must we be damned for holding Reason sufficient from Scripture to conclude our Creed Nay secondly is not this to admit Reason as a competent yea infallible judge of the Sense of Scripture and consequently to approve of in the Jew what you condemn and rail at in the Christian If secondly you flye unto Tradition It is not ridiculous to assert that the Jewish Church should not only Crucifie this Jesus and endeavour with their utmost powerto prevent the Fame of his Resurrection albeit she had infallible assurance of it But that she should at the same time interpret Scripture so as infallibly to attest it and be condemned from her own mouth Nay had they not a contrary Tradition viz. That the Kingdome of their Messias should be Glorious upon Earth sufficient to confront all evidence Tradition could afford them in this case and void her Testimony because repugnant to it self Secondly I desire to know whether that voice from Heaven which testifyed that Jesus was the true Messiah and the Son of God did not oblige the hearers to believe it And to what other end it was sent Whether our Saviour doth not plead
believes such Articles or asserts their truth he presently replyes because revealed in Scripture by that God who cannot lye whereas the Catholick must Answer because revealed by that Tradition or that Churches voice which is infallible to assure me of the Churches voice is the business of my Eyes and eares to ascertain me of the infallibility of that voice is the work of Reason Is now the faith of Catholicks resolved into their eyes or ears Is it resolved into the use of Reason and not into the Churches voice If not why must this be objected to the Protestant because his Reason doth assist him to evince his Scripture to be the product of Divine Veracity If then you take this prayse in its largest sense as it imports the enquiry into all its causes in their several kinds both Catholicks and Protestants do resolve their faith into humane Reason as giving them assurance of the infallibility both of Scripture and Tradition if in its proper notion as it it implyes the principal efficient cause of Faith 't is evident that neither of them do it Nevertheless I freely grant that all the certainty of our Faith in things not punctually expressed in Scripture depends upon the certainty of our Reason working upon the never sayling Rules of Logick which as it is no disparagement to the certainty of Faith so is it a thing common unto us with Catholicks who must acknowledge with my good Friend That many things have been delivered by the Church which were not formally contained in her tradition or the Rule of Faith but only thence concluded by the help of Reason Sure Footing P. 206. Prop. 3. The Fundamentals of Christianity i. e. all doctrines necessary to the Salvation of each person delivered in the Rule of Faith must be both evident and obvious to the eye of Reason for seing the proper end of a Rule is to regulate and direct and nothing unevident and obscure whilst such can do that office unto those to whom it is so for this were to require the intellect to be regulated by what it cannot know to be a rule what ever is the the Rule of Faith and so of Fundamentals must evidently declare them to such persons to whom it is a rule and is it not monstrous to imagine that God should have suspended our Salvation and Christ the very being of his Church on what 's obscure and void of evidence And secondly seeing what is not obvious cannot be evident to such persons as are unable to search into the depths of Reason and see into the coherence of a continued train of consequences that this Rule may be evident to such it must be obvious Obvious I say in delivering the affirmative heads of Christian Faith not in affording means to extricate the understanding from all the Sophistry of a Learned Adversary which to require from the Rule of Faith especially as applyed to the illiterate person and his certainty thereof is as absurd and monstrous as to require in order to his certainty that he sees walks or hears that he should have ability to Answer all the quirks of Zeno and demurs of a Gascendus to the contrary As therefore in these matters the clear and immediate evidence of sense is a sufficient preservative to the rudest person from all the Sophisms of Zeno and his Academy even so the full and pregnant evidence of Fundamentals especially if joynd with that internal evidence of the Holy Spirit which is promised by our Saviour to all those that do his will is sufficient settlement unto the meanest person capable of Religion against all the Fallacies of a subtle Heretick Coroll Hence I conceive it Sophistically objected by my Friend That we prove and defend our Faith by skils and languages history and humane learning and so make them our Rule of Faith For we aver the Fundamentals of our Faith are so perspicuously revealed in Scripture as to need no farther skill to apprehend them then what is necessary to understand that language in which our Rule of Faith is writ yea what is equally necessary to understand the Churches voice which constantly is delivered by her representatives in Greek or Latine and therefore the preceding skils are not of absolute necessity to Faith in General but only to some portions of it of which we may be ignorant without considerable prejudice to our eternal welfare of which nature is the legitimacy of Baptism conferr'd by Hereticks the Millenium c. and if we use such mediums in matters of the highest nature we do it still ex abundanti either to conclude the same things from obscurer places which are perspicuously revealed elsewhere or to obviate the evasions and confute the cavils of the Hereticks all which the Catholick doth and must do both when engaged with him and us Thus when again he tels us That our Rule is deal Characters waxen-natured and plyable to the Dedalean Phancy of the ingenious moulders of new opinions P. 194. Ans 'T is true some passages there are in it which are may be wrested to such evil purposes but still the Fundamentals of our Faith are such as are by no means plyable to any other sence Prop. 4. Reason in judging of the sence of Scripture is regulated partly by principles of Faith partly by Tradition partly by Catholick maxims of her own 1. By Principles of Faith for Scripture is to be interpreted secundum analogiam Fidei that is say we particular Texts of Scripture when dubious are so to be interpreted as not to contradict the Fundamentals of Faith or any doctrine which evidently and fully stands asserted in the Word of God and 2ly since Scripture cannot contradict it self When any Paragraph of Scripture absolutely considered is ambiguous that sence must necessarily obtain which is repugnant to no other paragraph against what may be so and thus may Scripture regulate me in the sence of Scripture and what I know of it lead me to the sense of what I do not Secondly By tradition for since tradition is necessary to assure us that there were once such men as the Apostles who delivered that Christianity and these Scriptures to us which we now embrace to question the sufficiency of the like tradition to assure me of the sence of Scripture is virtually to call in question the motives which induce us to believe it such this then would be an excellent help unto the sence of Scripture only the mischief is that where it can be had we do not want it and where we want it 't is but too visible it cannot be had Note only that I speak here of a like tradition to which two things are requisite First That it be as general as that of Scripture And Secondly That it be such as evidenceth it self by Reason to have been no forgery as here it doth it being morally impossible that the whole Church in the delivery of Scripture to us should deceive or be deceived For the
insmitely uncertain in matters of obedience to God For seeing 't is as evident as the Sun and lately manifested by Montalius a Catholick that the Doctrines of the Jesuited Papist touching Repentance Good intentions the Love of God c. do cut the sinews of all virtue and null the precepts of true pietie and equally certain that they are maintained by the gravest Doctors of their Church nay styled the common Doctrine of the Church is follows that they interfere not with their Rule of Faith and therefore cannot be reproved by it 4 They must be destitute of all the preservatives against the vilest of Rebellions it being frequently asserted in the Schools and held by most confiderable members of that Church that Catholicks may be absolved from their Oaths Vows and Covenants made to Princes and authorized by his Holiness to depose them From what hath been discoursed it must follow that if Tradition be the only Rule of Faith then 1. Should Catholicks act up to the most desperate consequences of such opinions which pass thus currant in the Church of Rome they could not possibly be condemned by or rationally be said to deviate from her Rule of Faith 2. That the vilest Christian and worst of Subjects may do all that Catholick Religion and his duty doth oblige him too because all that practical Tradition or the Churches living voice requires that what is strangely opposite and scandalous to Christianity and destructive unto Civil Government is yet assistent with their Rule of Faith and that 't is lawful to opine at pleasure in these matters 3. That these diseases must be all incurable and admit of no redress for to make them pass into Tradition and improve themselves into articles of Faith is to impower the Church to coyn new articles and pretend Tradition where it is not to be had 4. That what ever hath been said of some doth equally proceed against all other scandalous opinions of their Church of which nature 't were easie to collect sufficient to tire mine own and the Readers patience CAP. IV. Of the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith THAT the Church is a Society Prop. 1. the very name and notorelty of the thing the definition members discipline and constitutions of it do sufficiently declare Prop. 2. That this society must be invested with a Ruling power is certain both from the nature of all Civil union which implyes a compact and that a Governour whose business it is to see that they who enter into compact do not violate the lawes thereof as also from the ends of this Society viz. The union and due ordering of her Members and execution of her discipline to the correction or exclusion of such persons who cooperate towards her ruine Prop. 3. The Church is a Society of Believers or of men united in the belief of certain Articles as the Foundations of it hence styled fundamental Articles this is the joynt consent of Christians however in the notion and number of their fundamentals they differ much Corol. Hence it must follow that Church Governours must be impowred to require the belief of or positive assent unto these Fundamendal Articles as being otherwise unable to secure the Being and provide against the ruine of that Church of which they are a part When therefore M. S. so confidently gives out without all manner of exceptions that our Church is Shamefac'd of obliging others to believe her p. 194. and that she professeth her self very heartily content with external obedience let the interior assent go where it will p. 199. I cannot but admire that so ingenious a person should vent such things which every day confutes and tell our Church she expects not that her members should believe that Creed which she esteems her fundamentals inserts into her Catechisms requires us to Agnize in Baptisme rehearse in all her Sacred offices and that with a peculiar circumstance designed to signifie our assent unto and readiness to defend it Obj. But do you not in big words ask when did she challenge any power over our minds consciences p. 198. And doth not M. S. well infer that therefore you deny that she requires an interior assent Ans No these things are vastly different require interior assent he may who being authorized to guide me in matters of faith can evidence what he thus requires to be the will of God revealed yea such interior assent is due from Children to their Parents from Servants to their Masters much mere from People to their Pastors when evidencing their duty to them but challenge power over the mind and conscience he only can who is Lord of the conscience whose laws by an immediate virtue bind the conscience for what binds only mediately hath not this obligatory power from any virtue of the Legislator over the mind and conscience but only from that power which commands the conscience to obey such Legislators And if interiour assent may be required I wonder why it should be more irrational to go about to lay an obligation on the Cathol p. 199. by these two Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy then upon the Protestant as my Friend imagines That it should be rational to bind the loyal Subject by those Oaths but irrational to bind those whose Treacheries and conspiracies first made them necessary if difference of Religion be a just exemption then may the Quaker Anabaptist and other turbulent persons which renounce our Church plead for a share in this exemption and King and Parliament must be unjust and tyrannous in laying such a burthen on them Prop. 4. A particular Church cannot require this assent upon pretence of an infallible assistance for seeling all have the like title to it it would be imposisible for any of them to have erred and therefore she must do it because the thing determined is so evident in the Rule of Faith that all denyall of it must be wilful for seeing 't is already proved that she hath power to require this assent and that this power cannot derive from an infallible assistance what remains but that it bottom upon the evidence of the thing But then the query is Who must be judge what is so evident in Scripture as to render the dissertors guilty of flat wilfulness p. 195. Ans Faith being an assent and consequently the result of judgment each private person must be allowed his judgment of discretion much more those who are authorized to require our assent to fundamentals and to preserve the peace and union of the Church inviolable and sure 't would be a great impeachment to our Saviour to intrust persons with the preservation of this Depositum and to require them to give heed to it as they will answer it at the great day and yet afford no means to be assured of it But if each private person must have a judgment of discretion by which he must admit of or reject the laws of his superiors if it should be
irreligion or any contrary Religion can pretend to and consequently I stand bound in Prudence to embrace it Obj But what is fallible may be false and if so you have no certainty that it will be true Answ What is fallible not because equally poysed betwixt truth and falshood but onely because not demonstrable by Mathematical mediums or because the contrary doth not imply a contradiction may yet be of sufficient certainty to produce assurance The judgement of sense cannot be proved infallible to the Sceptick he will argue from experience That it may once or twice deceive you and thence that 't is not absolutely impossible that it should frequently do so that it may deceive you for a minute and then ask what infallible assurance you can have that it cannot do so for five ten twenty minutes If you reply Your senses are infallible but with such limitations as having a due medium Organ distance and the like he will call for your infallible assurance that neither God nor the devil do at any time infect the Medium dis-tort the Eye alter the Species and the like Now tell me notwithstanding this denyal of the infallibility of Sense Whether we have any just temptation to question what we daily see and hear Whether he that walls in London streets may not be certain that he sees a Man or Woman and yet less reason had the Primitive Christians to distrust those Miracles which for some Hundreds of Years employed not onely their own Senses but the Eyes and Ears of all the World Again The testimony of ten yea of an hundred Men is fallible as we have seen already and hence 't is evident That the testimony of Two hundred yea a Thousand may be so for seeing all you adde is fallible their Testification most be so Tell me now Whether I have reason to distrust the Existence of such a Man as Alexander Mahomet or that the Alcoran was published by him if not What reason can I have to doubt of what 's delivered to me with greater evidence of general Tradition touching Scripture Christianity you see now what little ground of fear our Doctrine gives you that it might happen to be otherwise p. 196. because we dare not pretend infallibility even as little as you have to fear the constant Testimony of sense or your own sure footing And when you adde That 't is a damnable and diabolical Tyranny to oblige men to the hazards of falshoods in the matters of Faith and in the mean time profess our selves ignorant whether they be false or no. Answ True And 't is as great a falshood that we do so No Sir in matters Fundamental we profess as much assurance as Scripture and Tradition can afford in matters which admit not of the greatest Evidence we oblige not unto Faith but to Submission and Obedience and in neither do we profess what you so dis-ingeniously impose upon us That we are ignorant whether they be false or no. CAP. II. Of the Guide of Faith THat Reason still must be my guide after it hath brought me to my Rule of Faith Prop. 1. and were it otherwise since we have no express from the old Testament that Jesus of Nazareth or the Son of Joseph was to be the Saviour of the world why are we sent to Scripture to be convince of it Why is this word of Prophecy esteemed a surer evidence thereof then a voice from Heaven John 5.39 2 Pet. 1.17 Matt. 22.29 Luk. 24.25 Why doth our Saviour quarrel with the Jew for not concluding that from Scripture which was not to be found expressly there Or rebuke the slowness of his own Disciples to believe all the Prophets had delivered touching his Death his Resurrection and Ascention into Glory When visibly they could not do it without comparing circumstances and using a long train of inferences Why lastly are the Beraeans so much commended for their search of Scripture Judgement of Pauls Doctrine thence seeing his business was to prove that Christ must needs have suffered be raised from the dead that Jesus was the Christ Act. 17.3.11 should this way be rejected as fallacious and unsufficient to establish faith In vain must be Apollos wisdome endeavouring hence to convince the Jew that Jesus was the Christ Act. 18.22 And 't was their weakness to be over-powred by it whilst he produced no express from Scripture in vain did Peter attempt to prove the Resurrection of our Lord from that of David Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell Act. 2.27 and S. Paul to convince the Jew by Reasoning from Scripture Act 17.2 In vain did he compose his whole Epistle to the Hebrews so full of Rational deductions thence in a word to infer the unlawfulness of Divorce for any cause from that of Genesis They twain shall be one flesh of Corban from that of Moses Honor thy Father and thy Mother to infer the Lawfulness of plucking ears of corn upon the Saboth from Davids eating the Shew bread And lastly to conclude the Resurrection from that of Moses I am the God of Abraham must be according to the contrary Assertion to argue upon Grounds fallacious and to interpret Scripture against or else besides the tenour of the Churches voice Secondly If Reason may not be my Guide in these conclusions as well as others then 1. must not all Arguments produced by the Romanist against our Church or upon any other subject be pronounced null when bottomed only on the inferences of Humane Reason from the Rule of Faith and must not Vanity be writ upon the labours of their greatest Champions Must it not follow that no promise of the Scripture can administer comfort no threatning terror to the Soul that is not either expressly contained in it or otherwise ascertained and expounded to us from the Tradition of the Church And must not then the greatest part of Scripture-threatnings prove bruta fulina and its Promises be as unsignificative And thirdly might not Jew and Gentile Sadducy and Pharisy have still excepted against Christ his Apostles whose infallibility they little dreamt of for making faith depend on the fallacious deductions of their Reasons for moulding Scripture according to their Daedalean Phancies in opposition to the Churches living voice Had Mr S. been a Traditionary Catholick or which is much the same a Pharisee in those days he would have doubly schoold them 1. For chusing a wrong rule of Faith viz. Scripture so to avoid the Church and next for glossing it as seems best unto their Reasons and that in opposition to the Church who by her practical tradition must interpret Sure footing p. 193. Prop. 2. That to assert Reason as my Guide in matters of Faith is not to resolve Faith into humane Reason for Faith is properly resolved into its Principal efficient or formal object which is not Reason but to the Protestant Divine Veracity to the Catholick the Churches voice for aske the Protestant why he
infallibility of Tradition doth not consist entirely in the delivery of such a Doctrine but in the assurance which it gives my reason that it could not possibly have been imbraced upon other terms The Baptism of Infants is at present as the communicating of Infants was of old the tradition of the Church but this gives no unquestionable assurance of the truth or derivation of these customs from our Lord and his Apostles for haply the Church embraced them upon other motives The 1. from a conceived analogy therein to Circumcision The 2d from a mistake of that of the Evangelist except you eat my flesh c. Coroll Hence you may see how injurious my Friend is in representing us as rejectors of Tradition whereas we manifestly own it where we can have assurance of it only we dare not boast of it as the Papist doth where 't is notoriously evident that both do want it we own the constant not the present Tradition of the Church Corol. 2. Hence see the stability of the Faith of Protestants above that of Papists The Protestant first denyes the Tradition which the Catholick pretends to to be sufficient ground of Faith And 2dly he denyes the Articles of his Faith to have the least Sure-footing in Tradition or his rule of Faith nay proves them wholy opposite unto it the Papist doth acknowledge that even by his own the Prorestants Rule of Faith must be infallibly certain and pronounceth her Anathema upon all who do not own both Scripture and Tradition for infallible and receive them both pari pietatis affectu with the like pious affection as the Trent Council phraseth it Sess 4. The Papists Faith is not to be found in the Protestants Rule of Scripture and this necessitates him to flie unto Tradition but the Protestants Creed and all his fundamentals are confessedly certain from the Papists Rule if therefore prudence doth direct us to the safer way and that be such which both sides do agree upon which they so frequently insist on to pervert the people it must be every mans concern to be a Protestant rather then a Papist Thirdly Reason is herein guided by her propper Maxims and cannot rationally admit of any thing as the sense of Scripture which is apparently repugnant to them for seeing 't is impossible to yield a rational assent without reason it must be more impossible to do it against reason Besides right Reason must be true and therefore should a Revelation be manifestly repugnant unto right Reason it must equally be opposed to truth Thirdly Do we not all endeavor to give Reasons of our Faith Would we not all be thought to follow it when we conclude our Faith from Scripture or Tradition Should we renounce her conduct might not the worst absurditys be imbraced as the sense of Scripture and finde their Patrimony from thence without all fear of refutation from that Reason which must not be admitted to dispute its sense must it not follow That no Controversie could be determined no Dispute resolved no Contest about the sense of Scripture finde an issue from any rational procedure Obj But doth not the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity the Resurrection of the Body the Hypostatical Vnion speak Contradictions unto Humane Reason Why therefore do you not expunge them from among the Articles of your Faith Answ These things as far as Scripture doth assert them are lyable to no immediate Contradictions but if your Curiosity proceed to dive into the Modes of their Existence you will presently discourse your self into perplexing Difficulties not in these onely but most other Matters That God is omnipresent speaks no contradiction to my Reason but to enquire into the Modus of this Presence is to be lost in mazes of them That he hath infinite Duration is a necessary truth but to call this Duration momentaneous or successive is to lay a foundation for endless Contradictions to assert Gods Omniscience is to assert a most received Article of our Faith but how this knowledge can consist with the contingency of things is beyond humane infirmity to shew that there is such a thing as motion we all see but whether it be a mode quality or substance successive only or instantaneous continued or intermixt with morula's needs an Elias to resolve us that there is quantity and corporeal Beings in the world our senses can assure us but how their parts are knit unto each other and how far they may be divided is indeed a Philosophick Trinity 't is then no prejudice to the forementioned Articles that we may discourse them into contradictions since this is common to them with the most ordinary things our senses view the reason of these perplexing difficulties in matters of this nature may happily be the exceeding greatness or parvitude of the thing which renders it impossible for us to frame Ideas of them from any thing which occurs unto our senses and consequently to pass judgment on them thus all the difficulties both of quantity and motion are bottomed upon instants and indivisibles and that which gravels still the mind in the consideration of a Deity is the infinity of his nature and therefore these affections of Goodness Wisdome and Mercy c. Which we stile communicable when once infinity is annexed to them do as much be jade the intellect as that amazing mystery of the holy Trinity but secondly I answer Ans 2. That Reason cannot think it proper to apply her maxims to these instances and consequently cannot judge them repugnant thereunto This will appear from these conclusions 1. That Reason Guided by her own maxims Tradition and by Scripture assures me that the divine nature is incomprehensible it being impossible that what is finite should comprehend what is infinite and certainly if Mathematicks have her Paradoxes and can vie demonstrations pro and con if matters obvious to sence do so be jade the intellect and lock it up in contradictions 't is little to be hoped she should conveigh her self through the infinite abyss of of divine perfections and not suffer shipwrack 2. That infinite perfection may deliver such things of it self which are incomprehensible because it may deliver what in it self it is 3. That Reason cannot pretend to judge by her own maxims of the Truth or Falsehood of what she doth acknowledge to exceed her reach For sure she cannot reasonably pretend to know what thus exceeds her knowledge much less to judge of what she doth not know 4. That Reason cannot conclude that to be repugnant to her maxims which she acknowledgeth to be such of which her maxims cannot judge for this is to apply these maxims where they ought not to be applyed and to frame consequences upon terms whereby the things they signifie are not understood and in effect to reject the proportions of the Sun and Stars unto the Earth which Mathematicks gives us as repugnant to the sense 5. That notwithstanding this Reason doth force me to attribute to God all that is
perfection and remove the contrary he being therefore incomprehensible because infinite in perfection whence albeit I do not comprehend his nature yet can I rationally conclude him not corporeal because that necessarily subjects him to varietie of imperfections 6. This doth not prejudice the use of Reason in other matters any more then the Asymptoticks of the Mathematicks the cruces logicorum the Insolubilia of other sciences do prejudice our getting knowledge in these matters by the use of Reason Corol. Hence evident it is That Scripture must not alwaies be interpreted according to the Letter or Grammatical importance of the words because that often is contradictory both to reason tradition and the Analogie of Faith this cannot be disputed by any person who is not professedly industrious to render Scripture odious and ridiculous there being nothing more abhorrent from humane nature then some Scriptures are in their Grammaticall importance but you object Ob. If Reason must guide you sometimes so as to denie the clear letter of Scripture or to deny the Spouse of Christ is properly whatever she is stiled in the Canticles by what principles must Reason be regulated in this enquiry Whether God hath hands and feet c. pag. 193. Ans 1. By Principles of Faith or those perspicuous Scriptures which dogmatically aver that he is a Spirit invisible and without all shape lastly attribute unto him many things repugnant to a body this you see is done antecedently to the known sence of some Scriptures though not of all And 2. by Reason assuring me that corporeity is incompatible with that power which is every where infinite That it is an imperfection and so not incident to this all-perfect Being that it interferes with his simplicity and independance degrades him beneath the ranke of Angels and humane Souls which Scriptures represent as incorporeal that to ascribe such Phrases properly unto him must represent him the worst of Monsters as having wings and seaven eyes and putting on more shapes then ever Proteus did and render his reproofs of Heathen Images irrational and absurd Ob. But is not this to flie back for refuge to the old rule Humane Reason which you seemingly renounced when you had found your new Rule of Faith Ans It s power to pass judgement of the truth of what is revealed in Scripture I did and do renounce its assistance in finding out the sence of Scripture I cannot renounce without the sorfeiture of Reason Corol. 2. Hence it must follow that to be expresly contained in Scripture is not to be the mind of God contained in Scripture for that God is a Shepheard and a Roaring Lyon a Lanthorn and a wall of fire that he begat Israel and doth continue to beget Believers That the Messiah is a Lamb a Lyon and a Stag a Worm Plant Fagle Root and Cedar this and much more is expressly told us from Scriptures letter but to infer hence that Reason guided by Scripture cannot otherwise interpret them but it must Violently wrest the Scripture and be so absolutely the Rule of Faith as to controle and baffle Scripture though clearly revealing p. 192. is to make Christ the worst of Monsters to out do all the Fables of the Poets and represent the God of Heaven more ridiculous then an Heathen Jupiter Secondly I defire to know whether the Church of Rome doth own and sence these places according to the letter or contradict and wrest baffle and controul the clearest revelations of the word of God by doing otherwise Qu. But if to be in express terms in Scripture be not to be clearly revealed there what is it to be thus revealed Ans T is manifestly to be the mind of God contained in Scripture Which being so if you continue to imagine that every thing contained in Scriptures letters is clearly manifested to be the mind of God in Scripture then must you either contradict what is clearly manifested so to be or cut off hands and feet and pluck out eyes that you may be Christs Disciple if you enquire farther amidst all the varietie of Tropes and Figurative Expressions used in Scripture how any thing can be manifested to be the mind of God revealed I Answer by the very same means and circumstances by which we know the mind of one another notwihstanding all the variety of Tropes and Figures which we use in ordinary Discourse or Writing how often doth the Divine the Poet the Historian and especially the Orator flourish in all the arts of Rhetorick and Grace his subject with the chiosest flowers of Eloquence and yet presents it in a dress as clear as it is pleasant and were not men wilfully perverse they would have less reason to complain of the obscurity of the Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation upon this account When therefore you thus Argue That God hath Hands Feet Nostrils is plainly writ in your Rule of Faith p. 121. and therefore is revealed in it the inference must be weak the Foundations of it are already overturned And yet however you suppose it all along I peremptorily deny that it is possitively asserted in any Scripture that God hath Hands Feet Nostrils True we are told the Heavens are the Workmanship of his hands c. But to infer it from such places would force you to acknowledge that the Word of God is Milk and that Milk is Rational because Saint Paul hath stiled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here therefore is no need to captivate my Reason much less to Answer as you would have me That the contrary is plain in Scripture too pag. 191. and so that Scripture holds forth plainly contradictions this Answer so dishonourable to God and Scripture so repugnant unto Faith Reason and Tradition I permit to be your own CHAP. III. Of the Rule of Faith Prop 1. SEeing Divine Faith in the proper import of the words is an assent to Divine Authority revealed whatever I assent to as an Article of Faith I must assent to as being the revealed will of God whence evident it is That the mind or will of God revealed and nothing else must be my Rule of Faith Again What is the proper office of a Rule but to examine what is to be ruled by it Must we not pass a Judgement on our Weights and Measures by bringing them to the Rule and Standard In like manner Do we not examine each Theological conclusion by this Enquiry Whether it be the minde of God revealed or not and from the Answer made unto it pass Judgement on the thing in Question This therefore is the Rule of every Theological conclusion And so of Faith Corol. 1. Hence it will follow That not Tradition but the minde of God revealed in Scripture or Tradition is the Rule of Faith And indeed Tradition where it as certain as Mr. S. supposeth it would be the formal Object but not the Rule of Faith which two things are miserably confounded through the whole Series of my Friends Discourse
as will appear from the distinctive Characters of them both as they are excellently given us in the Learned Baron Apoll p. 34. S. 6. First then A Rule is that Exemplar by which the minde is regulated and to which it ought to be conformable and so the Rule of Faith is that Exemplar which we ought to follow and conform unto in Matters of Faith Now such apparently is the mind of God revealed in general nor is the voice of Christ or of Tradition such but on presumption that they are the minde of God revealed Secondly The Rule doth limit and determine what is ruled by it even so the Rule of Faith must fix the Bounds of Faith instructing us what and how many are the material Objects of it Thirdly The effect of the Rule of Faith is that knowledge which preceeds the act of Faith for it informs the Intellect by proposing to it what is requisite to be believed but not evincing it to be such Fourthly The Rule of Faith is onely a comprehensive Systeme of all the Articles of Faith as the Rules of Grammer are a comprehensive Systeme of such things as are to be observed in composing Latine Greek c. Now all these things do visibly agree unto the minde of God revealed but are as visibly inconsistent with Tradition as it imports a delivery down from hand to hand of the sence and Faith of Fathers to their Children Sure footing p. 41. for not the Tradition but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditum or Faith delivered is the minde of God revealed and consequently the Rule of Faith But now the formal Object is that which causeth us to believe the Rule of Faith and in my Friends expression applys with certainty Divine Authority to my understanding p. 181. which sure is the pretended business of Tradition and the whole intendment of sure footing Cor 2. Hence evident it is That Scriptures Letter as abstracted from the sense included cannot possibly be the Rule of Faith because as such it cannot be the minde of God revealed and when my Friend concludes p. 13. We cannot own the sense or things contained in Scripture for the Rule of Faith because they are the very Points of Faith of which the Rule of Faith is to ascertain us He gives a pregnant Instance of that ignorance of the term I charge him with for evident it is from what we have discoursed That the Rule of Faith is onely a Collection of the Points of Faith and that its business is not to ascertain but propound what is ascertain'd by the formal Object nay may I not conclude with parity of Reason that the Churches voice abstracted from the signification or import of it is to the Catholick the Rule of Faith because the matters signified by that voice are the very Points of Faith of which the Churches voice is to ascertain us Corol 3. Hence we may rectifie these loose conceptions of the Rule of Faith so frequent in the Animadversions of Mr. S. thus when he asks p. 188. Is not that speaking formally and properly the Rule of Faith which gives us Christs sense Answ That is indeed the Rule of Faith which gives Christs sense subjectively so as to contain and be the minde of Christ revealed in Scripture not that which gives it onely by declaring the importance of the words in which this sence is cloathed for then each Pamphlet of this nature must be a Rule of Faith unto the Reader each Mass Priest to the illiterate Papist each Nomenclator Postiller and Comment to the Mass-Priest as oft as they explain unto him the sence and meaning of his Rule of Faith Thus when again we are intreated to consider That a Rule to such an effect is the immediate knowledge to the power as conversant about the effect p. 190. From what hath been delivered we conclude such knowledge cannot be the rule but the effect thereof even as my skil in making syllogisms is the effect of logick rules V.G. I doubt of such a truth put case the Divinity of Christ the effect is conviction the mind of God revealed in Scripture is my rule this rule informs my knowledge that knowledge produceth the assent Cor. 4. Hence evident it is that neither Reason nor skill in Arts or Sciences is made our Rule of Faith because we do not look upon them as the mind of God revealed or any part thereof 'T is true my Friend endeavours to fasten this upon us but by such mediums as shew too evidently he was not well acquainted with the terms he used And first That Reason and its Maxims are our Rule of Faith he thus endeavours to conclude p. 190. He that judgeth must have some principles in his head by which he is regulated in making such a judgement those principles then must be his Rule in that action and if that judgement be an adhaesion to the point of Faith that is if the cause be the effect for no man adhers to any point of Faith till he hath judg'd it to be such these principles are his Rule of Faith now do not Protestants oft conclude the sence of Scripture from maxims of their Humane Reason Ans Besides the blunder which my Parenthesis takes notice of we have a greater weakness in this Argument For it supposeth all by which my Judgment is assisted in determining of what is Faith or finding out the sence of any Scripture to be my Rule of Faith and therefore is as effectual to perswade the Gallenist his skill in Greek is his Rule for Practise as inabling him to finde out certainly the rules of Galen whereas to be the Rule of Faith is a thing proper to these Principles which contain the material Objects of Faith Secondly I desire to know whether your continual Disputes managed by Maxims of your private Reason touching the sence of almost every Canon of the Trent and other Councels whose definitions you embrace as the Churches voice do not plainly manifest the Maxims of Reason to be as much your Rule as ours And thirdly Whether what was sufficient to produce Faith in me and upon which its certainty depends entirely may not sufficiently assure me of one particular Object of it Secondly That skill in Arts and Sciences Language and History are made our Rules of Faith is concluded from a double Argument Obj 1. That in Disputes against them we prove and defend our Faith by such skills as Language History and other Knowledge got by humane Learning and consequently hold it upon the Tenure of these Skills which therefore are our Rule of Faith p. 190. Answ This is a very formidable Argument and must force you to confess That in proving and defending of your Faith against us Protestants you never shew your skill in History or any other part of humane Learning or to acknowledge what you abhor so much p. 188. that these also are your Rules of Faith Should a Jew Socinian or Pagan use this
very Argument against your Church I wonder how you would avoid the blow Secondly Your next Assault runs thus Do not these Skills clear the letter of Scripture that is make known Gods sence to you if so since their immediate effect is to clear it 't is impossible to deny but they are at least part of the Revelation as if it were impossible to deny the Comment to be a part of that Text it cleareth for revealing is clearing and Gods sense was not clearly revealed but by these means that is by humane Maxims and so they are at least the more formal part of your Rule of Faith Answ I remember when I learn'd my Grammer that I had a Construing Book the immediate effect of which was to clear to me the sence of my Rules cōtain'd in Propria quae maribus Quae Genus c. but never was I so happy as to know that my Construing book was part of them or to which special Rule it did belong I knew indeed that revealing was clearing and that the sence of these special Rules was not clearly revealed to me but by means of my Construing Book but was not so inured to Science and versed in true Logick as to be able to infer thence That it was at least the most formal part of the Rules forementioned but must thank my Friend for his Instruction in so deep a Mystery and confess I owe that Light I have received in this Point to his noon-day Sun of self-evidence For a close you ask Might I not have mistaken the true sense of Scripture without these humane Maxims if so then they not Scriptures-letter are my Rule of Faith p. 191. Answ And must that necessarily be my Rule of Faith without which I might possibly have mistaken any portion of it then good Eyes and Ears and diligence in using of them good Dispositions Judgement Instruction c. must be my Rule of Faith for without these 't is very probable I may be frequently mistaken in the sense thereof Prop. 2. That notwithstanding any thing M. S. hath pleaded to the contrary Scripture may be a Rule of Faith for to object That Christian Religion had descended many steps ere the Scriptures parts were much scattered much less the whole collected is effect to argue thus Scripture was not a Rule to those that wanted and therefore cannot be such unto those that have it 't was not the onely Rule to those who were assisted by the infallible guidance of the Authors and Propounders of it graced with the extraordinary assistance of the same Spirit who drank even from the Fountain and Spring-head of Tradition and therefore it cannot be so to us who are removed from it 16 Centuries and destitute of all those Priviledges and Advantages which they enjoyed And yet remarkable it is That amidst all these Enjoyments the new-born Christian is sent unto his Scripture Rule his word of Prophesie bid to give heed unto it as a thing more certain then a voice from Heaven writ designedly for his instruction able to make his wise unto salvation perfect both in Faith and Manners and make him throughly furnished unto all good Works and after all the Apostles are inspired to indite and to deliver the New Testament unto them to be the pillar and the ground of Faith and can it be imagined that Scriptures so comparatively obscure so purposely designed for and accommodated to the Jewish Paedagogy should be thus commended and enjoyned by the Spirit of God as a Rule unto the Christian when graced with all the helps fore-mentioned and yet that Scripture which was indited by the same unerring Spirit in a more familiar way with great plainness of speech 2 Cor. 3.12 13. and not obscured by a vail as was that of Moses which is exceedingly more full of moral Precepts and Rules of Faith and Manners of gracious Promises to comfort and Exhortations to perswade to Patience and every other Vertue which lastly was Indited not in a Tongue peculiar to the Land of Jury but such as was most generally spoken throwout all the World should never be intended as a Rule unto them when destitute of those assistances Obj 2. 'T is objected secondly That that can never be a Rule which many follow and yet their thoughts straggle into many several Judgements in Points of so great moment as the Trinity ibid. Answ If you imagine that these straglers do indeed keep close unto the minde of God revealed in Scripture you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and make the Word of God the very sourse of Heresie if you affirm that cannot be a Rule which such pretend to follow you in effect assert the Law of Nature and right Reason could not be the Gentiles rule and that he had no Pharaoh's to guide him to the knowledge of the Being and Attributes of God because they generally took up with such uncouth notions and gross absurdities in matters which are evident from the light of Reason That neither Scripture nor Tradition could be a Rule unto the Jew who branched into such Sects as either did evacuate the Law of God by their Traditions or denyed the Resurrection That Tradition is no Rule of Faith or otherwise That no pretender to it was ever guilty of an Heresie And lastly That the denyal of Tradition must be the onely Heresie all which are monstrous Absurdities and yet the natural Results of your Assertion To conclude this Section I must crave leave to minde my Friend of an early brood of Carpocratian Hereticks who being confounded by the Scriptures to be revenged of them gave it out Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertantur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate dy quia varie sunt dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem Iren. lib. 3. cap. 2. 1. That they were not as they should be viz. the Original copies being not preserved entire Disc 2. S. 5. 7. had not authority sufficient there being no means to convince the Sceptick the acute Adversary yea the rational doubter of their trath no certainty of Scripture in it self and no ascertableness of it unto as Disc 4. S. 1. c. And 3 That they were spoken variously or so as to admit of diverse sences Disc 2. S. 6.8 And lastly That in them the truth could not be found by such a were ignorant of Tradition it being not delivered by writing but by oral Tradition Good Sir I do not in the least suspect that you have Carpocratians Manuscript or that this passage of the Father did supply you with the heads of your Discourse however it will let you see that he adheres firm to your Rule p. 589. If then your inference stand good the Carpocratian must be owned for your Brother Catholick if bad then blush hereafter to
conclude our union with Socinus because we both acknowledge the same Rule of Faith Prop. 3. That the Churches voice or practical Tradition is not necessary to acquaint us with the sence of Scripture as my Friend would have it for if so 1. Scripture must be in vain delivered to us for where I have the suffrage of infallible Tradition I cannot want it where I want that I cannot have it 2. In vain are all the Comments of the Church of Rome for where Tradition is silent they want a certain Rule to go by and therefore must be silent to or speak at all adventures and where she speaks her evidence is such as rendreth all their pains superfluous 3. All Arguments from Scripture must be vain whether intended to convince the Heretick or your brother Catholick if you contend against your Brother Heretick from Scripture he presently demands whence have you your assurance of that sence of Scripture which you plead for if you reply from the tradition of your Church he laughs to hear you beg the Question if from any other Medium he presently returns upon you is it certain yea or no If not then may it haply deceive him if so then do you act the Protestant and own some other certain Guide unto the sence of Scripture then that of practical Tradition 't is vain also to dispute from Scripture with your Brother Chatholick for if you have no practical Tradition to assure you of the sence of Scripture you have no Medium to convince him by if you have practical Tradition 't is self-evident and consequently cannot be matter of dispute or question'd by your Brother Traditors whilest such whence it must necessarily follow that all the School Disputes all endeavours of your brother Catholick to decide a controversy from Scripture must be in vain all their arguments from Scripture precarious and all their pretensions to Tradition in these matters wilful cheats if this be not sufficient let me farther ask whether all moral duties comprised in Scripture may be interpreted by Tradition if not whether they be not useless to us if so whether the Jesuits and Italian Papists hold no Doctrines inconsistent with them or whether that can be esteemed the Tradition of the Church which is supposed by so great and powerful Members of it Whether these were the only means and measures of interpretation to the Jewish Church if not how came they to be needful to the Christian whose Rule is much the clearer and whose assistance from that Spirit which leadeth unto truth far greater If so then let us brand our Saviour for a Malefactor and pronounce with them that by their Law he ought to dye let us reject his Kingdom as being wholy Spiritual and therefore opposite to what Tradition taught them to expect let us reject his Law as cancelling and dissolving that of Moses which they pronounced eternal yea lastly let us impeach the Arguments of Christ and his Apostles as not only wanting this Authentick medium to arrive at the sence of Scripture but being manifestly repugnant thereunto or at least admire at the stupidity of the Scribes and Pharisees who albeit they sate in Moses Chair should neither plead this in their own behalf nor accuse our Saviour or his Apostles for their pragmatical opposition to it but this argument is so copious and the dream so entirely Beamenistical that I shall not upbraid the Readers understanding by its farther refutation Prop. 4. Tradition is not the only Rule of Faith for if so the Church must lye exposed to the greatest perils and want a rule of Faith in matters of the highest moment For if Tradition be the sole Rule of Faith First certain it is that where we want Tradition we must want the Rule of Faith and consequently must waver and be undetermined in all these instances and cases in which Tradition proves silent 2. 'T is manifest that what is eagerly maintained and practised by many thousand Romish Proselites asserted by whole Sects and Orders of their Gravest men what passeth daily uncontrouled both from Press and Pulpit as having nothing contrary to the Churches Doctrine and the Rule of Faith nay is acknowledged to be such by those who violently oppose it what lastly doth not render the Abettors of it how numerous soever guilty of an Heresie nor subject them to the censure of the Church cannot interfere with the Tradition of the Church or be condemned by it or if so Tradition cannot be self-evident as my Friend would have it Thirdly evident it is that many positions of this nature are stifly canvased in the Schools many such practises used in the Church of Rome which if espoused and practised must expose the Soul to the greatest peril in matters of the highest moment For instance 1. Therefore they lye open to the peril of a defective or excessive Rule of Faith for what assurance can they have whether the definition of the Pope alone or in conjunction with his Cardinals be the infallible guide of Faith or whether this be the peculiar business of a Council and whether this infallibility respect substantials only or circumstances Faith or Fact the conclusion only or the premises whether it rest upon the due proceedings of the Council the Confirmation of the Pope the consequent approbation of the Church or be wholly independant on them whether the Tradition of the present Church be indeed a Rule or only such Traditions which can extrinsically be proved Apostolicall whether this Tradition be a total or a partial Rule and what are the infallible Criterions of it these things are hotly contested in the Church of Rome and therefore cannot be defined by her Tradition what remains then but that each soul lye open to the peril of a false defective or excessive yea contradictory Rule of Faith 2. They lie exposed to the peril either of Superstition and Idolatry on the one hand or Sacriledge on the other for to omit their infinite divisions about the Worship due to Saints Angels and the Blessed Virgin the Veneration due to Reliques the sacrament and its appendages and touch only upon that of Images they are altogether uncertain whether they ought to pay their homage to the image or before it only which is asserted by some few though censured by their expurgatory Indexes whether this Homage must be dulia or latria and if so whether absolute and simple or only Analogically so called whether all or any part of this pretended worship be due unto the image absolutely considered or only relatively as it refers to that of which t is an Image in these matters to be deficient is presently to be Sacrilegious by robbing the Image of that honour which is due unto it to exceed is to be guilty of Superstition or Idolary by giving it that Homage which belongs not to it and how to fleer my course so as not dash on either of these rocks Tradition cannot possibly assist me 3. They must be